This person assumes the best case for DHHs statements and excuses things by mentioning lack of information, but does not do the same for the person they are arguing against

This can of course be explained by them not realizing that, but that would mean that both the original post and this one are not thought out enough

This article does everything in its power to try to twist DHH's words in some charitable manner while assigning (and subsequently defecating on) some arbitrary Rubyisms to an article that had nothing to do with Ruby.

Ironically, the article does exactly what it claims the others were doing by assuming those others were responding to his article based on uncharitable assumptions or poor faith.

The words a person chooses to write in a blog post are thought-out and explicit. He chose his wording to convey the meaning it did, knowing full well what the connotations of those sentences were. He reinforces those connotations with his later speech. And now he solidifies that message by accepting something of monetary value from Musk.

The far-right plausable deniability game isn't going to work here. Evaluating speech solely on the semantic meaning of the words alone disregards the most valuable parts of communication. His message was clear, and it's people like this who choose to ignore it (or who silently agree, though I don't know this author so I have no clue which it is).