Perhaps Ericson2314's gripe is that it's being posted (and upvoted) on HN, rather than just a Go-specific forum (e.g. reddit.com/r/golang), and by implication it's intended to be read by a more general audience.
Why would correct use of terminology be "pedantry at its finest"?
What people are concerned about is intellectual dishonesty. The presentation does not go to much effort to show, for example, why the term "mid-stack inlining" needs to be introduced for Go. Do other languages not have this kind of inlining? Does comparing and contrasting other implementations just not matter?
Because you're debating terminology when the wrong term caused no one confusion, thereby detracting from the actual conversation.
> What people are concerned about is intellectual dishonesty.
There's no cause for this concern.
> The presentation does not go to much effort to show, for example, why the term "mid-stack inlining" needs to be introduced for Go.
Sure it does; see slides 3-6.
> Do other languages not have this kind of inlining? Does comparing and contrasting other implementations just not matter?
Perhaps the author omitted it from his deck because it's impractical to cover the whole breadth of inlining in a deck that's already 35 slides long. Perhaps he simply didn't think to include it. There are a lot of likely explanations for why this wasn't included besides nefarious motives. You sound paranoid.
Well, why do you think we are bringing it up, then? Due to some nefarious motive?
But instead, you come along and criticize them for being too specific with their terms (!!) and also accuse them of being deceptive. This is not a marketing exercise. There is no conspiracy here.