"They’re not outright wrong, but they are theoretical"
The source is upset that his technical jargon and long-winded explanation didn't make the final article. That's the connection to the above post. If you are a non-technical reader, and you had to read the raw transcript of a hardware guy telling you about firmware updates, you'd fall asleep. The point here is that the journalist cut out that stuff, which maybe makes the story less accurate, but the point of the story is still preserved.
That doesn't seem like a good summary. The bigger criticism is IMHO this:
> When the piece was published, he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined.
I think you are misreading it. The source is upset because his long winded explanation /did/ make the article, but evidence that his explanation was anything other than theorizing did not.
he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined
I don’t read that as jealousy, but surprise that his theory became fact in the story.
The source is upset that his technical jargon and long-winded explanation didn't make the final article. That's the connection to the above post. If you are a non-technical reader, and you had to read the raw transcript of a hardware guy telling you about firmware updates, you'd fall asleep. The point here is that the journalist cut out that stuff, which maybe makes the story less accurate, but the point of the story is still preserved.