A quick skim of https://iverify.io/blog makes it seem pretty clear that iVerify’s audience is people who are interested in security, not just existing industry experts.

But then skim the submission article and try to evaluate which audience it seems written for.

Considering they have stuff like "Located within the Sysdiagnoses in the Unified Logs section (specifically, Sysdiagnose Folder -> system_logs.logarchive -> Extra -> shutdown.log)" in the article, my guess is that they're aiming for people who at least have a basic understanding of security, not general users, as those wouldn't understand an iota of that.

Considering there is actualy not an iota of technically security challenging stuff (specifically, any computer user can understand your quote that there is a log file located at some path, there is 0 security understanding required there), using your own logic we can deduce the general audience was the target

The typical/general computer user wouldn't even understand the ">" character, I think you either don't grasp the wide range of people who sit in front of computers daily, or you over-estimate their ability of grasping computer concepts, because you'd say that sentence to the typical computer user and most of them wouldn't understand most of it.

That's fine, you don't need to understand the > character, it clearly says there is some log file located at some folder.

> because you'd say that sentence to the typical computer user and most of them wouldn't understand most of it.

Yeah, do try that, just not your cut version focusing on the irrelevance of a specific path and the meaning of >, but the whole paragraph. Do see how many people fail to understand that there was some file at some folder. You could even ask extra SAT questions "what do you thing a "shutdown log" is, does it record activities during device shutdown?")

This argument seems neatly circular.

Any example where somebody says an article doesn’t do a great job defining its terms just becomes proof that the authors only wanted readers who already understand the terms.

I think it's fine for the magazine, but I would have liked to see it expanded in the HN submission title, since many of us are not cybersecurity specialists.

Some stuff is written for some people, other stuff is written for other people. This shouldn't be hard to understand, nor particularly novel either.

TLAs are not basic knowledge, or expert knowledge. They are expertise theater.

Come here to say that too.

Now what if an “AI” system could come up with the key points to know for domain knowledge, that would make each domain that bit less intimidating.

Providing there’s a reliable publicly available store of data to extract the domain knowledge from.

Sounds so good I guess there’s several systems like that already.

Good that you added quotation marks, because otherwise it is as bad as he thinks - the typical bad technical communication, wasting the whole first page saying ~nothing with some AI slop image to boot, but not thinking about adding 5 symbols, yes, of course, out of the imaginary fear that the article would "balloon out of scope".