And? Perhaps one does in this case. If you're technically competent, you should be able to evaluate the claims in the article regardless.

I think the unfortunate side of this is it "feels" like there is an agenda, regardless of if that's the case or not. Technical basis aside, one generally wouldn't write a white paper on this format.

I'm not technically competent. At least as far as crypto goes. But I can understand things like "shortens the time needed for a brute force attack" quite fine. And many non technical people can do the same. By littering this article with petty personal bullshit, he commits the same sin as cryptocat: failing to inform users.

So what? He's not providing an encryption tool for LGBTQ activists, like Cryptocat claims to do. The bar he needs to meet is lower. Unlike the Cryptocat team, he is not actually obligated to inform Cryptocat's user base; regardless, he's done them a huge service by donating his time to finding vulnerabilities.

I agree.

They say you should write to your audience and this feels like the author did and it’s targeted at an audience - that, well, is not HN.

I wish it had been targeted at HN - as then I would have read it. But after the first couple of sentences I gave up - and waited for people with more fortitude, to read the doc and report back here. (Thanks to everyone who did that.)