Why would I spend my time discussing a political hit piece with weak science thrown in just to justify generating hits on a known-crappy web site? As I mention

Why would I spend my time discussing a political hit piece with weak science thrown in just to justify generating hits on a known-crappy web site? As I mentioned, I had a bunch more that I threw away while editing. To summarize, I mostly pointed out how their "science" was straw men and other misleading statements. As I was editing my responses, it occurred to me why the logic was so poor. It was obviously constructed after the headline was created and so they were working really hard to put something out there. Other responders in this thread spent their time pointing out some of the logic flaws I also saw. Take it up with them if you think this is a good use of your time. I've now wasted even more time on this, but I normally respect your posts - especially when you're discussing security. I thought I would at least give you an explanation as to why I won't be spending further time on the Vox article. Update: I just skimmed through the HN discussion on this. You have plenty of other people who have responded to the Vox article quite thoroughly. HoustonEuler in fact looks to have specific knowledge on this subject. Why aren't you hashing it out with him and others?