Parent agrees, and further observes that all measures of productivity are "bad".

Parent does not agree, if parent agreed, then parent would not have used the word "abuse", which implies that the worker is the one at fault.

There are many nuances to the English language that are difficult for non-native speakers to pick up.

> There are many nuances to the English language that are difficult for non-native speakers to pick up.

Being condescending is bad, but being condescending whilst also being clearly wrong is doubly so. Get out.

English as first language speaker here. Your comment at the end was rude.

And I think you’re wrong. I think your parent post agrees with you. Not every conversation includes the requisite specificity of language to make declarations of perfect understanding of original writer’s intent.

We will need OP to confirm.

I think the parent comment reads like it was written by a native speaker.

I don't see how the term abuse means that the parent doesn't agree?

Is there a word for the pedantry of an uninformed idiot?

I nominate parent: "honeycombing".

Strongly disagree, by definition it's the abuse that compromises the metric not the abusability. The distinction is important because it means that with a large and rapid enough rotation of obfuscated targets you can find out what you need while mitigating the bulk of intentional metric abuse.