[timbre1234]

Or they could have maybe lead with that sentence and THEN given the explanation.

Too many tech people have that "I want to slowly lead you to the point like Sherlock Holmes mystery" style of writing, and it is such a time-waste. Arthur Conan Doyle was paid by the word, you aren't. Please, everyone, back to middle school: State a Thesis in your first sentence and THEN expand on it, don't force me to spend pages trying to figure it out.

[aeonik]

It's not just tech people, but any field with a high enough complexity.

The "abstract" of a journal article is supposed to contain all the key points of a science experiment including the results, but it's too rare that they do.

I think some folks are just hitting their limits, and needed more time to digest/ review their publication.

Other folks are doing it I obfuscate or pad their work, for whatever reason.

[IggleSniggle]

When you're deep enough in a thing it can be hard to know what counts as "high level summary." For example, "attackers can decloak routing-based VPNs" might seem like a good high level summary. "Attackers can decloak routing-based VPNs using DHCP rules that give priority to an attacker over other lower priority routes" might seem like it's just in the weeds enough to be misleading, or to result in a bunch of people now believing they are educated on the subject when they really are not.

Picking the right level to communicate such that you avoid clickbait journalists spreading a lie of omission/ hysteria is an art. Personally, I think we should be grateful for all the effort put into clearly communicating all the most relevant nuances; we can generalize that any high complexity field is doing its readers a service when it approaches communication this way. I'd rather the "result" be communicated at too high a level than too close to the middle (giving the illusion of understanding the nuance)