Live data from Hacker News

X-Clacks-Overhead

xclacksoverhead.org

41–44 of 44 posts

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#41
post #4

I guess we should all be glad that the Internet was not designed by Pratchett. If it was possible to send infinitely repeating messages like he describes, the whole Internet would soon be completely bogged down with useless overhead packages filled with spam and ads. At least the fanboys who implement this nonsense header on their servers are only wasting the bandwidth of themselves and their visitors.

The point of the "GNU" flags is that they're an unforeseen exploit of the system. The technology in Discworld is intentionally convoluted and whimsical because it is a fantasy setting with humerous overtones (while also using that setting to deliver biting commentary on real-world issues at times, I suppose "a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down"). The fact the flags spell out GNU is also an obvious tribute to the free software movement (as is arguably the hacker subculture of clacks operators that builds around the clacks in the novel).

Yes, if the Internet worked on the clacks protocol, it wouldn't work in real life. But neither would cameras if they relied on small creatures living in them and painting the photographs very quickly. It's not even that Discworld is horribly naive, it's more that it served as a whitewashed canvas to allow him to create narratives by introducing elements of the real world individually and give the reader the opportunity to draw parallels from that.

The clacks "GNU" hack is a perfect example of the kind of things you'd see in the early Internet days before commercial websites were really a thing. Remember that for a long time there was a dream of the "semantic web" which turned out to be similarly exploitable and fell apart when commercial interests became relevant (giving birth to what we now call SEO).

The X-Clacks-Overhead header is clearly not intended to behave like the clacks in the story. Nobody is naive enough to believe that this protocol would work (just as the semantic web didn't). It's entirely a tribute, a form for fans to (at least temporarily) "immortalize" someone who had a great influence on them. And unlike the twenty different analytics and ad scripts you now find on many websites it not only wastes hardly any space but also doesn't meaningfully inconveniece users (not any more than forgetting to turn of the server and x-powered-by headers at least).

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#42
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those are thanks to the EU. Totally pointless garbage that further train "Click OK" behaviour (after decades of Microsoft's existing conditioning) and enable malicious parties to take advantage of that behaviour.

This one actually goes against GDPR since it has no "reject all" button on it.

That's what it was called, I couldn't recall when I commented.

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#43
post #34

I was a little baffled by the (legally void, and thus pointless) cookie notice on the site -- a site that clearly does not need cookies in order to "operate correctly". It clearly states that they use Google and other 3rd parties who set cookies, and that these are "necessary for the site to operate correctly" which appears to me to be a nonsense, since it's just a static text page. Tracking cookies are certainly not…

All of those are thanks to the EU. Totally pointless garbage that further train "Click OK" behaviour (after decades of Microsoft's existing conditioning) and enable malicious parties to take advantage of that behaviour.

Bullshit.

There is absolutely nothing in the GDPR that prevents web sites from not using tracking (or other) cookies.

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#44
post #4

I guess we should all be glad that the Internet was not designed by Pratchett. If it was possible to send infinitely repeating messages like he describes, the whole Internet would soon be completely bogged down with useless overhead packages filled with spam and ads. At least the fanboys who implement this nonsense header on their servers are only wasting the bandwidth of themselves and their visitors.

This sentiment is what is removing - day by day - the soul of the world wide web.

Not everything is about efficiancy gains - it's ok to just have fun. The internet never has been serious business, nor will I (or many others) ever treat it as such.

Post reply on HN