I think you should look at your definition again, because I did not ignore it. In the example given by the dictionary for your prefered definition, they use the word to modify an adjectivized object. Although written in a different form, it is functionally equivalent to the form adverb-adjective object of the example you gave (i.e. "a deceptively curved line"). Hence, this is not 'irrelevant nitpicking' but attention to details that make your argument at best unconvincing.

To me, irrelevant nitpicking would be offering a secondary definition which is demonstrably not the definition the author or the majority of readers are using and which only applies under different context.

> Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.

The OP indicated he had read the article and was objecting because the title did not match the content. If a reader has to perform grammatical gymnastics to make a title fit, it is at best poor writing and at worst deceptive.

Cheers