No, not really, it's basically incidental, and actually points to the fact that, pertinently, the word "supplier" has a strong connotation of referring to a business relationship.

When a cop pulls you over, “I’m not your driver” is true, but “I’m not a driver” is false. I’d call the difference a lot more than “incidental”.

Yes, a completely different word, in a now conpletely divorced and radically different context, doesn't work exactly the same as the original word we are discussing. Well done.

In your new example, the phrase "your driver" does not refer to a business relationship, so I guess saying "I'm not your driver" to someone because you don't want to ferry them around is now also poor use of language? Just stop dude.

The better analogy for “supplier” would be “chauffeur”, while the analogue for “driver” would be “developer”.

If you use those replacements in the analogy, then the analogy will work much better.

The title and the HN post say "I am not a supplier," and it's repeated multiple times in the article text. That's the part I take issue with.