It's amazing how the article did such an incredible job building a deep understanding of how the airfoil works, yet you managed to completely miss that and find something to so small to critique.
I also publish articles (though nowhere near as good or ambitious as this one) online and the comments I look forward to most are the constructively critical ones. They are the reason I publish in the first place.
My only goal of giving and receiving constructive criticism is to improve our collective understanding of the world. There's nothing sinister or ill-natured about it as another commenter suggested.
(This extends to comments as well. I really appreciate you prompting me to check my tone.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names