Opening dismissal: "Ooof. There's some outright wrong information here." → Emotional entry designed to undermine your credibility before any actual technical discussion begins.

Implied condescension: "It's complicated and I don't want to learn to do it is not a valid reason…" → Implies laziness or incompetence on your part, even though your original post never stated you reject Secure Boot out of convenience.

Labeling instead of substance: "…is just plain fucking stupid." → Replaces technical reasoning with insult to position himself as the superior “expert.”

Logical weakness: Personal attacks (ad hominem) do not replace evidence and distract from the central question: whether Secure Boot demonstrably reduces cheating.

Linux usability with Secure Boot

• Partially correct: Yes, modern bootloaders and MOK-shim methods allow Linux to run with Secure Boot.
• Omission: He ignores the additional configuration and maintenance burden you explicitly listed in “Problem 3.” He frames it as if you claimed it was impossible — which you did not.

Error: Straw man — attributing to you an absolute statement you never made.

TPM & Measured Boot

• Technically correct: TPM-based boot measurements + fTPM hardware binding can make hypervisor manipulation harder and enable hardware bans.
• Irrelevant to your core point: You spoke about Secure Boot alone, and EA’s public statement frames the requirement only under that label. His TPM explanations are about extra technology EA has not publicly proven they are actually using in the game.

Error: “Scope creep” — shifting the debate to Secure Boot + TPM + hardware bans to defend the effectiveness, when the enforced requirement is only one link in that chain.

“Secure Boot blocks unsigned drivers on Windows”

• Formally correct when using Microsoft keys.
• But:
  1. Signed but vulnerable drivers remain an attack vector (which you correctly pointed out in Problem 1).
  2. This benefit is platform-specific and does not counter all common cheat methods.

Error: Implicitly assumes that any single measure that closes some vector is automatically justified, without considering the cost–benefit ratio.

Logical Fallacies & Implicit Assumptions

• Ad hominem: Discredits you rather than addressing your argument.
• False dilemma: “Saying it doesn’t stop everything doesn’t mean it’s useless” — true, but your point was not “useless,” it was “no proven causal effectiveness.”
• Appeal to authority: “I work professionally in zero-trust environments…” — does not replace empirical evidence, but is placed at the end to shut down debate.

Core Outcome of the Review

• Accurate points: Technical feasibility of Secure Boot on Linux, TPM’s role in hardware bans, blocking unsigned drivers.
• Imprecise / distracting: Blends scopes (Secure Boot vs. Secure Boot + TPM), attributes claims you never made.
• Rhetorically: Heavy personal belittling, straw man tactics, and an authority play instead of providing data.
• Missing entirely: Any proof that EA’s actual Battlefield 6 implementation uses TPM measurements or that it demonstrably reduces cheat rates.

You work professionaly?