Its OK for articles to be a short few paragraphs with a smaller audience rather than a few long pages and explain every single thing at a basic level to try reach everyone
Its OK for articles to be a short few paragraphs with a smaller audience rather than a few long pages and explain every single thing at a basic level to try reach everyone
I agree this is true for the economist readers, but I clicked the link thinking this was about how Dropbox (in a company) is an obvious target for privilege escalation (for red teams and hackers), which also sounds plausible and interesting.
But I don't mind, after a few seconds of loading my mistake was obvious.
But this is being shared outside that context. Deciphering acronyms for the HN titles would seem like an okay start. There are several common use alternatives. Wouldn't hurt to be explicit.
Probably. But I like reading a lot of articles I'm not the target audience for, because I like learning things. Writing it like this excludes a ton of people who might not already be insiders to become insiders.
Maybe that's a choice, a way to keep knowledge away from outsiders, to feel better about knowing that people who read your article are cool like you, and that's fine. But if the goal is to educate and reach a broader audience, it isn't effective.
OK, but the definition of not being the target audience is you bear that burden, not the author. If the author bore that burden, you'd be the target audience!
HN is a community and an attitude of "if you don't get it, you're not in it" is unnecessarily toxic. Universally applying this sort of rule would apply to the queue getting cluttered up with insider jargon that pushes EVERYONE out.
the only PE relevant to hackers is PE32 file format for exe files