The implication that their data is more important or something just seems like a ploy to get more eyeballs on the research.
"Policymakers should consider the following steps:
Congress should pass a comprehensive U.S. privacy law, with strong controls on the data brokerage ecosystem. The most effective step to prevent harms from data brokerage for all Americans would be a strong, comprehensive privacy law."
You can get dev boards, but they are hilariously expensive, and I'd guess the idle/low load performance pales in comparison to other vendors these days.
Was this person perhaps hoping to get caught to raise awareness for their reports of corruption?
He says “My experience includes … running sources as a spy handler, surveillance detection and other advanced psychological operation strategies.”
And he uses his regular iphone with google?
"The number of U.S. email accounts believed to be affected so far is limited, and the attack appeared targeted, though an FBI investigation is ongoing, said a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity. Pentagon, intelligence community and military email accounts did not appear to be affected, the person said."
So what did they manage to breach exactly?
1. doing things to reason about or uncover more useful datapoints to increase certainty
2. you are accepting the probability that you are right/wrong at face value
The direction in which you decide to uncover datapoints is the "bias" that they are talking about. This process if further influenced by institutionalized assumptions or priors you are working with.
I really don't like lists like "Strategic Assumptions That Were Not Challenged" because they are factually true but also reek of survivorship bias.
Actually if you listen to earnings call, 2H year is expected to be significant sequential increases