It's an interesting experiment, not some sort of production recommendation.

Yes, of course, but to me this phrase means: "I conducted the experiment and you can reproduce it, but it can run forever and break your stuff". That hardly sounds like an enticing introduction.

It isn't meant to be enticing, but factual.

It will break stuff. It will run forever. The software that I committed works in theory, but I don't think you should actually deploy it in its current form.

If you aren't interested in some playful carnage on a slow news day, no worries. Different strokes, eh? :)

Also "this isn't really my fault" might be a buzzkill.

What the phrase actually means is "I conducted the experiment and you can reproduce it, but you shouldn't use it in production".

Have you considered that you're not the target audience? Clearly people find this interesting. You might too, if you actually read the article. Also, if you're browsing Hacker News expecting to only see 100% bug-free tools suitable for immediate deployment, I have some bad news for you...

Of course people find this interesting, the post has 140 points. I just posted my negative reaction, that's it. This is what people do here in HN all the time :-)

From experiments we learn things. That is not time wasted.