[laumars]

In a literal sense you're right but the end result is ostensibly same (ie you've gained root access). Sure the title could have been more accurate but the OPs claim of "false advertising" is just as exaggerative and frankly it's dumb that instead of congratulating someone for a helpful walk-through people are arguing semantics about the fucking title.

[sfj]

I was seriously disappointed when I read the article.

[laumars]

You might be more experienced than the target audience of that piece. I'm sure there will be people who do find that content useful.

It's seriously hard creating useful content and I really do feel like your negativity towards this is excessive compared to the faux pas in question.

[sfj]

My negatively is just my personality. I didn't single this article out.

Don't tell me how to be.

[laumars]

Ironically I’ve tried not to be negative towards you (eg saying “you might be more experienced than the target audience”) and you’ve still taken my comments like a personal attack. So imagine how harshly your actual negativity would have been received by the content creator you’ve been targeting.

This is why I say it’s hard creating useful content for the web. Everyone is quick to attack but very few people are there to support. It’s a problem we should be even more accurately aware of during these difficult times of being on lockdown.

Obviously there will be times when constructive criticisms need to be raised but use of language is important — which I know is the same point you were making at the start but it’s just as relevant to you as it is the author. In fact HNs own policies ask that people write their corrections politely and constructively too.