3 ms·
> 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 (a
by 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 agoAlright, argue individual words of my comment if you like. Clearly this isn't going anywhere.