I'd be happy to answer that question if you posed it straight, rather than as a an attempted dunk. Of course, the search bar on this thread will lead you to plenty of additional conversation about the vulnerability and the attempts to downplay it.
Seriously? You replied to what I said with no follow up and a hazy premise and now you want me to take your leash and lead you through your own argument?
I'd be happy to answer that question if you posed it straight, rather than as a an attempted dunk. Of course, the search bar on this thread will lead you to plenty of additional conversation about the vulnerability and the attempts to downplay it.
Seriously? You replied to what I said with no follow up and a hazy premise and now you want me to take your leash and lead you through your own argument?
You have to be the single worst HN celebrity.
> Believe it or not
> which I’m sure surprises you
You caused the problem here. You started off being hazy and rude.
"Say that again without trying to dunk on anyone if you want me to put effort into responding." seems like a pretty reasonable trade.
5 replies →
Since you're intent on being obtuse, here's an example of a thread of HN downplaying the severity of this last week.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50189820
You actually participated in it and called cyber security researchers addicted to likes. Ironic.
how does this have anything to do with the original post?
also, psuedo cybersecurity researchers are definitely addicted to likes.
edited: looks like half of that post even agrees with them so i mean...?