This article didn't seem particularly terrible. Which parts am I supposed to notice were egregiously incorrect?
Every time I think Bruce Schneier has reached peak Dunning-Kruger he always seems to outdo himself https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/wannacry_and_vu.html …
-
-
-
Has anyone looked at the SB releases to see if 1/3 of them were known within a year?pic.twitter.com/lx0yElEWQT
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'll get there any day now, pretty soon I'll be talking about politics
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't get it - article seemed reasonable. But clearly missed something if Thomas felt a retweet was worthwhile.
-
Thomas has his pet peeves and personal crusades. He probably doesn't like him because Schneier wrote something nice about Snowden
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Peak Dunning-Kruger" = needs to become a thing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
no surprise there since he decided to join Snowden & co in the "NSA is the source of all evil" campaign
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Likewise, Bruce implies bugs are either "sparse" or "dense" as if it was a one dimensional function and not more like oil distribution.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Been saying that for years...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.