technicly this is the only comment in this chain that is relevant to the featured article, but it's technicly so incomplete that it's almost wrong, I can tell from having read the thread and knowing next to nothing else about how TOR works.
They don't have plausible evidence to subpoena the guard node if a middle node only sees encrypted traffic. They would also need to control the exit nodes which communicate with the target's host or they simply control the host as a honeypot.
Because the victim was an onion server, they could make it generate new connections at will. They used timing correlation to determine their node was the middle node for their connection.
assuming the guard node connects to the host when the host communicates with the client, this makes a little more sense. If I understand correctly you are saying that they did not seize a boat load of unrelated nodes and have rather fluxcompensated it with "timing correlation" and infinite funds.
Ad hominem: your username spells out MIB, Men in Black, surely you are joking.
The server connects to the guard node and tells it to connect to the middle node and tells the middle node to connect to the final node and tells the final node to connect to the rendezvous point, which already has a connection in the other direction from the client and splices them together at this point.
All Tor hosts use a small set of "guard" nodes as their first hops, because it's considered that directly connecting to a compromised node immediately reveals your IP address, in most cases. Using a small set of first hops reduces the probability that at least one of them is compromised. In older versions of Tor, the middle node is completely random, which means sometimes it is compromised. The German government is thought to have used statistical methods to identify when their compromised node was the middle node, and log the address of the node before it - the guard node. Then, they used legal methods to sniff the traffic on the guard node to find the server's IP address.
In newer versions of Tor, this is more difficult because onion servers use two layers of guard nodes - they use a small infrequently-rotated set of entry guard nodes, and a larger more-frequently-rotated set of middle guard nodes, and the third is still random.
It is a very hairy cow, which likes to bite and is stuck in the mud. Also it has a wierd high-frequency response. There is a description of tractors to get it out, but we'll skip how the controls work for now.
You are missing that to drive one-self home is a metaphor, possibly a visual metaphor in this case, for DIY self-service in the private domain, as it were.
there are no good examples. The basic premise in Linguistics these days seems tl be that all languages are potentially equally expressive. Trade-offs in one domain (grammar, lexicon, phonology etc.) afford advantages in another. Which means, there is no need to refer to Japanese at all.
You could equally refer to some slur in a lower register to then claim that this doesn't exist in your language and how it can't be translated either. So when Joe Biden said "SoB" on tape once, that was code switching; likewise, when Trump says anything it's all made up and coded and means something entirely different. However, these are bad examples if your target is a monolingual Japanese, obv.
However, Tsundoku hasn't caught on, at least not in English, except as a vain example of language fun facts. If there was a need, it would be borrowed eventually, perhaps as a semantic loan (calque). We call it hording already. Japanese simply adds a work related to reading. I don't read Japanese but I can recognize the "speech" radical at least.
The characters aren't connected so the brush is lifted and a space left behind. Of course this also goes for the space between signs of a compound word, but this also holds for "compound word", which is itself a compound word. Also they had \n = EoL alright.
Buffet is probably a better translation, in this context: I don't think the emphasis was on it being bread. (The bread of the metaphorical smorgasbord signifies… resources? Pokémon? something that isn't bread, anyway.)
gnash (one's teeth) and German knusen ("to chew") ought to be related with nosh and German naschen, seeing that snack in the same sense may be derived from some onomatopoeia meaning "bite". It's a non-trivial problem since these onmnomnom forms are thought to escape regular sound change. However, you may be right that silent g is inserted by mistake, but an archaic g-prefix which may be realized as /k/ is productive in Swabian, which might indicate a western Yiddish variety rather than the more eastern Ashkenaz.
