> you make it sound like ... lowers the overall probability

I think that depends on whether you interpret the comment as trying to mitigate the perceived magnitude of the issue, or provide clear and concise information on what the issue entails.

I read it more as a "here's what the preconditions are, and there's some question as to whether the issue is actually a bug or not", and not "you have to do this for it to be a problem, so it's less bad than you think", so the wording didn't seem problematic at all to me.

It's not "preconditions." It's one condition. That the user wants to visit a website that uses the camera. The rest are details of that one condition. He might as well have said things like "turn on phone" "install the firefox app" "short-press the firefox icon" (to launch it).

FWIW based on how it was written I interpreted it as the latter "you have to do this for it to be a problem, so it's less bad than you think", so glad you clarified that wasn't your intent.

To be clear, I didn't write that comment. I don't blame you for thinking that though, I actually almost added a postscript immediately after I commented to note that I wasn't the original commenter since the usernames looked similar, but figured I would just let it go and respond/edit if someone made the mistake. :)

I hope someone has a stat on how many HN replies are by third parties. Now breakdown by hamming distance of usernames from GP :) :)