>" It's bad enough that we face the daunting task of explaining this stuff to people who don't care about computers, there's no need to perpetuate misunderstand

>" It's bad enough that we face the daunting task of explaining this stuff to people who don't care about computers, there's no need to perpetuate misunderstanding among those who deal with computers for a living. Just read the real thing." How did the author of the blog post perpetuate a misunderstanding? What is wrong with reading multiple sources and discussions on an a subject? Isn't that what we are doing here to some extent? Because a definitive white paper was published this should be our only allowed source of understanding? Its quite possible that someone could read this and then the more lengthy white paper and have them be complimentary. Not every programmer starts with the same level level or hardware and microarchitectural knowledge. >"And on the subject of explaining this to others, it might surprise you how far you can get if you try to honestly explain how the attacks work." Isn't this exactly what the author of this article did? In seeking to understand the problem hey formulated their understanding into a blog post. It seems to me that's exactly what they did and there were no "tortured analogies" in this individuals blog post.