I'd call it condescending, not pretentious. Is it reasonable to expect somebody implementing security to be aware of an algorithm that's 4 years old? 38 years

I'd call it condescending, not pretentious. Is it reasonable to expect somebody implementing security to be aware of an algorithm that's 4 years old? 38 years old? 379 years old? I'd say yes to the last two, and only prevaricate about the first. I think some condescension is warranted in this case (less so for a 38 year old algorithm -- there's 38 year old hardware out there). We want people to hit the clickbait when it includes lessons so important.