So we could send them a MR to fix the footnotes (cause mentioned in sibling response). If it has not been fixed already. Not me anymore, well past midnight an a long trip in front of me tomorrow.
Yes. It's sad because this is an otherwise well-written and important article that needs to be widely distributed and taken seriously. But people will be put off by the formatting errors.
Looks like the markdown source had some misformated footnotes which were not properly processed.
Whoever uploaded/published this didn’t see to review it first.
It has corrupted formatting throughout for me.
It looks like 8 out of 17 footnotes didn't become footnotes properly. Every second footnote is displayed in the middle of the text, with a name tag like [^regappid] instead of getting a number.