Your linked version also doesn't mess up the units: 3.2°Kelvin is incorrect, it's 3.2 K. Kelvin is never used with the degree prefix.
I could understand that in copying the quote one might have not noticed the superscripts were messed up, except it is evident deliberate alterations were made. Very strange.
> Your linked version also doesn't mess up the units: 3.2°Kelvin is incorrect, it's 3.2 K. Kelvin is never used with the degree prefix.
This is pointless pedantry. Yes, the official unit is just "Kelvin" now. No, it's not impressive to recognize this misuse. This is little better than pointing out that someone wrote "too" instead of "two".
Historically, it was also called degrees Kelvin, so it's not as if there's a lack of precedent for this, even if it's no longer the preferred usage.
> I could understand that in copying the quote one might have not noticed the superscripts were messed up, except it is evident deliberate alterations were made. Very strange.
It's not evident at all. I don't know why you would assume that some random StackExchange answer is the definitive version. Schneier's original version uses °K, per Scheier's blog:
I was wondering what's so special about having a computer count to 2192 and why that would require so much energy.