Are you prepared to explain this content and defend its meaning and sensibility? Please do not argue that I'm being unfair unless you are.

If you think it makes sense, and I'm misreading, then I'd challenge you to pick a paragraph, dig into each sentence, and try to explain to yourself what it means; and how the sum of the sentences in the paragraph communicates an idea. It doesn't. It's just a string of generated statements. If you haven't seen this kind of material before, then I'd encourage you to check out papers generated by SciGen:

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/rooter.pdf (generated nonsense intended to fool the reader - it was even accepted by a journal for publication!)

You will probably be able to identify this content for what it is after reading other (well-done) machine-generated content.

I'm qualified to comment on the content. The paragraphs do not make sense. You're being taken in by a troll. If anyone wants to seriously discuss this content, start by trying to understanding how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS", and how that connects in any way to the topic which is cryptography.

> Irreversible destruction of the hardware [...] atomic decay processes which are incited by zeta normalization of the attack timing.

When is "destruction of the hardware" ever reversible? How will an Internet attack incite atomic decay? (That's ridiculous.)

The words and phrases are strung together in a way that communicates no cogent idea. They're far enough away from making real sense that they can't actually be rebutted or discussed in a direct way. All you're left with being able to say is, "That doesn't make sense", "Those concepts have nothing to do with each other", "The ideas don't follow".

Try to take the paper I linked above and, selecting any paragraph, attempt to assess the accuracy of its claims, discuss what it's saying, or rebut the claims. Example:

> Any unproven synthesis of introspective methodologies will
clearly require that the well-known reliable algorithm for the investigation of randomized algorithms by Zheng is in Co-NP; our application is no different

Does that look like obvious nonsense to you? It's written in a way to appear meaningful but it's not. It's just randomly generated content using statistical techniques to select words and phrases that appear nearby in a corpus of real content. Nevertheless I'm sure you can pull some kind of meaning out of that and argue about it. That's what we'd be doing by discussing this user's posts.

I'm not trying to be mean. I thought the original posts were an interesting, clever performance with better generated material than I'd seen before. That's misleading in the way that a magician is misleading. It can be fun. The subsequent replies appearing to seriously defend the content (which by the way are not at all convincing), and attack users who pointed out its nature, are something different.

I really don't want to contribute to trolling on HN by discussing this content further, but since you're accusing me of being unfairly dismissive: I will be glad to read and critique a short essay about how "load balancing [...] may actually induces [sic] vulnerabilities to DDOS [...] whether or not the maintenance occurs regularly" and how that relates to cryptography. All I can say now is that that claim doesn't make sense on its own, or the context of the paragraph, and has no apparent connection to the topic. If the sentence was expanded into several paragraphs justifying its claims and elucidating the topic, then we'd actually be able to discuss it.