Wait, either I'm grossly misunderstanding the article, or you are. The flaw the author is talking about is one that Google has been aware of for six days... Not 120. The original bug from 120 days ago was already patched.
We're essentially talking about a bug in the bugfix, which obviously hasn't existed as long as the original bug itself. I'm really not seeing where "hubris" comes into this.
That's the logic the blog author is using. As you can see in the bit of the article I quoted. I didn't say I necessarily agree with their analysis of this still being the same bug.
The fact that they mentioned it a couple of times suggests it was a factor in their decision to release the details today (or at least wanted to poke fun at Google).
We're essentially talking about a bug in the bugfix, which obviously hasn't existed as long as the original bug itself. I'm really not seeing where "hubris" comes into this.