3 ms·
That wasn't what I was criticizing - I was criticizing the title on HN. It previously said (new paper). While that is true, in this context, it is actually a su
by Bahamut 11y ago
That wasn't what I was criticizing - I was criticizing the title on HN. It previously said (new paper). While that is true, in this context, it is actually a summary of existing information.
I was not criticizing the quality of information in the paper or article. I was criticizing the summary previously displayed on HN before it was changed, which suggests that someone agrees with me.
- tptacek 11y agoI'm lost. This is a new paper. What's the argument?
- Bahamut 11y agoIt's a new paper that summarizes - the previous title was "Intel x86 considered harmful (new paper)". It is very easy to draw an inference that a new revelation to consider the Intel x86 is harmful has come from that title - that was my only problem. I enjoyed reading the article. It was a narrow complaint about the title as submitted to HN - the current title "Intel x86 considered harmful – survey of attacks against x86 over last 10 years" is a lot more insightful as to the nature of the article, and less inflammatory (although I'd guess that it was unintentional).
- tptacek 11y agoIt's called a survey paper. In this case, the survey is particularly valuable, because the stuff in it was scattered across blog posts and conference presentations --- many of them by the author of the survey. Just not a great critique going on in this subthread.
- Bahamut 11y agoI think you're completely missing the point...the original title on HN did not have any of that information - it just said "Intel x86 considered harmful (new paper)". No context that it was a survey paper - initial impressions was that it was just another clickbait inflammatory article link. The moderators rightfully changed it, which makes my criticism addressed & outdated.