From the HN commenting guidelines:

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Eh? I did assume good faith. I checked if they were wanting a serious reply because it wasn't clear, then I explained how to do what they wanted to do, even though it was already in the article.

Perhaps I've fallen victim to a regional language difference but even with the most generous interpretation I could manage, the addition of "mate" on the end of your comment left me with the impression that you were being (mildly) aggressive.

I will refer myself to my own quote from the guidelines :-)

Did you really think I was being sarcastic?