The sad tale of hype fanning fears modern cryptography was slain(arstechnica.com) |
The sad tale of hype fanning fears modern cryptography was slain(arstechnica.com) |
On the link: "The sad tale of hype fanning fears modern cryptography was slain"
In the article: "Here’s the paper no one read before declaring the demise of modern cryptography"
The link title is like one of those word play sentences where you get a different meaning depending on which word is stressed the most. In this version, it's like its own puzzle where if you don't stress the right word it makes no sense at all.
Neat article, though.
Does “the sad tale of hype fanning” fear that “modern cryptography was slain?”
Or is there a “sad tale of hype” that is currently “fanning fears” that “modern cryptography” has been slain?
Or is it “the sad tale of hype” itself that was slain?
It’s such a textbook example of a poorly-constructed sentence, it’s hard to believe it was written unintentionally.