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.
Comments
It's a summary of the above poster and why they said it. It answers the question of why the post was written. I don't have any stake in this.
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.
But you're claiming the opposite of what happened.