They have a monopoly on their own search results. There's nothing stopping anyone from making their own (hell, a poster did so in the comments above). God forbid we aren't entitled access to the fruits of their labor; the reason you want it isn't because you can't make it (again, see above). It's because making it good is hard, and you want the good results without yourself putting in the effort to make it
If I managed to intercept a login, a password and a TOTP key from a login session, I can't use them to log in. Simply because TOTP expires too quickly.
That's the attack surface TOTP covers - it makes stealing credentials slightly less trivial by making one of the credentials ephemeral.
The 30 seconds (+30-60 seconds to account for clock drift) are long enough to exploit.
TOTP is primarily a defense against password reuse (3rd party site gets popped and leaks passwords, thanks to TOTP my site isn't overrun by adversaries) and password stuffing attacks.
Note that a prover may send the same OTP inside a given time-step
window multiple times to a verifier. The verifier MUST NOT accept
the second attempt of the OTP after the successful validation has
been issued for the first OTP, which ensures one-time only use of an
OTP.
Assuming your adversary isn't actually directly impersonating you but simply gets the result from the successful attempt a few seconds later, the OTP should be invalid, being a one time password and all.
Backups are permitted (and not for all media) when you legally acquired the source. Scanning a physical book is not a permitted backup, and neither is downloading a book from Anna's archive.
> Scanning a physical book is not a permitted backup
On what basis do you claim that?
You're also missing critical legal context. When a would be consumer downloads pirated media in lieu of purchasing it he damages the would be seller. When my automated web scraper inadvertently archives some pirated content on my local disk no one is financially harmed.
The question is where the boundary between those things lies.
The problem is when you use your "copy" as inspiration and actually create and publish something. It is very hard to be certain you are safe, besides literal expression close paraphrasing is also infringing, using world building elements, or using any original abstraction (AFC test). You can only know after a lawsuit.
It is impossible to tell how much AI any creator used secretly, so now all works are under suspicion. If copyright maximalists successfully copyright style (vibes), then creativity will be threatened. If they don't succeed, then copyright protection will be meaningless. A catch 22.
No, but the premise of the ICE/CBP flood to MN is that the fraud is being conducted by deportable people. Note that ICE/CBP has no statutory authority to enforce fraud laws.
My understanding is that the "flood" is due to the state not assisting and arguably impeding ICE, vs states like Florida where the state is cooperating so they don't need as much ICE to do the work. It sounds like the fraud is being used as a red herring by detractors.
AFAIK, committing fraud does not protect illegal immigrants from deportation, which seems to be the implied conclusion here. If ICE deports illegal immigrants who are also committing fraud, I can't see how that is a minus rather than a plus.
I don’t think you do recall correctly. Electrek has European EV sales at +33% in 2025 over 2024. It’s not possible for Norway to turn a negative in the rest of Europe into an overall positive. https://electrek.co/2025/12/11/global-ev-sales-jump-21-in-20...
> Because books don't emit light straight into our eyes.
That doesn't make a difference as long as the light has the same brightness.
> If you have never tried reading a book under direct midday sunlight, you should try it sometime. It's quite unpleasant.
Despite the fact that books don't emit light straight into our eyes? And apart from this, wouldn't that mean we need in fact dark mode books? So why don't they exist?
I feel like the end for such a tool is fast approaching, as a local model that can figure out all of the correct flags and arguments for anything you want to do, whilst allowing you to examine the command before running and cite all relevant sources if you want, is quickly becoming viable. I wouldn't be surprised if this already exists.
reply