[foldr]

I don't want to get into an argument over the truth of that generalisation. However, you can presumably see that it is a generalisation of the sort that might offend people. That's really the only point that's being made here. The post could be edited to make specific criticisms of that one piece of software without unnecessarily antagonising people.

[RL_Quine]

I don't think it is positive to shy away from calling something unsafe because somebody might be offended by it.

[foldr]

The point of my comment really wasn’t “don’t say things that might offend people even if they’re true”. My point was that the article, before it was edited, made vague insinuations that were both uninformative and likely to get people riled up to no purpose. Making specific criticisms rather than sweeping attacks is pretty much the sine qua non of a productive technical discussion. The revised article is both more informative and less potentially offensive. Offending people is sometimes necessary, but usually it’s a sign that you’re not zoning in on exactly what it is that you actually want to say.

[moltke]

The truth is very often offensive and being upset by it is the first step in solving the underlying problem. All of us know exactly what the article means by that phrase and everyone (especially the Chinese) would probably be happier if the Chinese (and US) hardware industry was more professional with its software.