I always read it the other way around - a humble acknowledgement that they're still wrong, just less than whatever came before.
Loaded question (well, affirmation), on a confident sneery tone while using poorly defined terms ("essential humanity") and very poor comprehension of object-level facts of the ground ("Markov chains"). And no sign of even trying to understand the other side, just trying to score rhetoric points on a internet board.
I guess I misunderstood then. It’s not just an Internet forum. It’s an internet forum with strict moderators. And it’s _very_ valuable.