"Subtle nuance" he says, after I've spent multiple comments explaining that bootloaders reject unsigned and untrusted-signed code identically, whilst he and others insist there's some meaningful technical distinction (which none of you have articulated).

Then you admit you actually understood this the entire time, but my tone put you off elaborating.

So you watched this thread pile on someone for being technically correct, said nothing of substance, and now reveal you knew they were right all along but simply chose not to contribute because you didn't like how they said it.

That's not you taking the high road, mate. That's you admitting you prioritised posturing over clarity, then got smug about it.

Brilliant contribution. Really moved the discourse forward there.