It paints him as an active danger, puts his picture on a wanted poster, includes his full name, workplace and the city and state where he lives and then writes up an article like an after action report of a cyberattack.

It then implies that he’s going to do it again and that he can’t be persuaded and so will be ‘harder to stop’.

Taylor believes what he’s doing is right, which makes him harder to stop than someone acting for money. Taylor already has the resume line and knows the codebase well enough to try again. That’s the true believer pattern. The argument is ideological, so persuasion is off the table.

So if he’s done a bad thing, he’s going to do it again, and you can’t persuade him.

If you can’t read the implied call to action then you’re being deliberately dense.