diff --git a/4.1-Extensions.md b/4.1-Extensions.md
index e51c3cc..c252bc7 100644
--- a/4.1-Extensions.md
+++ b/4.1-Extensions.md
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ This is not about the merits of randomizing vs lowering entropy: this is about u
       * e.g. if not uniquely, then by their behavior and characteristic patterns
       * note: RFP doesn't care if it can be detected, because all users are the "same"
 
-If you don't use RFP, then **you're on your own**. And don't rely on entropy figures from test sites. The datasets are not real world, very small, and tainted by both the type of visitors, and by their constant tweaking and re-visits which further poison the results and artificially inflate rare results: e.g. on Panopticlick
+If you don't use RFP, then **you're on your own**. And don't rely on entropy figures from test sites. The datasets are not real world, very small, and tainted by both the type of visitors, and by their constant tweaking and re-visits which further poison the results and artificially inflate rare results: e.g. on Panopticlick [May 2020]
    * e.g.: why are 1 in 6.25 (16%) results returning a white canvas (which is statistically only an RFP solution), and 1 in 6.16 (16%) returning a Firefox user agent, and yet Firefox (and Tor Browser) only comprise approx 4% worldwide
    * e.g.: why are 1 in 1.85 (54%) results returning no plugins, when chrome (at 67% market share) and others by default reveal plugin data
    * remember: very, very, very few users use anti-fingerprinting measures