> One interesting side note relates to the person driving these attacks, or at the least the author of the Facebook landing page - they linked it to their actual Facebook account, which is where the victim will land should they fall for the scam.
Is this based on any evidence or just an assumption? It seems to me that the 'actual Facebook account' could just as readily be either a random or intentional framing of someone else by the one(s) doing the phishing attack or the page designer, in which case it would appear that it worked perfectly in that it apparently convinced Akamai.
> I’ve created a set of three simple statements (with supporting references) that represent the fundamental arguments that brought me to veganism:
>It’s unnecessary for humans to consume animal products, i.e. we can thrive on a vegan diet [1, 2, 3].
> Consuming animal products is one of the largest individual contributions to climate change [4, 5, 6].
> Consuming animal products results in slaughtering ~75 billion sentient farm animals each year — animals that want to live [7, 8].
> Logically, from the above three points, it follows that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals.
Logically, this is textbook circular reasoning or a tautological fallacy. The author's three points are that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals. To then say that the _exact same three things as the three points_ follow from those same three points is circular reasoning.
The blog post may benefit from an editor, but those three points are supported by the footnotes, whose very references – but not content – you included in your quotation. The footnotes themselves constitute more than half the post and include citations of published studies.
The article mentions that there are "even mixed color boards", does anyone have a photo of any? I did a cursory search and didn't see any, but am interested in how these looked.
I recall reading that the map of Italy on the back of an Arduino Uno is tendered using white solder mask, because traditional silk screens did not provide enough resolution.
What's striking is that nearly every one (with only a couple possible exceptions) of these photos show children and family occupants. Did single people (without kids) not live in these tenement blocks, or were in the overwhelmingly minority and these were mostly flats for housing family units? Or were singles just as common, but are not represented in the photographs?
At the bottom of the page are links to other pages of Hedges' work. There are a number (e.g., in London) showing single men living alone. Often pensioners (OAPs).
Perhaps your guess that the particular tenements in Glasgow were reserved for families is right.
Your comment only seems to reinforce the point that
> This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman
Or are you suggesting that it was not difficult for a woman to publish under her name, only that it was not customary to do so? Can you point to some supporting examples of this, if so?
> (It's still in use in more formal / old-fashioned contexts.)
In a pedantic sense it is her own name in the sense that it was a name by which she was referred, though obviously it’s a misogynistic custom which is thankfully uncommon now.
They said it wasn't an example of it, but then presented a historical account which only seemingly reinforces the original claim they were claiming it was not.
It didn't though, the "Mme" part stands for mademoiselle, indicating it is a woman. Therefore they weren't pretending to be a man for the purpose of getting a paper published.
> It didn't though, the "Mme" part stands for mademoiselle, indicating it is a woman. Therefore they weren't pretending to be a man for the purpose of getting a paper published.
The specific claim I was addressing is not that one had to pretend to be a man to get something published, the original claim is, once again, that it was difficult to publish under your own name as a woman, as quoted several times now:
> This probably shows how difficult it was even then to get something published under your own name as a woman
The comment that it was customary to use a husband's name preceded by Mme. thus does not negate this original claim, if anything it reinforces it.
> The comment that it was customary to use a husband's name preceded by Mme. thus does not negate this original claim, if anything it reinforces it.
We don't have anything to support or negate the idea of whether a French women could have published in her own name if she was single, or if she was married and addressed herself in a non-customary way.
We just don't and the conversation never went that direction. This is in your interest to understand alone but in a conversation where nobody has provided anything. As such it will be impossible for anyone to prove or disprove your assertions, and may have to be your own area of research, alone.
"Mme" is "Madame", indicating a married woman. "Mmelle" stands for "Mademoiselle", which means an unmarried woman, and in that case it would have her own name (as there is no husband).
From that series of articles, during Le Roux's court hearing:
> Le Roux admitted that he had created the encryption software E4M but denied that he had developed TrueCrypt, its famous progeny.
Also:
> Hafner and his SecurStar colleagues suspected that Le Roux was part of the TrueCrypt collective but couldn’t prove it. Indeed, even today the question of who launched the software remains unanswered. “The origin of TrueCrypt has always been very mysterious,” says Matthew Green, a computer-science professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute and an expert on TrueCrypt who led a security audit of the software in 2014. “It was written by anonymous folks; it could have been Paul Le Roux writing under an assumed name, or it could have been someone completely different.”
The developers of E4M and of VeraCrypt are known; the developers of TrueCrypt are not fully known.
And what do you do when you go through all of that time and effort (and potential expense) and get the very likely outcome that the claimant is not in your home jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction isn’t simply determined by where the opponent is. There’s nuance to this but you can typically sue and gain jurisdiction in any venue that has a nexus to the business activity in question. Given that YouTube is global there’s probably a lot of places you could find a valid venue. California almost certainly being one of them.
You might have trouble getting the opponent to cooperate but if your ultimate goal is to get YouTube to do something then that could work just fine.
Again, clearly legal action isn’t easy but people seem too inclined to throw up their hands instantly.
Learning how to take basic legal action is just a core part of running a business, and someone earning from YouTube at this level is indeed doing just that.
I'm not sure why you're singling out California, is that where the claimant is in this case? Or are you referring to YouTube?
My (and the GPs) question was: let's say, following the filing of the requisite legal documents and the accompanying fees if any, you receive the contact information of the claimant from YouTube. You are in Germany. The claimant's address is in Turkmenistan. What are you meant to do next?
U2F is not immune to phishing attacks, at least not if backup codes are being used: https://youtu.be/rPTI9e-9tBE?t=936