8 ms·

Thanks, this should really be the post. I didn’t find the Forbes article did anything but excessively quote the source material.

• Scoundreller 7y ago
  Submitter submits more than comments, so I wonder where their heart lies.
• roywiggins 7y ago
  People really need to adjust to Forbes being nothing more than a content mill nowadays. They'll publish almost anything. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-epstein-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/business/media/jeffrey-ep...
  • sohkamyung 7y ago
    I usually read Starts With A Bang [1] and GrrlScientist [2] on Forbes. The former writes well grounded articles on particle physics and cosmology while the latter presents good summaries of recent findings in biology. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/ [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/
• walterbell 7y ago
  The page with the most technical content is https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/breaking-bad-firmware-encryption-case-study-on-the-netgear-nighthawk-m1/ https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/breaking-bad-f... with a title of "Breaking (bad) firmware encryption. Case study on the Netgear Nighthawk M1". Non-technical Forbes summary and headline is good for discovery (e.g. search/bots), technical overview links threads of research, and case study enables replication. Each page has a role.