zlacker

>>chei0a+(OP)
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.

>>n0us+l2
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.

>>Bahamu+b3
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.

>>tptace+T4

    > 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"?