Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

textfiles.com

textfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: textfiles.com

#161

Post by Firehawke »

msla wrote: post #124
reitzensteinm wrote: post #6

The owner of the site gave a talk at DEFCON 17, "That Awesome Time I Was Sued For Two Billion Dollars" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWqx8goqSY&ab_channel=Chris...

He's also the guy who goatse'd MySpace: Initial post: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/989 Post about goatse: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011 More: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1012 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1127 Moral: HOTLINKING BAD

I remember reading these over ten years ago; probably posted on Slashdot back when that place had only started its nosedive. Still pretty funny ~15 years later.

Re: textfiles.com

#162

Post by samatman »

internalthief wrote: post #158
jstarfish wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not voodoo; the concept of "supertasters" and other supersensory traits in humans is well-documented. Most legitimate sommeliers are likely supertasters. I'm a supertaster myself-- certain pungent/sour tastes will literally make me gag; I don't like foods with a million different components since I can taste all of them quite clearly. My wife on the other hand will smell things on the wind (like smoke) that I'll…

> Wetting the filter gives you a more "accurate" result, but you'll get a consistent cup of coffee either way if you commit to either always wetting it or not doing so. The big difference that wetting a filter has is that certain filters have a slight taste associated with them. If you wet the filter first and throw that water away you get a cleaner/brighter cup without the paper filter adulterants.

Exactly, and this is easy to check: just pour a bit of water through the filter and then drink it.

You'll taste paper bag, I guarantee it.

Re: textfiles.com

#163

Post by schwartzworld »

dgellow wrote: post #14
david_draco wrote: post #9

A gif?! That would have been an opportunity to appropriately use the tag!

No modern browser support as a tag. Though you can reproduce the effect using CSS animations or javascript. Some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_element#Implementation

with WebComponents it's trivial to implement.

Re: textfiles.com

#166

Post by oneplane »

anthk wrote: post #155
oneplane wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, getting an RCE on that wouldn't be that hard I imagine. Not a whole lot of protections in there, and if there is an OS between the browser and the metal you can exploit that too. And if you don't want to exploit the browser or the hardware, you can still simply inject a self-refreshing iframe in to the plain text html stream and have that z80 act like a (slow) proxy so you can do things that will point to that…

links in Unix for example has automatic refreshing as a checkbox.

Well, then you use progressive rendering, or you use chunks, or you use something else. Sure, there might be specific mitigations that someone might have or have not set up, but that is not the point. The point is that assuming your system is safe is a bad position, and ignoring easy to use systems and processes to thwart complete classes of abuse is bad when you use a shared medium like the internet.

Re: textfiles.com

#167

Post by AnthonyMouse »

2008guy wrote: post #157
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minority ideologies always get painted as their villains by the majority who wants them to go away. Communism is bad because Stalin is bad. Anarchy is bad because the unibomber is bad. There is a version of communism that says that people should live in a local community that helps people who need it. As long as someone who doesn't want to live that way has the reasonable option to leave, this is actually pretty hard…

The unibomber has nothing to do with anarchy...

The unibomber was an anarchist, therefore anarchists are bad, you don't see how that works? It's like how environmentalism is bad because of eco-terrorism and encryption is bad because Mark Zuckerberg is a jerk who has too much money and all Muslims are bad because of 9/11.

Re: textfiles.com

#168

Post by neop1x »

zozbot234 wrote: post #88
jaas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there aren't. All HTTP traffic can be modified, which means it can deliver any malicious payload to the server or client. It's dangerous not to use HTTPS, period.

This is silly, as the endpoint you're connecting to could also be malicious. If you're worried about trusting your intermediary, you can just VPN to a trusted host and use it as a proxy.

Or you can SSH to the server and read it from http://localhost (if you have access). But there can still be malicious software running, intercepting syscalls or your localhost domain can point to a malicious IP. :/ Software can't be trusted. Period.

Re: textfiles.com

#169

Post by earthboundkid »

kalleboo wrote: post #156
earthboundkid wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whereabouts do you live? I've visited places where I found tap water undrinkable (Pennsylvania, Florida), but never lived in such a place.

Japan

I liked the water in Toyama, but they had a PR campaign to brand it as “oishii mizu” so people would forget about the cadmium poisoning in the Showa years. The PR campaign worked on me. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itai-itai_disease

Re: textfiles.com

#170

Post by earthboundkid »

samatman wrote: post #162
internalthief wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wetting the filter gives you a more "accurate" result, but you'll get a consistent cup of coffee either way if you commit to either always wetting it or not doing so. The big difference that wetting a filter has is that certain filters have a slight taste associated with them. If you wet the filter first and throw that water away you get a cleaner/brighter cup without the paper filter adulterants.

Exactly, and this is easy to check: just pour a bit of water through the filter and then drink it. You'll taste paper bag, I guarantee it.

I can definitely taste the difference between slowly pouring over and not, but so far I have not been able to taste the pre-wet filter. I’d prefer not to gain the ability either because there’s only so much time in the morning.
Post reply on HN