←back to thread

276 points chei0aiV | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.306s | source
Show context
n0us ◴[] No.10458463[source]
I really could do without "considered harmful" titles. x86 has been one of the most influential technologies of all time and a clickbait title doesn't do it justice imo.
replies(7): >>10458515 #>>10458617 #>>10458692 #>>10458787 #>>10458861 #>>10459018 #>>10459478 #
Bahamut ◴[] No.10458515[source]
Should also be noted that the link mentions that the paper contains no new attacks - the title is misleading in this context with the new paper qualifier.
replies(1): >>10458621 #
tptacek ◴[] No.10458621[source]
Neither of these are valid criticisms.

Yours first: it is a new paper. It was just released. It has an "October 2015" dateline. It isn't a variant of any previous paper she's released. It's also a very good paper.

Second: this isn't a blog post. It's not a news site. It's a research paper. She gave it a title that follows a trope in computer science paper titles. It's silly to call it "clickbait".

As someone who's had the misfortune of going toe-to-toe with Rutkowska over details of the X86 architecture, let me gently suggest that whether she knows what she's talking about and what she's trying to say [isn't] really a fight you want to pick.

replies(2): >>10458823 #>>10460162 #
notdonspaulding ◴[] No.10458823[source]

    > whether she knows what she's talking about and what 
    > she's trying to say is really a fight you want to pick
Did you mean to say: "ISN'T really a fight you want to pick"?
replies(1): >>10459342 #
1. dfc ◴[] No.10459342[source]
I am genuinely curious: Can you not figure this out by the context alone (hint:misfortune)? Or are you going "big-game hunting on HN" and nitpicking tptacek's comment?