281–290 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say the same thing. Unless you're one of today's "lucky 10,000"[0] who haven't ever encountered goatse before, there's no need to verify this :D [0] - https://xkcd.com/1053/ edit: folks the xkcd lucky 10k reference was a joke, settle down
Your joke really flips the meaning of the lucky 10000. Nicely done.
If you don't know what that is, you might not want to search it.
Very much NSFW lol https://wordlewebsite.com/sqword
it doesn't work in an incognito window (first thing I tried) but does in a regular window. @joshcsimmons it seems like sqword is reading local storage on this line: this.localStorage = n.localStorage || globalThis.localStorage, which leads to the following error: "Uncaught DOMException: Failed to read the 'localStorage' property from 'Window': Access is denied for this document." you should do it in a try/catch.
But I guess it can happen on the original site if the user turns off cookies entirely.
Just keep in mind some kids might be playing these games. So while it might be satisfying to stick it to the sites that are stealing your code, you might traumatize a child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say the same thing. Unless you're one of today's "lucky 10,000"[0] who haven't ever encountered goatse before, there's no need to verify this :D [0] - https://xkcd.com/1053/ edit: folks the xkcd lucky 10k reference was a joke, settle down
I've managed to never see goatse so far. Not because I'm new or innocent, but because I've learned my lessons. I don't think the 10,000 really applies to this situation. It's certainly not something that everybody needs to see at some point in their lives (or so I've been lead to believe).
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but I wouldn't do something like this for fear of falling afoul of anti-obscenity laws. For instance, the UK has a cyberflashing law which allots a two year custodial sentence for sending a graphic image (by any means) with intent to cause distress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After tubgirl I vowed to never click on links people said I shouldn't. I've never seen goatse because of this rule. (I have been rickrolled a lot, but that's fine.)
It's a butthole. It's not some traumatic thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both legally and morally, intent matters far more than these technical details.
I can't answer to the law, which besides will vary - and I reject the implication that a puerile prank is immoral. But that aside, taking it on as if there was any moral dimension, moral clarity is straightforward here: The parasite has to answer for the material it shows its visitors. If a butcher delivers outdated meat to nowhere, knowing his van will be hijacked, how can he possibly be blamed when the hijackers se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
s/removes the disclaimer/exploits a browser 0-day/
There are much less weird links you can give someone if you have 0-day. I don't think that's a problem worth worrying about for the author.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> simply hard-linked to the resources It's fairly surprising to see that approach from pretty large brands/companies. Some Indian ISPs are kinda notorious in that they'll just link to huge image files on third-party sites and just let their 300 million customers hammer the poor site into the ground. I guess it saves them bandwidth, but they also run a huge risk of pissing someone off and have that asset replaced by s…
The isps can pretty easily set up a cache for things that are popular. There was a time when I worked for an ISP consultancy, where Netflix would literally give ISPs a prebuilt cache server iirc for free, and that was a win win for everyone. I shouldn’t be surprised that some shitty isp thinks it’s easier to hard link, but making a cache isn’t that hard.
But Netflix was running at full HD with no problem. So they must have had local cache's with the ISPs.