Boywithhalo

Didn't mean to imply it was a disaster; but without being familiar with your work the main signal in your comment was that your supervisors didn't push for publishing it, which might be a hint it's not a good fit for arXiv either. But if your supervisors will endorse you then by all means go for it!

Another option might be to put it on Zenodo.

"arXiv moderators expect submissions to be of scholarly archival interest to the communities they represent. A submission may be declined if the moderators determine it lacks originality, novelty, or significance.

Submissions that do not contain original or substantive research, including undergraduate research, course projects, and research proposals, news, or information about political causes (even those with potential special interest to the academic community) may be declined." as explained in https://arxiv.org/help/moderation

If your supervisors decided not to pursue publication then it seems likely that it does not match these criteria either. Note, this isn't a qualitative judgement about your thesis - as it says as much about academia as it does your thesis.

Additionally, you might run into the endorsement system if you're new to arXiv. https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

I agree that h-index isn't very indicative, but max citations seems like a poor alternative.

There is a relation between citations and certain aspects of research quality, but citation count can be easily gamed, and is affected by many factors other than the quality of the work itself.

Trying to use single measures to quantiy something as complex seems flawed to begin with.

You're ascribing conclusions to me that I didn't draw; its the Capgemini report that states it was Huawei. I'm just the messenger.

Who is the 'they' in your comment? The Capgemini report underlying all this, in no unclear terms, states that Huawei abused their access; with unmonitored and unauthorized access from China.

Additionally, it concludes that Dutch telecom act was violated by Huawei by being able to access the numbers being tapped by Dutch security services.

All statements in the original news article are backed up by the Capgemini report. Of course this report could be wrong, but then it's curious why KPN decided to keep this report a secret, apart from sharing the results with Dutch intelligence (AIVD).

Either way, I have a hard time seeing how any of this is 'spin'.

Capgemini report states that unchecked and unauthorized from China happened after October 28 2009; as reported by the journalist that broke this news: https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/138335058865459200...