> archive.is is one of the domains of archive.today, which used its end users for a DDOS attack on a blog.
Please provide evidence for your claim. The wiki rfc [5] that you linked doesn't provide any DDOS evidence at all, which is odd for wikipedia.
> This caused English Wikipedia to deprecate it with the end goal of blacklisting
This appears to be a concerted effort to blacklist archive.today by unknown actors. There were at least 3 attempts with odd efforts to sway the vote [1][2][3] (the notes in the sidebars at those Wiki RFCs document these actions by bots and others), and a successful attempt to undo the blacklist [4], and then yet another attempt [5].
I'm curious as to why you did not include this very relevant background information in your comment?
Complaining about bad people is fun, don't get me wrong... but your post doesn't contain an alternative archive link. You're just siphoning people into your soapbox.
The link they did include seems to have a pretty comprehensive list of alternatives. Complaining can be fun, but it doesn't really make sense to penalize them for not being prescriptive about alternatives when the exact point they're trying to make is specific resources for this sort of thing can be prone to abuse.
Just like complaining about Amazon (be it as an employer or as a service provider), without providing an alternative, is siphoning people into a soapbox?
I, for one, found out about the archive.* situation recently, and am totally glad someone like the commenter pointed it out. My wanting to bypass paywalls to read content doesn't justify supporting the owner's behavior - not even close.
According to the original reporter, the bug is still exploitable and that's why the issue on the bug tracker got hidden again.
> OH NO I JUST REALIZED THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY PROPERLY FIXED AND STILL WORKS
> even worse, edge no longer even makes the download menu pop up, so it's completely silent js rce that keeps running even after you close the browser !!
> all from just visiting a single website once !!
> issue set to private again, hopefully it'll get fixed properly this time :p
> In this second test, the word error rate was 43.75 percent, meaning participants identified a bit more than half of the recorded words correctly.
> [...]
> “We’re not at the point where it could be used in open-ended conversations. I think of this as a proof of concept,” [Sergey Stavisky, a neuroscientist at UC Davis and a senior author of the study] says.
The ability to produce sound without a use of a dictionary sounds awesome. It is an interesting result, a proof of concept as the author of the study says, but the title is editorialized at best and effectively clickbait at worst, because most readers will assume that "near instantaneous speech" means "clear intelligible speech and ability to communicate".
Ok, I've taken "near instantaneous" out of the title and put "proof of concept" in there, which is a phrase used by one of the researchers in the article.
reply