Communicating with someone without disclosing a phone number is a pretty important feature.

I didn't say it did. The post I replied to, which wasn't you, is arguing that Signal is successful. Therefor it is highly relevant whether it actually is. I don't know which goalpost you are talking about.

The measurement of success. First it was R2-D2 (I meant E2e, but I like the auto correct so I’m leaving it) encryption, then easily exploited vulnerabilities, now somehow phone numbers got drawn in the mix.

Basically you’re you’re shifting anytime you get pinned down and it shows.

No, the phone numbers are in the second sentence of my first comment. The exploits are in the sentence after as an explanation to why it was bad to use phone numbers. And that is only one example to make it a reasoned argument. Other such points can be found in the video.

I am happy to argue the points but don't make up some characterization. It wasn't "then", "now" or "shifting". I've made the same points all along.

The topic at hand was not phone numbers and vulnerabilities.

You bringing them into the argument doesn’t make it valid.

Basically hijacking a discussion with irrelevant points that vaguely support your case is not valid.

OP’s point, the article is incorrect because of the value brought by E2E encryption to the masses, then various debate on how that wasn’t such a big deal, or was done wrong.

Phone numbers and iPhone zero days have nothing to do with the impact of Signal’s e2e.