Also of course this was not written entirely by hand, but with a toolchain as the author says somewhere else, it's not exactly feasible to write this by hand.
Being a github project one could argue the title of the post should have been the repository description, which is too long for HN's limit, unless you expect people to change their repository descriptions just so they fit on hacker news i think it's fair to "editorialize" the title.
Since you referred to the HN rules, i think your comments itself could fall under:
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. [...]"
(you could have phrased this like "i'd have preferred if the author didn't use clickbaity terms and instead used (...)")
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
(you interpreted the "impossible" as something done for attention grabbing, while it's quite clearly simply a shorter and more interesting way to say very difficult)
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."