I used the oldest version available in the Wayback machine so presumably it was how it was published, but it does include an “update” note as if it’s undergone at least one revision. It’s not impossible that the wayback machine is missing the earliest version. I still think that “copy and paste into a janky content management system interface” is probably the cause of whatever bad formatting it had rather than outright malice, but it may have been worse then than we see now (they state that formatting was changed though it’s not clear when).
Weird. I think I remember seeing a different version. Not sure how that happened...
...maybe some of my ad-blocking programs interacted with the website’s CSS in a bad way?
Uhm, if that’s the case, I apologize for spreading misinformation.
.
Off topic, but Jesus, in the comment section: people [...] go to better schools [...] to increase their IQs [...] Not like anyone is born with a 170
I used the oldest version available in the Wayback machine so presumably it was how it was published, but it does include an “update” note as if it’s undergone at least one revision. It’s not impossible that the wayback machine is missing the earliest version. I still think that “copy and paste into a janky content management system interface” is probably the cause of whatever bad formatting it had rather than outright malice, but it may have been worse then than we see now (they state that formatting was changed though it’s not clear when).