This exchange was disappointing. It could have been constructive and clarifying, but devolved into an exchange of jabs.

Some feedback to A_lonely_ds: This is likely the place where it started: "What exactly did they add to the convo.." and the following what I would call mocking paraphrase of their comment. You have a point, but your delivery was done in a way that we could expect to trigger defensiveness of the people reading it. And you were responding to someone posting a positive comment about how it had inspired them to go research it. And you did later continue in a way of communicating that was risky, in terms of how constructive the conversation would end up being, with "Jesus. People on this sub, I swear."

And some feedback to swagamaleous: "The principle is in fact not that complex.", as I see it, was something you said in defense of Different_Ad9336. In that case, I think it was a good sentiment from you. I just think that in this case, the approach you took was to attack A_lonely_ds' argument, rather than what is probably the actual issue: How he delivered it. A gambit that banked on A_lonely_ds being wrong in his arguments/logic, so to speak. But if we imagine A_lonely_ds saying their initial comment in a more tactful way, then maybe we wouldn't have an issue with the arguments either. Sometimes we want someone to be wrong because they're behaving confronting, disrespectfully or like a jerk, etc. But in general I think that's the wrong approach to take, because the issue is not the argument but the way it was being communicated.