The context was "you may change it", where "it" is the redirect from slow.com to something other than fast.com. But he wouldn't be changing any DNS entry as he's still resolving the hostname to the same IP address; instead he changes the http redirect to some other site. No DNS entries need to be modified as part of "you may change it".
I'm not sure why, on a site called Hacker News, that you're surprised on being called out for a technically imprecise statement. Instead of digging in your heels with bogus justifications that you're rightfully being downvoted into oblivion over, why not thank those who replied and offered a more technically accurate explanation?
i'm not being downvoted to oblivion. if i were, i would have deleted my comment for fear of getting hellbanned. what happened is you just made that up, in your head, and assumed it to be true. just like the words you put into my mouth earlier.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS: even if it were refering to an http redirect, who REALLY has control of where slow.com redirects to? the guy who owns the domain. he can point it to any server or cname he wants, and then, maybe redirect browsers somewhere else, or just serve whatever content he wants. it could change day to fucking day, or hour to hour.
_because that's how dns works_
this entire thread is ridiculous. this is called 'pedantry', is usually misguided, and it very rarely leads anywhere productive. but you knew that, since you seem to be an expert in it.
judging from the number of positive points on my original comment plenty of people understood me. you're in the vocal minority who has trouble interpreting linguistic context.
THAT'S HOW DNS WORKS.
i'm talking about ownership, not the fucking http protocol.