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

It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

anubis.techaro.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 222 posts

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#101

Post by doc_ick »

__s wrote: post #90
Aachen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requiring 1 second of compute before allowing a page load After 1 solve, you get a cookie and can load tons of pages with it. Scrapers and user agents alike will need to spend the compute only once to get a valid session for themselves Seems to be working so far though. Fwiw, lots of silly things stop bots until someone puts their mind (or tokens) to bypassing it, and then the blocking mechanism has to adapt. We'll…

https://people.kernel.org/monsieuricon/creepy-crawlies reports anubis effectiveness falling off

I would disagree with the Anubis effectiveness falling off, but the llm bros are throwing life itself into training to defeat any “perceived” challenge.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#102

Post by bakugo »

fwip wrote: post #76
lxgr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I also strongly suspect that this is only going to move more parts of scrapers onto consumer devices. The egress proxies are already there, why not use a little bit of the compute as well?

When you force a low end device to burn CPU or fill ram constantly, the owner throws it out and buys a new one.

Haha, no. The average tech illiterate person tolerates a LOT when it comes to bad performance on low end devices.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#103

Post by doctor_radium »

I have every copy of Firefox here configured with webassembly disabled...because I don't tend to do what Webassembly was designed for, i.e. online games, video/audio editing, emulation, etc. [1] and because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge.

So this is going to be interesting.

My plea (in a small voice) to the OP: just as many sites still do for JavaScript, please add a "This captcha required Webassembly to continue" message to your code when Webassembly is disabled. And, incidentally, for smaller platforms/browsers that don't offer a Webassembly engine at all.

[1] https://webassembly.org/docs/use-cases/

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#104

Post by xenafan1 »

bombela wrote: post #38
drum55 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not seconds though, it’s in the order of tens of milliseconds of work, it’s faster to complete the challenge than most http requests will take. last difficulty 5 nonce 645376 in 9 ms (101.6MH/s, avx512-x16) This takes many minutes to solve on a cellphone, 9 milliseconds on a cheap VPS. It’s not stopping anyone.

Yep, on my aging phone it takes quite w noticable amount of time to go through. But on my more recent laptop wnd workstations, it's a quick flash of a manga lolita.

[flagged]

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#105

Post by xenafan1 »

doctor_radium wrote: post #103

I have every copy of Firefox here configured with webassembly disabled...because I don't tend to do what Webassembly was designed for, i.e. online games, video/audio editing, emulation, etc. [1] and because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge. So this is going to be interesting. My plea (in a small voice) to the OP: just as many sites still do for JavaScript, please add a "This captcha req…

[flagged]

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#106

Post by Lyrex »

dspillett wrote: post #100

> It also means that the "hey Claude vibeslop me a CUDA Anubis solver" route is on its way to being fundamentally dead. I assume that the previous challenges will still be available for circumstances where WASM is not available (unless we are just working on the basis that it is available if JS is?) or perhaps as a fallback. TFA explicitly mentions “smart” TVs, and I'm sure there are plenty of those out there that ru…

the answer to this is in the post: where wasm is not available, he transpiles the wasm binary back to Javascript

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#107

Post by YoshiRulz »

xena wrote: post #20
saagarjha wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, then just replace it with something that is useful to society but not immediately profitable to a scraper, like science research

I want to do this eventually, but it's hard to split things into the micro-tasks that would be required to make this work on Anubis. One of the ideas I'm throwing around is a world where Anubis helps fuzz old games to find timesaves in tool-assisted speedruns. It's harder than you think.

The tools that exist for fuzzing speedruns (TASers call it "botting") are fairly primitive, excluding a few game-specific ones. Because of that, there really aren't that many TASes where a distributed randomised search could make improvements which don't get immediately overshadowed within a day of human attention. Improving botting tools and increasing their adoption would be more effective IMO. (Incidentally, TASVideos.org recently banned one of the people pioneering bot development.)

Meanwhile BOINC is well-established as the platform for distributed computation. If you can figure out how to squeeze its work units into Wasm challenges, I'm sure a lot of researchers would thank you.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#108

Post by [deleted] »

xenafan1 wrote: post #105
doctor_radium wrote: post #103

I have every copy of Firefox here configured with webassembly disabled...because I don't tend to do what Webassembly was designed for, i.e. online games, video/audio editing, emulation, etc. [1] and because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge. So this is going to be interesting. My plea (in a small voice) to the OP: just as many sites still do for JavaScript, please add a "This captcha req…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#109

Post by adrianN »

xenafan1 wrote: post #105
doctor_radium wrote: post #103

I have every copy of Firefox here configured with webassembly disabled...because I don't tend to do what Webassembly was designed for, i.e. online games, video/audio editing, emulation, etc. [1] and because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge. So this is going to be interesting. My plea (in a small voice) to the OP: just as many sites still do for JavaScript, please add a "This captcha req…

[flagged]

Customizing the experience is what the web is all about. The browser is a user agent not an advertising platform for the corporate overlords.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#110

Post by gavinsyancey »

xenafan1 wrote: post #105
doctor_radium wrote: post #103

I have every copy of Firefox here configured with webassembly disabled...because I don't tend to do what Webassembly was designed for, i.e. online games, video/audio editing, emulation, etc. [1] and because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge. So this is going to be interesting. My plea (in a small voice) to the OP: just as many sites still do for JavaScript, please add a "This captcha req…

[flagged]

> You should really be running the most popular browser

This amounts to giving Google effectively complete control over the web. I'm not sure that's a good idea. IMO it's important that Firefox and Safari remain popular enough that webdevs are forced to support them.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to "If you want to 'customize' your web experience, you shouldn't be surprised when things don't work right." in terms of turning off commonly-used features, but the request isn't to make it work right. OP just wants a helpful error message.

Post reply on HN