Explanation of differences between corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers (as recorded from a Quora discussion):
More from Internet
Hackers reportedly slipped malware into prior SolarWinds software updates, which gave them access to a "God-mode" for infected networks, including the Treasury and Commerce departments.
— Wes Wilson (@weswilson4) December 14, 2020
The Pentagon is also a SolarWinds customer.https://t.co/Srcoztssol https://t.co/OgMhAjJqPx
Basically what this means is that SolarWinds itself was exploited. Someone posted an infected update as legitimate (digitally signed), leading customers to download a bad update.
“Multiple trojanized updates were digitally signed from March - May 2020 and posted to the SolarWinds updates website” https://t.co/8e3bMFWXYu
FireEye then explains that infected organizations were approached and exploited. This is a separate Step 2.
At this point, information is already going to “malicious domains” without extra intervention, after the malware does nothing for “up to two weeks”
.@corintxt crunched the numbers and found that after Facebook flipped the switch for political ads, partisan content elbowed out reputable news outlets in our panelists’ news feeds. https://t.co/Z0kibSBeQZ /2
You can learn more in our methodology, where we describe how we did this and what steps we took to ensure that we preserved the panelists' privacy. https://t.co/UYbTXAjy5i /3
Personally, this project is the culmination of years of experiments trying to figure out how to collect data from social media platforms in a way that can lead to meaningful reporting. I’ve described a couple of highlights below 👇 /4
My first attempt was in 2016 at Propublica, when I was working with @JuliaAngwin . We were interested in seeing if there was a difference in the Ad interests FB disclosed to users in their settings and the interests they showed to marketers. /5
You May Also Like
A thread 👇
https://t.co/xj4js6shhy
Entrepreneur\u2019s mind.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) August 22, 2020
Athlete\u2019s body.
Artist\u2019s soul.
https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d
When you choose who to follow on Twitter, you are choosing your future thoughts.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) October 3, 2020
https://t.co/1147it02zs
Working on a problem reduces the fear of it.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) August 30, 2020
It\u2019s hard to fear a problem when you are making progress on it\u2014even if progress is imperfect and slow.
Action relieves anxiety.
https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
We often avoid taking action because we think "I need to learn more," but the best way to learn is often by taking action.
— James Clear (@JamesClear) September 23, 2020
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?