No doubt. But can you please not post unsubstantive comments here?
Admittedly the article set itself up for such a dismissal by making a provocative generalization about "smart people" in the first place. But commenters here need the discipline not to take the shallowest bait in a piece, but respond to the parts that are actually interesting. In a way, that's the article-scoped version of this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
If you notice bad comments that shouldn't be on HN, you can help out by flagging them (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), or in egregious cases, emailing hn@ycombinator.com.
Moreover, your tone and attitude about these things is not helpful. If you continue to dismiss people with valid points out of hand, so will the rest of the commentariat here. With great power comes great responsibility.
Are you sure that the moderation here is so aligned with particular points of view? In my experience, most of these perceptions can be explained by people being far more likely to notice and remember the cases they dislike or disagree with. If that delta is 10x (and I think it's at least that), things are inevitably going to feel skewed.
You are right that I am off if you are using tooling to assist you in moderation. From the outside, it seems arbitrary and misaligned, but I understand that it is a black box from my side.
In this particular case, I still feel like your argument is weak, but I care much more that you are grappling with my argument than anything substantive about the argument itself, so we can agree to disagree.