I have this queued up to listen tomorrow and fully expect it to be stellar. Oxide podcasts have always been a highlight of my week (and almost restore my faith in the industry, because someone, somewhere, is _right_ about the way they develop and integrate product).
I've only had a chance to listen to the beginning of it, but I share their disgust with the NYT article [1]. In any other field, journalists feel responsible for simplifying and explaining. Professionals in science, law, or medicine are often critical of these explanations, because the journalists' understanding of the relevant background material is often flawed, and the simplifications either ignore crucial distinctions or get the facts wrong. But they are at least trying, because the journalists understand that it's their responsibility to explain the issues at hand to the audience; that's the point. Instead, here we see a sort of flip shrug, with a "geek stuff, amirite?" wink. Obviously, there's a limit to the amount of technical detail a general-interest article can include, but it needn't deliver its elisions with a smirk, and I can't imagine any other subject area the NYT would approach that way.<p>My brother, who is not in IT, sent me the article a few days ago. He was fascinated by the underlying story but frustrated with the article's tone and lack of explanation, so I'm confident this isn't just me suffering from a bout of Gell-Mann amnesia.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/technology/prevent-cyberattack-linux.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/technology/prevent-cybera...</a>