Because the title primed me to expect one thing, and then the post body rapidly contradicted it by providing twelve vetted examples of the class that the title claimed should not exist. My mind does not get over being misled and confused like that easily, especially when the fix to improve it is so trivial (like saying "virtually none" instead of "statistically zero").

Okay, but "effectively zero" != "statistically zero"

The "actual point" of the post is a lie.

I've got a great way of increasing the percentage by an order of magnitude! Doing the math correctly would immediately boost the number to 0.1% from your stated 0.01%. See, being painfully pedantic has already paid off handsomely.

(And don't worry, at least you were only off by a factor of 10. The original article is off by a factor of 100).