In addition to the other comments here: Don’t run near cows. Quite often, they will start running with you, which is very impressive and dangerous at the same time. Cows generally are faster than you for the first few hundred meters at least.

Wow, that’s an impressive list of amateur tanks. Do they also sell real cars in the US? (Rhetorical question)

I guess this is not because of how good the “AI” is, but because it automatically gets note resources than any human player.

You need a phone, tablet, or other device that’s been rooted.

😦

Mars also does not have water. This explains why they didn’t care to properly protect the metal from rust I guess

I guess that is why Etterra is betting on it. Maybe to motivate another Darwin Award winner.

Yes, its weight is absolutely ridiculous. The other hobbyist’s tanks you mentioned are too. Just because there is more of the same (minus razor sharp edges and rust), doesn’t mean it isn’t sh*t too.

Syncthing on Android has an option to only sync when on AC battery. The PC client might have a similar option. If not, you could probably configure something similar via systemd or udev under Linux.

I don’t think syncthing has proper means to synchronize contacts or anything else that’s not file-based though.

I use syncthing and prefer it for synchronizing files between my devices.

Does the add-on work the same way in Chrome? Or does Google break it in a way similar to uBlock Origin with the WebExtensions v3 update?

Is this all true for addons available from Mozilla’s add-on site?

PS: Mozilla had to limit installing addons because lots of companies installed malicious addons into browsers of their users, often without knowledge or informed consent of their users.

Once again, it’s mostly about the money

Do you have evidence or is this pure speculation?

How and why should Mozilla get money from Russia? Isn’t it more plausible if Russia were blackmailing Mozilla?

It seems like part of your thinking is: Why would a criminal invest effort to attack an average John Doe? The answer is: With a popular (widely used) operating system, the effort goes close to zero. Attacks can be automated, so they will be. Also, even if they are not interested in your data, they will be interested in other benefits they gain from controlling your computer:

• Computing power e.g. for Bitcoin mining
• Your internet connection to attack other computers via yours, taking your computer to hide their identity and location. This is commonly done as DDOS for blackmailing businesses or silencing websites. Or for sending spam or fake reviews.
• Your identity. If they can get your name, they can order stuff on your name, which will get you a bad credit score or even criminal charges (identity theft)
• Access to your local network. Many devices are easier to hack via local network access than from the internet. A criminal who took control of your computer could for example take over your “smart” appliances or WiFi printer.

I think we should not expect a volunteer (or small group of volunteers) to keep up with a billion dollar company

If it is just the location, then it could be spoofed.

If it is something that requires physical presence, then you need both devices to communicate with each other. If it is not done via QR code (like some online banking do), then both devices need to be connected, e.g. via WiFi or Bluetooth. In this case, if an attacker controls one of the devices (that’s the class of attacks 2FA should prevent you from), the attacker probably controls both devices. So what’s the point then?

I guess if there is WiFi, he won’t even need a mobile data plan, so he could safe lots of money.

How would MS Authenticator make it any better than TOTP?

To break TOTP, the attacker would need to:

a) be able to observe the initial exchange of the TOTP secrets. To do that, the attacker needs access to the victim’s computer (on user level) at that specific time they set up TOTP. TOTP is a TOFU concept and thus not designed to protect against that. However, if the attacker controls the victim’s computer at that time, the victim is screwed anyways even before setting up 2FA.

b) have access to the TOTP app’s secret storage and to the victim’s login credentials (e.g. by phishing). If the attacker can gain that level of access, they would also have access to the Microsoft Authenticator’s secret storage, so there is no benefit of the Microsoft app.

On the other hand, Microsoft Authenticator is a very huge app (>100MB is huge for an authenticator app, Aegis is just 6MB, FreeOTP+ 11MB), i.e. it brings a large attack surface, especially by connecting to the internet.

I don’t think Microsoft Authenticator brings security benefits over a clean and simple TOTP implementation.

If it is just TOTP, you can use any other TOTP app, such as Aegis or FreeOTP+.

And no, Microsoft cannot be trusted on not doing anything bad. The app is full of trackers and has an excessive list of permissions it “requires”.

For comparison, Aegis and FreeOTP+ work without trackers and way less permissions.

Microsoft has a long track record of leaks. Just naming the 2 most prominent:

1. Microsoft Edge leaks every single URL to Microsoft servers (source)
2. There are lots of reports that Microsoft had their general key stolen and not even notify it for months. It is unclear who had acces to that key. This is putting anyone at risk who uses any Microsoft product. (See for example here)

Are you forced to use their app or are they just very insistently trying to trick you into using it? I.e., have you tried with Bitwarden or any other TOTP capable app?

It might depend on configuration. In the only case of Microsoft enforced 2FA I know of, it is just TOTP. Microsoft’s web interface nudges (tries to trick) you into using the MS Authenticator app, but that app is not needed. You can use any TOTP capable 2FA app, e.g. Aegis or FreeOTP+, both of which are also available through F-Droid and don’t require internet connection.

“Diplomjodler” sounds German so probably different laws apply…