zlacker

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+(OP)
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+I1

    > 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"?

>>notdon+Y4
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?

>>tptace+I1
That wasn't what I was criticizing - I was criticizing the title on HN. It previously said (new paper). While that is true, in this context, it is actually a summary of existing information.

I was not criticizing the quality of information in the paper or article. I was criticizing the summary previously displayed on HN before it was changed, which suggests that someone agrees with me.

>>Bahamu+zq
I'm lost. This is a new paper. What's the argument?

>>tptace+gt
It's a new paper that summarizes - the previous title was "Intel x86 considered harmful (new paper)". It is very easy to draw an inference that a new revelation to consider the Intel x86 is harmful has come from that title - that was my only problem. I enjoyed reading the article.

It was a narrow complaint about the title as submitted to HN - the current title "Intel x86 considered harmful – survey of attacks against x86 over last 10 years" is a lot more insightful as to the nature of the article, and less inflammatory (although I'd guess that it was unintentional).

>>Bahamu+uu
It's called a survey paper. In this case, the survey is particularly valuable, because the stuff in it was scattered across blog posts and conference presentations --- many of them by the author of the survey.

Just not a great critique going on in this subthread.

>>tptace+vv
I think you're completely missing the point...the original title on HN did not have any of that information - it just said "Intel x86 considered harmful (new paper)". No context that it was a survey paper - initial impressions was that it was just another clickbait inflammatory article link.

The moderators rightfully changed it, which makes my criticism addressed & outdated.