P.S. The statement is radically wrong, not at all "a pretty reasonable fairly non-technical reduction for the average New Yorker reader" -- a large fraction of whom have either used a command line or written code of some sort, and know that these are two different things. Even if using a line editor like old ed, one is not entering code at the command-line prompt, and in any case the code does not go "directly to the machine" (long ago I actually did load code directly into the machine via console switches). And consider that the context here is discussion of a text editor! But some people seem compelled to defend and rationalize any statement that is challenged, no matter how valid the challenge or absurd and intellectually dishonest the rationalization--it's some sort of bizarre white-knighting.
This is like "HTML isn't code" again. For non-technical readers, there is their own language, and there is "code" - a bespoke language used solely to instruct machines. If you can't type to the machine in your own language (eg like you can to a chatbot) then you're using code. "The machine" is the device on the desk.
"ls" is code. You type it into the machine's keyboard, and it understands your code and performs that instruction. The statement is not "radically" wrong, it's an oversimplification that both communicates correctly to the lay reader, and to the proficient reader who understands the nuances and why they're irrelevant here.
LOL. I stopped reading there ... but I'll read the comments here with interest.