I guess the idea is that manual pages can sometimes seem to be intentionally obscure, and kind of proud of it. I don't have an example handy, nor am I even sure I agree, but I think I got the joke, at least. :)
Yes, that was my intent: the manual entry used the term "bad spectral characteristics" condescendingly, instead of actually admitting that rand was a terrible mistake and nobody should ever use it. The effort the manual writer put into rationalizing the bug would have been better put into fixing it.
I looked up "mansplaining" on the urban dictionary while writing that, and was disgusted to see that it was full of sexist definitions written by obviously butt-hurt men's rights advocates, literally blaming angry misandrist pseudo-intellectual ugly insecure radical fat women for using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card against daring opinionated oppressed men. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mansplaining
So it's possible the downvotes came from red pill poppers reflexively reacting to my use of the word "mansplaining", and if so, I suffer those fools gladly, and hope to earn their downvotes again. http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/feminism_is_a_sexual_strateg...
Here's a Unix manual entry that I wrote, which made it into Solaris and SVR4, whose BUGS section is now obsolete thanks to technological advances based on high quality pseudo random number generators, like https and PayPal: https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/net/system/sun4c_41/rsp.01/usr/ope...
I mean, in general, if I see the term "mansplain" on the internet with no context, I'm going to assume the usage is in line with what's described on urban dictionary. Just because that's how it's actually predominantly used. This is the first usage I've ever seen that was something else. So it's not totally unreasonable.
Heh, I see what you did there, but the downvotes imply others didn't.