In your second link, the article specifically states "McRae probably wasn’t acting as an ecosaboteur."
I don't know how you read that and came to the conclusion that "attacks by so called environmentalists" when the article comes to the opposite conclusion.
If you ever check the average, always make sure to _at least_ add in the median. I don't know if there's any special syntax for this with symbols or whatever but having the median,average,and possibly even n together is way better than just the average.
Is is just me, or is this article missing links that it should have?
> Exactly 5 million on exactly that day? Probably not. But if not exactly, then just how large is the uncertainty? Here’s an example for how to do it right, from the economist, with a central estimate and an upper and lower estimate.
Where is the economist example? It's not linked or quoted or anything.
> Here’s an example for how not to do it from the Guardian. This work is published in the journal Physical Review Letters. This isn’t helpful. Here’s the same paper covered by the BBC. This one has a link. That’s how you do it.
The BBC Example isn't even linked (which I find hilarious bc the sentence is describing the BBC not linking the paper). I don't know what BBC example the author is discussing.
> An example is this story from 2019 about a paper which proposed to use certain types of rocks as natural particle detectors to search for dark matter.
What story? It's not linked....
Reading back to the top this appears to be a transcript, however it doesn't make much sense that only some of these parts are linked and as a result the transcript (for whatever reason) randomly includes links.
Public disclosure by the people that found the backdoor. I couldn't find any disclosure about it by AccessPress themselves between 15. October when they pulled the compromised themes and plugins to now.
That's not the timeline. It was a single day from contact to removal of compromised plugins. According to the article, the issue was that the vendor's contact form didn't work, not that the vendor didn't quickly remove the plugins.
You are also confusing plugins with themes. They are not exactly the same.
Had this happen recently to a site. The SMTP password was set wrong and I don't know how many months/years this form just failed to submit but no one was aware of it... was for a landing page type site.
That’s simply not true. Jetpack is owned by Automattic. Automattic has an exclusive license to the name “WordPress” from the WordPress Foundation but WordPress is owned, operated, and managed by the WordPress Foundation and is a totally separate entity.
Source: I work at Automattic and used to work on a Jetpack team.
It's not deceitful at all. Anyone who's in the WP ecosystem understands this.
Jetpack is part of Automattic. Automattic's main thing is wordpress.com (the hosted platform). Automattic and WP.org are not the same thing even though ( as with many open source projects that have commercial implications) the lines are somewhat blurred.
Presenting this as "deceitful" is really quite the over-reaction.
Deceitful implies intention. Qualifiers help. "Unintentionally misleading" fits better. It's like the difference between manslaughter (whoopsiedeath) and murder (intentional).
You have to understand that this sort of intentional obfuscation of ownership and responsibility under a single root of ownership is in most areas of business a pretty good indication of ill intent (even if it is depressingly common).
So isn't the reasonable deduction here that the vendor was responsible for this given it was present on their website but not on the plugins through Wordpress? They probably didn't have the back door on the wordpress plugins because those would face a higher scrutiny than the ones on their site. Finally they get caught and go silent, but then when wordpress knows they finally respond because they know the jig is up and are trying to save face.
I don't think that's a reasonable deduction, it seems like the contact form on the vendor's website didn't work. That could possibly be compromised by the attacker.
Another similar question, Why not any tablet (IPad, Android, etc...)? I've found trying to quickly browse information on an eReader to be an exercise in patience.
Genuinely wondering how this is working out for you and if you have any pictures of this setup that would be interesting.
My eReader is the only tablet I own; the big plus of it for me is that it gets about a week of battery per charge, so I don't have an extra device to remember to charge every night, put back in my backpack, etc.
Don't really have a setup worth taking pictures of, it's just a Remarkable 2 with KOReader.
