You could have made the same point in a less inflammatory way. Next time, please do.

Apologies. Sometimes it just seems I can only catch the attention of the zealots with something a little inflammatory.

Why "catch the attention of the zealots" at all? Isn't that just an admission of trolling?

To hopefully convince a few to recant and acknowledge at least one flaw. I don't mind realistic zealots, only the willfully blind ones.

There is no point to doing this. It's a waste of cycles. People believe what they want to believe, and will only change their mind when they want to.

Your own point, that the ones that bug you are the "willfully blind" ones... do you expect to be able to change someone's mind when they are very intentional about not doing so?

What has worked well for me in dealing with this is to just recognize that we're all at different stages of life, and maybe someday these "willfully blind" will gain perspective and see the broader truth.

The best thing is not to try to force them to see reason, but to demonstrate reason yourself and recognize that at any given point only some people are ready to see reason.

Others may be ready in the future, but they simply aren't now.

Seems more like a QA problem to me, there should be some tests in the QA of a final release build that makes sure all the debug flags are turned off.

That's my point. "Security" is a complete package, that includes good QA.

It's a bit worrying that people noticed this 3 months ago, and there have been no fixes.

Yeah, that seems like a no-brainer to me. Even my company's small 2-person software 2-person QA team has a release test to make sure all debug parameters are shut off. The software won't even run if a debug parameter is on without some special shim that only us devs have.