Every last bit of Zircon code he reproduced in the article was a woolly mess that the code's author (not the article's) should be ashamed of. That the author found it easy to code an exploit for a system he knew so little about shows that the code is not just woolly, but actually bad.
I'd encourage you to have a go at explaining nonetheless. I'm sure there are at least a few critiques you have which many here would miss, even if they are competent. There's always value in code review, no?
I didn’t downvote but I think it’s more because grandparent reads like a shallow offhand dismissal. Perhaps if GP provided examples of bad code and better ways to express them it would be a more productive comment.
I didn't see any actual technical content in that comment. I don't see any repliers commenting on tone but I do see a comment or remarking that they disagree with the technical assertion and asking for actual technical content to back it up.
So I think your assumptions about the reasons for the down votes are inaccurate.
This dreck would never pass code review at my shop.