I think commenters are missing that the author is talking about this in the context of typesetting their own book. They aren't claiming that rST is better than Markdown in the general case; in general, Markdown's simplicity is a reason why it is so widely used. But that's not what the author is talking about.
Well, the simple mental hack for yourself is just to prepend all blog content, if not all content in general, with
#include <general_disclaimers>
and you'll find yourself much happier in life.
Speaking as one who actually produces blogs on rare occasions, I have to say starting every post with "This is just my experience and may not apply to you this is not a claim of global applicability this is just applicable to this circumstance you're the one who chose to read this I didn't force you" and so on isn't exactly the most compelling way to open a post.
Though I have to admit now I'm really tempted to add that into my post template in like 2pt font or something, just so when people on HN complain I can point them at it.
But that's all beside the point - we're not talking about a "general disclaimer." (I am intrigued by how blurry the lens you look at the world must be, if you live by that "#include <general_disclaimers>" nonsense) People interested in the blogger's rather specific Markdown use case would be better served by a more specific title, as would the nine out of ten Markdown users who are not.
No, I was just recommending it to you since you seem to be perturbed. I just give people a general measure of grace in their writing and it all seems to work out fairly well. You can try that as well, if you like.
Your comment was quite condescending, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. If this is all your idea of grace, I'd hate to see less than graceful.
By contrast, I was careful to criticize the title as clickbait, not the post, which is useful (or the book, which sounds genuinely interesting). I wasn't perturbed by the title. By your comments, sure, but that's your doing, not Hillel's.
If the title "Why I prefer rST to markdown" (which a 100% accurate summary of the content) is somehow "clickbait", then the term "clickbait" has been redefined into meaningless.
Since it's a clearer statement of the author's meaning, and since very few users interested in Markdown are going to be doing any typesetting, it seems like a more meaningful title to me.
But less likely to draw in readers... to "bait" them, if you will.
