[antics]

This comment makes you sound both arrogant and uninformed. You should rethink your tone.

First off, security exploits are not measured in how hard they are to pull off, they're measured in overall impact. This is because the point of security is to prevent such exploits, not to wave your dick around like an idiot. The point of this post is that there are very serious exploits in the service. That justifies the post being on the frontpage regardless of how hard they were to find. (Hint: the fact that you call it a "high school" exploit does not negate the fact that it's a serious vulnerability.)

Second off, Snapchat had a long time to fix this and they didn't. Maybe you would have "just fixed it" but the fact that they didn't is also newsworthy and totally justifies this post being here.

[eco]

> This comment makes you sound both arrogant and uninformed. You should rethink your tone.

I see nothing wrong with the tone of the comment you replied to. The comment disagrees with the significance of the linked article and does so with examples explaining why they believe that. They could be wrong but it's hardly arrogant.

Your tone, on the other hand, is inexplicably combative.

[antics]

The original comment says things like "anyone" can do this, and it's a "high school" level exploit.

The discussion is about security vulnerabilities. Comments berating the people who worked on this because they didn't pick a problem that's manly enough are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They only serves to reaffirm the commenter's belief that they are smart.

Furthermore, while it is obvious the commenter doesn't believe the article is worth discussing, they certainly did not give good reasons for believing this. The whole comment is basically making the point that the summary is too elementary to be taken seriously, which ridiculous enough to deserve someone calling it out -- if it's so elementary, then why wasn't the find friends problem fixed? That only strengthens the case for this article.