It surprises me greatly that you wouldn't account for some base level of vetting of any candidate, and place my comment in the context of much of the rest of the thread, which is clearly about whether or not commoditized trivia testing is a useful way of vetting candidates.

It greatly surprises me that anyone enough in touch with tech to even be reading Hacker News in the first place would choose to read my comment that way.

I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to defend my writing. I'm just saying there's no way in a million lifetimes that I would have anticipated even the most remote possibility of someone taking it that way, and even after reading that you saw it that way, my prior is still so heavily weighted towards the obviousness from context that I still wouldn't ever expect this and doubt that if I make similar comments in the future, they will adequately account for someone reading it in the manner in which you did. It's just too unlikely of a perspective.