This is the right attitude towards piracy. Pirate it first, then pay if you feel it was worth it.

Why is a 2 year old article being posted now?

Why would she regret it? It made Cloudflare look like idiots.

I'm seeing so much FUD and misinformation being spread about this that I wonder what's the motivation behind the stories reporting this. These are as close to the facts as I can state from what I've read about the situation:

1. 23andMe was not hacked or breached.
2. Another site (as of yet undisclosed) was breached and a database of usernames, passwords/hashes, last known login location, personal info, and recent IP addresses was accessed and downloaded by an attacker.
3. The attacker took the database dump to the dark web and attempted to sell the leaked info.
4. Another attacker purchased the data and began testing the logins on 23andMe using a botnet that used the username/passwords retrieved and used the last known location to use nodes that were close to those locations.
5. All compromised accounts did not have MFA enabled.
6. Data that was available to compromised accounts such as data sharing that was opted-into was available to the people that compromised them as well.
7. No data that wasn't opted into was shared.
8. 23andMe now requires MFA on all accounts (started once they were notified of a potential issue).

I agree with 23andMe. I don't see how it's their fault that users reused their passwords from other sites and didn't turn on Multi-Factor Authentication. In my opinion, they should have forced MFA for people but not doing so doesn't suddenly make them culpable for users' poor security practices.

It’s sad to me that simply bringing enough negative attention, whether it’s warranted or not, is enough to get organizations to cave. They had a third party investigate her writing and they found it didn’t fall to the level of plagiarism. The people she supposedly plagiarized all agree that the technical nature of what she was summarizing wouldn’t make it plagiarism. The majority of students support her and the work she was doing.

I’m curious if any other Harvard President has ever had this level of scrutiny on their work come years after the fact. Feels like it’s people dishonestly taking objection just because they want to see her removed and now they’ve succeeded.

I had to drop friends over this woman. On the one hand, she made it easy to tell which people were not worth the attempt. On the other hand, she’s a liar and a grifter. On yet another hand, people don’t have 3 hands.

There’s no hypocrisy here.

On one hand, the belief in a god doesn’t just end there. There are beliefs in what that god does and what he has control over. So it’s completely logical to believe that there’s no god (although, as someone else pointed out, it’s also not random arrangements of atoms).

On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist. It’s not a belief. The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests. It’s simply conjecture or hypothesis to explain the “why” of the universe. No one who talks about simulation theory (much less who “believes” in it) pretends that the creator of the simulation is uniquely interested in them and responds to their requests and tells them how to live their life. In fact, that would go against the entire concept of simulation theory.

Religion and religious belief have specific definitions. This feels just as dishonest as people claiming that LGBTQ ideology is a religion or that evolution is a “belief”.

I don’t get this. I would love it if my kids did that to my PS5. In fact, I might actually have them do it. Custom PS5 that is made specifically for me sounds awesome…

So…where’s the letter? Pretty telling when the NYPost bloviates about this and doesn’t actually link to the letter.

Edit: Here it is and it’s basically an indictment of capitalism - https://reader.mediawiremobile.com/TheOakwoodRegister/issues/208670/viewer?page=3

Don’t forget being treated like absolute shit by people who think browsing YouTube on the toilet is “doing research”.

Everyone in these comments so far is misrepresenting the information here and arguing off of an incorrect assumption.

This is NOT saying that the 1% wealthiest people are responsible for half of these emissions. This is saying that 1% of travellers are responsible for half these emissions because those travelers travel so frequently. It has nothing to do with their wealth or using private jets. It's about how much they're flying.

Source: From the study linked in the petition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

"1% of world population emits 50% of CO2 from commercial aviation." Not private jets. Commercial aviation.

"Data also supports that a minor share of air travelers is responsible for a large share of warming: The percentile of the most frequent fliers – at most 1% of the world population - likely accounts for more than half of the total emissions from passenger air travel."

THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL USING REDDIT?!