[laurent123456]

I don't think he's agreeing or disagreeing with the article, just providing a possible explanation for this behaviour. The two people arguing are ignoring the context, which is common in many debates. Especially with politicians - shift the context a bit and you're right even if what you're saying is unrelated to the original point.

[Ensorceled]

The article chose pretty good examples, they are all of the form, "generally true statement" with a "specific, or even completely unrealistic, edge case disagreement". They all require no context to understand the exchange.

Debates, especially political debates, are purely about winning the debate. Context in a debate is particularly irrelevant.

[anticristi]

I'm not sure I agree with "edge case disagreement". TLS, for example, has shown it's limits (e.g. CA hijacking) and was improved (e.g. CT). However, someone had to find those edge cases and discover the limitations of stated assertions: "2010 TLS was safe under the assumption that the CAs are not hijacked."

[Ensorceled]

Ok. So, are you saying that we should stop using HTTPS and instead use HTTP? If you are not, what is your point? Is it not under the 100% correct but missing the point label this article is talking about?

[anticristi]

Well, you could use HTTP over an IPSec tunnel with a pre-shared key (obviously distributed face-to-face), and that would have been resistant to a CA being hijacked.

However, nowadays, I believe with CT HTTPS is really safe. But again, someone had to nitpick on the security limitations of HTTPS for CT to be invented.