The sentence before the one you quote is
> Sometimes versions of the game are also intentionally shipped with debug symbols to generate better error reports.
You remove that context, quote him saying sometimes it's a mistake and criticise him with the preface he already provided!?
Would people stop using this site if it stopped offering dopamine hits in the form of a number next to your name?
When someone makes a statement and that statement is innaccurate or untrue, it is helpful to correct it so that they can change their post/future-posts to ensure they are making the strongest argument/most compelling narrative possible. Sometimes this is misused or misunderstood to be combative, but it is not constructive to approach conversation this way.
> Sometimes versions of the game are also intentionally shipped with debug symbols to generate better error reports. However, sometimes programmers forget to remove the debug symbols from the final binaries of the game. Programmers are humans, and humans make mistakes.
It looks like the author is saying shipping final binaries with debug symbols is a mistake, and that's what @ho_schi is criticising.
The author did not say that "shipping with debug symbols is always a mistake", they noted that it can happen unintentionally and provided evidence of that in this case.
As pointed out by jpmoral, I consider debug symbols generally a good thing. Exceptions apply as usual e.g. embedded computing.
Another approach is using stuff like debuginfod to ship debug symbols automatically when needed. Archlinux and Fedora do that and it improved debugging and reporting - especially regarding dependencies.