Tootfinder

Among the old laws of the Channel Islands is the old Norman custom of the clameur de haro. Using this legal device, a person can obtain immediate cessation of any action he considers to be an infringement of his rights
At the scene, he must, in front of witnesses, recite the Lord's Prayer in French and cry out "Haro, Haro, Haro! À mon aide mon Prince, on me fait tort!" ("*Haro, Haro, Haro! To my aid, my Prince! I am being wronged!"). It should then be registered with the Greffe Office within 24 hours. All actions against the person must then cease until the matter is heard by the Court.
Don't mind me, I'm just off to learn the Lord's Prayer in Norman French and buy a ticket to the Channel Islands. Not sure who I'm going to use this new superpower against first but I can think of several good candidates!

Raiders Get Worrying Week 1 Injury Update on Ashton Jeanty via NFL Insider https://heavy.com/sports/nfl/las-vegas-raiders/raiders-ashton-jeanty-week-one-status/

RE: https://infosec.exchange/@wdormann/117000612920568052
I'm not a big fan of takes like "the research by Anthropic is just marketing because they only attacked a reduced round AES implementation." (Quoted toot is just one example, I've seen it in several other places).
Attacking reduced round implementations is standard fare in cryptographic research, and valuable on its own, as it can teach us things about which approaches might be valuable in attacking AES with more rounds. Saying "this result doesn't matter / is just marketing because it doesn't break full-round AES" also says that 20 years of academic research into reduced round AES does not matter, which is obviously bonkers.
I am not saying that the Anthropic results are groundbreaking (Matthew Green has a much more detailed take and a lot more background in this than I have). But I *am* saying that I dislike the pracice of dismissing any research done by AI labs just because it was done by an AI lab. The other attack actually led to an algorithm being removed from consideration in the PQ crypto competition, and even though some people say "well, it's just applying a known weakness", this apparently wasn't enough to disqualify it until now.
Or, to quote Matthew Greens article:
> If you’re under the impression that these models are “glorified autocomplete” or that progress is slowing down, I need to urge you: stop thinking that. The models are very intelligent and capable, they are getting better at a fast clip. I can cite measurable and impressive progress over just the past five months on specific types of problem I’ve asked them to look at. If there’s a ceiling out there, I don’t yet see evidence of it. The people who think models are dumb are mostly using Google’s free AI search results, and not interacting with the high-end stuff (which only costs $20, so it’s not out of reach.) And they’re mostly not working in new areas.
https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2026/07/29/some-notes-about-anthropics-new-results/