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

_why's site is back up

whytheluckystiff.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: _why's site is back up

#141

Post by Cacen »

_rs wrote: post #126
Cacen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while watching this I noticed that the kid in the "tech today live" video mentions his live stream being "usually at saturdays at four pm-." I was unable to make out the rest of what he says, it's around 12:35-12:45 if you would like to hear it yourself. I feel like _why referenced this in SPOOL/DESOLEE with "April the 18th from like four o clock to let's say twelve." April 18th of 2009 (the year this video was made)…

he says "usually at Saturdays at 4pm eastern standard time"

ah, thanks.

Re: _why's site is back up

#142

Post by [deleted] »

avree wrote: post #47
apawloski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, you caught me. My point though, is that _why has made it clear that he wants to be left alone, and this HN endeavour seems to violate that. Maybe you're right and it is a new puzzle. And maybe he's back. (For what it's worth I posted that before most of the investigation.) Nevertheless though, given _why's wishes, this makes me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to acknowledge that.

You have it wrong. The man behind _why deleted his online presence because he grew tired of the persona and everything around it. At that point, people began searching for _why. This culminated in a Slate article that openly divulged his identity. That , is of course, crossing the line. If someone wants to distance themselves from an online tag, they should be allowed to in peace. Now, however, it seems that he's bro…

[deleted]

Re: _why's site is back up

#143

Post by cdcarter »

PLejeck wrote: post #137
espadrine wrote: post #127

Facts: 0. Since 2012-12-09, the following content was available at http://whytheluckystiff.net/ Public Print Queue SPOOL/TEST 2012-12-09T14:12Z SPOOL/IDEAS 2012-12-13T23:26Z SPOOL/NOTES 2012-12-19T00:28Z 0.0. The style of writing and handwriting corresponds to that of Why. 0.1. Prints are very regular. There are 4.4 days between the first two, and 5 between the last two. 1. Going to those addresses yields, in essence…

Nice summary, but there's also QUEUE/YOU somewhere in there.

I can't get a QUEUE/YOU or SPOOL/YOU to send me any data. Does anybody have the PCL for it?

Re: _why's site is back up

#144

Post by espadrine »

fogus wrote: post #128
espadrine wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did heavily influence CoffeeScript, so there's that.

Syntax only thought right?

Right. Jeremy Ashkenas also dropped some of the more controversial syntax along the way, like the use of dots to end a block.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1014080

Re: _why's site is back up

#145

Post by jonah »

Cacen wrote: post #117
wyclif wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hello, friends and uncles!" https://vimeo.com/5047563

while watching this I noticed that the kid in the "tech today live" video mentions his live stream being "usually at saturdays at four pm-." I was unable to make out the rest of what he says, it's around 12:35-12:45 if you would like to hear it yourself. I feel like _why referenced this in SPOOL/DESOLEE with "April the 18th from like four o clock to let's say twelve." April 18th of 2009 (the year this video was made)…

FROGS, it's frogs on a string. (An old game.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uce9hfGBPIU

Re: _why's site is back up

#146

Post by pretoriusB »

LaGrange wrote: post #134
pretoriusB wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If doing something makes some people behave like creeps, its generally the fault of the creeps. That's not correct. If a woman/man comes naked in class, people WILL stare. And it's not their fault, nor is it "creepy", it's only natural. In any case, this is not what we're dealing with here. Nothing creepy about noticing a website re-activated.

That's not correct. If a woman/man comes naked in class, people WILL stare. And it's not their fault, nor is it "creepy", it's only natural. Weird, last time I checked I actually could avoid staring at people. Naked people too. Must be a superpower or something. I do agree on the second paragraph, though — this is most definitely not this situation, it's more comparable to person entering a stage and starting to crac…

>Weird, last time I checked I actually could avoid staring at people. Naked people too. Must be a superpower or something.

Yes, it must be. Surely it's not normal or representative of the general population. The normal thing to do in such situations is to stare (something that has been milked for comedic effect in hundreds of "hidden camera" pranks).

That said, I don't really believe what you claim. You are probably overestimating your powers of not staring in a kind of Dunning Kruger effect. I'm pretty sure if Megan Fox (or whatever rocks your boat) entered your classroom naked you WOULD stare. A lot.

Re: _why's site is back up

#147

Post by apiguy »

PLejeck wrote: post #96
SyneRyder wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting this instead: "Public Print Queue SPOOL/DESOLEE 2012-01-06T08:21Z" I don't get any binary data from test, ideas or notes. /SPOOL/DESOLEE gives me a binary file that seems to open in OpenPCLViewer on my Mac (gives a 2 page file) but it's completely unreadable, like a fragment of a corrupted binary image. I don't know if that's how the file is meant to look or if it's a bug in the reader. I do note that "dé…

I loaded /SPOOL/DESOLEE, converted to PDF with GhostPCL Here's the scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/119155590/DESOLEE Transcriptified: This printer queue is going down for _MAINTENANCE_ but will shortly return for a day I believe it will be on the day of April the 18th from like four o clock to lets say twelve.

After the main body of the text there appears to be some erased text. I can only make out some of the words:

"th... ..... paper jam those ..... ....."

Re: _why's site is back up

#148

Post by city41 »

mwill wrote: post #56

I'm curious how this was noticed. I wonder if there just are people periodically checking his site, or if he pointed it out to someone/a few people and watched it spread?

I'm actually a little surprised it wasn't noticed earlier. I'd have thought someone out there would have set up a program to check his site periodically.

Re: _why's site is back up

#149

Post by LaGrange »

pretoriusB wrote: post #146
LaGrange wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not correct. If a woman/man comes naked in class, people WILL stare. And it's not their fault, nor is it "creepy", it's only natural. Weird, last time I checked I actually could avoid staring at people. Naked people too. Must be a superpower or something. I do agree on the second paragraph, though — this is most definitely not this situation, it's more comparable to person entering a stage and starting to crac…

> Weird, last time I checked I actually could avoid staring at people. Naked people too. Must be a superpower or something. Yes, it must be. Surely it's not normal or representative of the general population. The normal thing to do in such situations is to stare (something that has been milked for comedic effect in hundreds of "hidden camera" pranks). That said, I don't really believe what you claim. You are probably…

Yes, it must be. Surely it's not normal or representative of the general population. The normal thing to do in such situations is to stare (something that has been milked for comedic effect in hundreds of "hidden camera" pranks).

The general population did a lot of things it later stopped doing, or did less.

That said, I don't really believe what you claim. You are probably overestimating your powers of not staring in a kind of Dunning Kruger effect. I'm pretty sure if Megan Fox (or whatever rocks your boat) entered your classroom naked you WOULD stare. A lot.

That said, I don't really believe in your claim of estimating what is a part of uncontrollable behavior and what is not, in a kind of Dunning Kruger effect. For example, as a person who has seen a sauna, a mirror, and a public outdoor female-only bath in the middle of a city, I can assure you that I'd only stare if he/she specifically asked me to. I guess that's because I've been breast-feed in the Chernobyl era.

Post reply on HN