The plausible interpretation is that the commenter got excited about screen readers because they unexpectedly connected to something he was already interested in, and it made him curious. Not only is that a perfectly decent thing, it's an example of the curious conversation that HN exists for.

Meanwhile, snarking and putting down other users, which unfortunately are what you did, are examples of what HN very much does not exist for.

It's really easy to interpret other people's internet comments in ways that add things that weren't necessarily there. We have only tiny blobs of text to go by. We don't know each other, and we don't even have the cues that come from voice, body language, and the like. As I read the GP comment, it seems to me that it was you who introduced the notions that it was somehow about the commenter puffing himself up, or that he was somehow lacking in compassion towards the original poster.

In a thread of 200 comments, there will inevitably be rivulets of conversation that aren't about the main theme. Such tangents are only bad if they're somehow generic and predictable. This one was interesting, still very much in the orbit of the main topic, and I really don't think there was any meanness in it. I'm pretty trained to pattern-match meanness after years of trying to get people to be kind to each other on HN, and I'm afraid it was your comment that was the mean one.

Without meaning it as a personal attack, do you have any reason to think that 6 years of trying to detect meanness has made you any more accurate at it than you were before, or than anyone else is?

When you say "trained to pattern match it", is there any feedback to change your models? As moderator-by-fiat it's your decision what comments are mean, which is potentially a self reinforcing loop.

Here's some feedback: under Dang's eye, HN has become a paragon of online discussion. I say this as someone who has occasionally been called out.

He didn't say that he can listen two times faster than the average person. He said that he can listen to podcasts at twice their recorded speed. There is nothing superhuman about this. Many people do so. People naturally speak slower than their listeners can understand, and practiced public speakers are trained to speak even slower than that.

Listening to speech at double speed is really not that noteworthy, as anyone can do it with a bit of practice. I didn't construe it as bragging, just as outlining the thought process which led them to think that it might be worth them trying a screen reader themselves.