No, being able to do this would nullify the benefits of a hardware token.
Well, maybe you could with expensive equipment to inspect the individual state of the memory on the chip while it’s running, but generally hardware tokens are made tamper proof.
Plus, yes, it’s probably a proprietary totp algorithm.
A similar trope is tossed around in motorcycling communities.
(Supposedly) Motorcyclists make better drivers, not only in themselves but also in their friends, family and neighbours by virtue of awareness “my neighbour Jim is a motorcyclist, I should look out for him when I’m driving”.
Some groups are advocating that the CBT (basic motorcycle training) should be a requirement for new drivers to capitalise on this.
Some level of mandatory other-road-user immersion requirement could be a good way a good way to boost safety.
Fuck, driver licensing is too relaxed anyway, bring in mandatory retesting and increase the skill requirements gradually. Literally force the shit drivers out of their cars. You do it for commercial/heavy vehicles why not personal.
Which is exactly what this case is claiming, that the software is defective.
And what happens when we progress beyond Level 2 or 3 automation? Then the car is making choices for the driver, choices the driver may not have any say in or realistically be capable of reacting to in an emergency?
Deferring responsibility to the driver under any scenario is a cop-out. We have a long history of engineering qualifications and regulations to ensure safety of the populace, engineers and architects design structures to be safe, plumbers have to plumb to code, heck even cars themselves have a mile long list of compliance requirements. All to ensure the thing that companies build aren’t killing the population, and when they do someone is responsible.
Yet as soon as we start talking about software, “not my problem dawg.”.
If you want to play games with your neighbour, you could probably get away with two APs sitting in your windows. Heck, you might be lucky and a power line Ethernet could work.
If you’re a business and want both properties to be one network, with the speed and reliability that you would expect, then you would want a point-to-point system with directional antennas.
Both an AI and an art student are a complex web of weights that take inputs and returns an output. Agreed.
But the inputs are vastly different. An art student has all the inputs of every moment leading up to the point of putting paint to canvas. Emotion, hunger, pain, and every moment that life has thrown at them. All of them lead to very different results. Every art piece affects the subsequent ones.
The AI on the other hand is purely derivative. It’s only ever told about pre-existing art and a brief interpretation of it. It does not feel emotion. It does not worry about paying its bills or falling in love. It builds a map of weights once and that is that. Every input repeated however many times will yield exactly the same output.
And yes, you have the artists who are professional plagiarists, making hand-painted Picasso imitations of someone’s chihuahua for $20 over the internet. But they’re not mass producing derivative work by the thousands.
I fully agree with the shit-in, shit-out sentiment, and researchers should be free to train their models of whatever data they need.
But monetising their models, that by definition are generating derivative works is another matter.
I have nearly a van full of polystyrene that I have no idea how get rid of. Can’t recycle it, can’t throw it out with my regular waste as it would cost me hundreds on half empty council bags.
And you can’t vote with your wallet. Nobody tells you you’re getting three cubic feet of shit along with your new fridge or whatever. The stuff should be banned.
Probably better getting something useful out of that waste, instead of either sticking it in the ground, or shipping it overseas and making it someone else’s problem.
Jokes on you. I’ve got a deviated septum. Breathing is always a chore!