3 ms·

Really rubs me the wrong way when a disclosure tries to attach some subjective, quasi-philosophical conclusions about the software (the three bullet points at

by junon 3y ago

Really rubs me the wrong way when a disclosure tries to attach some subjective, quasi-philosophical conclusions about the software (the three bullet points at the beginning). Author is of course entitled to their opinion but the existence of a vulnerability does not imply these things nor does it really have anything to do with them.

lapcat 3y ago
The next time you discover a critical vulnerability in software used by millions of people, you can write your own "objective" take. The author is not a professional security researcher. Which just goes to show how dumb the bug was. Serious question: Why should the author or anyone else care if the article rubs you the wrong way? Yes, the author has an axe to grind, and they're going to use the publicity to grind that axe. I would do the same thing in that position (and have done the same thing).
- junon 3y ago
  > The next time you discover a critical vulnerability in software used by millions of people, you can write your own "objective" take. That's exactly what I (already) do. I present the facts of the vulnerability. Among other benefits, it's less work to do than to podium my own beliefs. > Yes, the author has an axe to grind, and they're going to use the publicity to grind that axe. I would do the same thing in that position (and have done the same thing). More of a difference of opinion of what's classy or not. Also the triviality of a bug means nothing here, neither does the fact the author isn't a "professional" security researcher. Not sure what your point is, to be honest - I'm clearly an advocate for people having their own opinions yet you're implying I'm somehow wrong for having my own?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > I'm clearly an advocate for people having their own opinions I disagree. > Author is of course entitled to their opinion but The "but" essentially negates "of course". > yet you're implying I'm somehow wrong for having my own? You're not just expressing "an opinion" about something. Your opinion is that the author should not have expressed their own opinions in the article. That's an opinion, but your opinion doesn't clearly make you an advocate for people having their own opinions. Ironically, the specific content of your opinion is that you're anti-opinion. Almost every comment on this HN submission is tone policing the author. It's absurd.
    - junon 3y ago
      Alright, argue individual words of my comment if you like. Clearly this isn't going anywhere.
hombre_fatal 3y ago
From your comment I was expecting something much different when I clicked in to the blog post than the author just sharing their grievances with the platform. This comes off as you just not liking that they hold those opinions because you like the thing they disparaged, and you’re masquerading it behind some demand of objectivity at all times on personal blogs.
- junon 3y ago
  I don't use the thing they disparage and have no opinions on it either way.

by junon 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

The next time you discover a critical vulnerability in software used by millions of people, you can write your own "objective" take. The author is not a professional security researcher. Which just goes to show how dumb the bug was. Serious question: Why should the author or anyone else care if the article rubs you the wrong way? Yes, the author has an axe to grind, and they're going to use the publicity to grind that axe. I would do the same thing in that position (and have done the same thing).

junon 3y ago
> The next time you discover a critical vulnerability in software used by millions of people, you can write your own "objective" take. That's exactly what I (already) do. I present the facts of the vulnerability. Among other benefits, it's less work to do than to podium my own beliefs. > Yes, the author has an axe to grind, and they're going to use the publicity to grind that axe. I would do the same thing in that position (and have done the same thing). More of a difference of opinion of what's classy or not. Also the triviality of a bug means nothing here, neither does the fact the author isn't a "professional" security researcher. Not sure what your point is, to be honest - I'm clearly an advocate for people having their own opinions yet you're implying I'm somehow wrong for having my own?
- lapcat 3y ago
  > I'm clearly an advocate for people having their own opinions I disagree. > Author is of course entitled to their opinion but The "but" essentially negates "of course". > yet you're implying I'm somehow wrong for having my own? You're not just expressing "an opinion" about something. Your opinion is that the author should not have expressed their own opinions in the article. That's an opinion, but your opinion doesn't clearly make you an advocate for people having their own opinions. Ironically, the specific content of your opinion is that you're anti-opinion. Almost every comment on this HN submission is tone policing the author. It's absurd.
  - junon 3y ago
    Alright, argue individual words of my comment if you like. Clearly this isn't going anywhere.

hombre_fatal 3y ago

From your comment I was expecting something much different when I clicked in to the blog post than the author just sharing their grievances with the platform. This comes off as you just not liking that they hold those opinions because you like the thing they disparaged, and you’re masquerading it behind some demand of objectivity at all times on personal blogs.

junon 3y ago
I don't use the thing they disparage and have no opinions on it either way.