Indeed, npm is not aware of the context of the vulnerabilities. That does not invalidate them, however, and mean they should be hidden. I've worked in offensive security for quite long enough (been a dev for 10+ years before) to tell you that your context, or the most common one, isn't all that exist and someone's going use it the way it makes the app vulnerable. Based on the article's example, someone's going to build an app that builds an app.

A vulnerability is a vulnerability, whether it applies to your context or not. A metaphor might be: "The passenger door is broken on my car, but I'm the only one to use it". Seriously, who, in their right mind, is going to argue that the door isn't broken?

- If your dependencies have security vulnerabilities, apply the updates.

- If you cannot update because there's no fix available, let your org or you assess the risk and go from there.

- If you cannot update because it breaks your app, {find a replacement, fix it yourself, let your org or you assess the risk and from from there}.

A sensible org has a process that freezes releases until known security issues are fixed. Freezes can also be opposed by devs and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis (because sometimes they are not relevant to the product, or someone steps up to take the blame for incidents and the org agrees).

We might not like it because it disturbs the "flow", but it's just part of the engineering process. More to the point though, why not take this opportunity to teach newcomers how to code properly, pick well-engineered and -written programs, and handle this vulnerability management process altogether? In any case, I hope newcoming-dev is not going to push to prod anytime soon. ;)

edit: formatting