Live data from Hacker News

Spellfucker

spellfucker.com

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Spellfucker

#131
post #52
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All clear, yes except for 'uidaut' and 'łud' -- is the latter "would"?

uidaut = without łud = would

Lávly konszept. Ju kud ívön tráj úzing en ívön mór disztant lengvidzs, Hángérien det iz. Áj wándör háu mács of disz iz komprihenziböl tu ádörz :D

Re: Spellfucker

#132
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A high, high percentage of the translated text is easily readable Again, to you specifically . Different people have differing abilities at reading the English language. What you might find easy others would not. In my case I could not read about 80% of the example text. Which was why I made the point to discuss specific people (like myself) in my example rather than assuming everyone would be able to read that tex…

That's why I didn't respond to you specifically, and only the person asserting that it's straight-up unreadable. It isn't.

I actually appreciate the opinion, that for some people it is difficult to read such kind of text. I also acknowledge, that some words are too fukt to be read properly :) However, the fact that this algo was written in one night and most people say it works, I feel a potential. It is all about polishing the lib of replacements, which is a part of the algo.

Re: Spellfucker

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implementation of this is called bbboing http://www.oik-plugins.com/oik_shortcodes/bbboing-obfuscate-... . I mentioned it on the website: "The goal of the project is to make text hard to read for computers yet fairly easy to read for humans (like bbboing, just differently)."

Like bbboing, but in my opinion, it's not anywhere near as easy to read as a human. Yes you can do it, but the link I pasted is nearly indistinguishable in reading speed.

I am not sure I understand, do you mean Cmabridge method is easier to read? If yes - I agree with you. Spellfucker is just too young and needs a lot of polishing.

Re: Spellfucker

#134
post #131
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uidaut = without łud = would

Lávly konszept. Ju kud ívön tráj úzing en ívön mór disztant lengvidzs, Hángérien det iz. Áj wándör háu mács of disz iz komprihenziböl tu ádörz :D

I find the comparison with Slavic languages quite funny :) Just keep in mind, simple transliteration is easily reversible. Spellfucker - not.

Re: Spellfucker

#135
post #125

Couldn't we scramble the font? It would look completely normal, except the letters and their symbols would be swapped. When I type "a" it would show as "z" and so on. The scrambled webfont could be embedded, and the scramble could happen per font. An OCR or some reverse engineering could decipher the page, but as far as google indexing and all the modern "reading web content" is concerned, it would all read as random…

"When I type "a" it would show as "z" and so on". Someone mentioned http://www.rot13.com/ - is it what you loukyngue phor? :)

Ah yes! But the shift or scramble would be at the font level.

So URYYB would read HELLO. Or rather, the reader reading HELLO will have no idea the document actually says URYYB as the contents of that text because the font renders URYYB as HELLO.

Presentation detached from substance.

Without the "key" font it'll just read URYYB.

Re: Spellfucker

#136
post #131
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uidaut = without łud = would

Lávly konszept. Ju kud ívön tráj úzing en ívön mór disztant lengvidzs, Hángérien det iz. Áj wándör háu mács of disz iz komprihenziböl tu ádörz :D

Your digraphs and trigraphs make my head hurt...

Translation: Lovely concept. You could even try using an even more distant language, Hungarian that is. I wonder how much of this is comprehensible to others.

Re: Spellfucker

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty narrow reading of making it "hard for computers" to do something. Think of it this way: the security measures on most homes are completely inadequate to stop a determined attacker. Nevertheless, they work because most attacks are opportunistic.

There are far, far, far more incompetent home burglars than competent ones. On the other hand, only a handful of AI's exist and by definition, they are getting better and better. So, using your analogy, when it comes to AI every attacker is a determined attacker so your security needs to be ~100% bulletproof.

I think you're making a mistake in assuming sophisticated AI is going to be used everywhere. This will easily defeat simple word filters, for instance, which are still commonly used.

Re: Spellfucker

#138
post #136
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lávly konszept. Ju kud ívön tráj úzing en ívön mór disztant lengvidzs, Hángérien det iz. Áj wándör háu mács of disz iz komprihenziböl tu ádörz :D

Your digraphs and trigraphs make my head hurt... Translation: Lovely concept. You could even try using an even more distant language, Hungarian that is. I wonder how much of this is comprehensible to others.

Nicely done! So it works. I badly want to see the software, however, which can do the same translation.

Re: Spellfucker

#139
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lávly konszept. Ju kud ívön tráj úzing en ívön mór disztant lengvidzs, Hángérien det iz. Áj wándör háu mács of disz iz komprihenziböl tu ádörz :D

I find the comparison with Slavic languages quite funny :) Just keep in mind, simple transliteration is easily reversible. Spellfucker - not.

It's not a straight transliteration -- it's not like we are writing IPA phonetic marks by-the-by in two different languages. For example your "th" in "thing" doesn't exist in Hungarian so I will use "sz" which by the way is one of the common pronunciation mistakes we make: replacing /θ/ with /s/. There are sounds in Hungarian which do not exist in English and yet if I wanted to "encode" the word "duke" I would likely use "gyúk" thus replacing /djuːk/ with /ɟu:k/.
Post reply on HN