2300+ entries in 0.023s
Framedragger just took part in a ridoinculous interview for 'IT person'. interviewee was a nice but 100% stressed gurl who is due to graduate with an MEng next year, and was barely able to tell the difference between static and dynamic typing. somethingsomething java. morning almost spoilt. "MEng"
☟︎☟︎ Framedragger: that didn't work till i read that the password is now phuctor. omg lmao
Framedragger: this almost seems worth of an asciilifeformitonic article
Framedragger: (the latter (irredentist) in my mind are filed under 'reactionary' (maybe not the right word), yeah; iac, many fall into these, it seems)
Framedragger: CompanionCube: i checked and apparently selenium is primarily branded as 'automation framework' - you're right (but folx use it for scraping)
Framedragger: ty for fixing model in head. even more sad now
Framedragger: phf: ugggghhh. (now i recall you possibly mentioning this in relation to archive.is; i see i see.. that's what they do)
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: lenin returned to russia 100 years ago in april. COINCIDENCE?
Framedragger: i wonder if "can run archive requests on 'uncleaned' (i.e.: already possibly infected) VM" could be allowed for. it's not exactly a gpg-signed-msg timestamping service.
Framedragger: asciilifeform: do you mean that "single archive request handled by dedicated process which terminates at end of request" wouldn't be enough in terms of cleanup? (due to js as vector of attack to machine?)
Framedragger: quite sure that it's possible to dump dom in selenium but in any case, yes dumping it seems like a prerequisite, like what archive.is does and what phf said above
☟︎ Framedragger: (and that use case existing is good signal in this case)
Framedragger: CompanionCube: that's just one use case, to be clear
Framedragger: worx. (heavier than scrapy in that can handle 'need js to click on 'next' button' logic)
Framedragger: we use it for website-with-loads-of-js-logic scraping
Framedragger: (i suppose an imperfect ('may fail on particularly gruesome imperial sites', say) prototype as a *standalone command line program* would make sense.)
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: not familiar / wouldn't know. my exposure to the whole thing was literally just "found relevant library; hop on irc to ask the author; chat for a while; realise he's blind; ask about his experience"
Framedragger: ^ sorry meant "*math* paper pdf" (think, formula in shit format). eughhh
Framedragger: asciilifeform: best software / environment by his recollection was on windows, which was sadnews
Framedragger: i can ask one such folk ('camlorn on #libaudioverse - has his own 3d audio library, competent at what he does). i recall him explaining the shitshow that was getting cs degree by translating cs paper pdf (horror)
Framedragger: asciilifeform: as phf said, archive.is output does not contain js. just to clarify.
Framedragger: phf: ah, but i meant the initial rendering phase - the 'archive this plz' process itself. but thanks for clarifying yeah
Framedragger: asciilifeform: standalone command line program makes sense indeed (and can be 'wrapped' in web/irc service if need be, later)
Framedragger: phf: you mean, js rendering done server-side? sorry i got confused i guess
Framedragger: so, if tmsr were to have its own archiver, i don't think archive.is' approach is the way to go, even though it is (arguably, maybe) the most 'reliable' / 'true' (actual js rendering in browser). exposing user to JS defeats half its purpose. imho.
Framedragger: asciilifeform: i sometimes check "archived sites" log (separate file) and it looks ~healthy (but no deep inspection).
Framedragger: hmm. i suddenly became concerned with potential failed archival requests from scriba - will check log (iirc not many failures, tho - otherwise would know.)
Framedragger: curious if latter is due to js emulator not being 'good enough', or blacklisting (who dares archive us!1)
Framedragger: ^ re. endpoint, oops no need for *challenge*, just a specific format for gpg-signed msg. (this is basically mpex interface, i guess.)
Framedragger: can also make irc-independent endpoint (
http or w/e) which does WoT gpg challenge-response. prototype would speak a thousand words though, i suppose. :)
Framedragger: i.e., the interface of the 'is_this_request_coming_from_legit should not be too irc-specific.
Framedragger: but then if things are coded correctly, it shouldn't be hard to swap irc for gossipd later, imho
Framedragger: but i guess you're saying that this particular archiver would rely on irc state (otherwise quite cumbersome to do challenge-response per every url request), which of course is quite bad.
Framedragger: thing is, the irc wrapper on top of gpg challenge-response is *thin* (at least in, say, scriba), and easily removable/changeable.
Framedragger: enemy which knows and tracks this but which is not capable of extracting/tracking current requests to archive.is?
Framedragger: archive.is already serves the "for the all peoples" function.
Framedragger: this was addressed, no? restrict to in-channel use, and/or l1+l2 or something or other.
Framedragger: ah. well, i can imagine a fleet of VMs (on an ok-to-be-pwned, of course) emulating browser for this.
Framedragger: asciilifeform: known bitstate, you mean, a unique fingerprint exposed to websites?
Framedragger: all doable, but relatively tricky (of the icky kind, i.e., one has to try out some things, and will end up with a set of semi-hacks due to webstack being one large hack.)
Framedragger: yeah yeah, and i recall discussion about how archive.is does this (phf had some notes), etc.; it's quite icky.
Framedragger: and did calculations on computor, too (but not sure if relevant to any research)
Framedragger: maybe. :) i'm aware that most of it is ~crap, but this is more like "99.99%" vs. 99%. also, i'll make a note to check if feynman included data in any publications which dealt with data (i.e. not only pure models.)
Framedragger: right. (i think this concludes this discussion. i'm doing some mental gymnastics which are ~pretty shitty (i'm not ready to dismiss all research prima facie which may not link to raw data, and/or may have failed to mention prior art), and i will get rid of them sooner or later, but not yet. thanks for indulging.)
☟︎ Framedragger: last note mircea_popescu, paper in question does acknowledge the fact that as regards rsa factorisation, their attempt is a *replication* (unless i misread). but yes, should be beaten for not mentioning phuctor.
Framedragger: to remark in jest, this makes my own work more easier because i can dismiss any cs papers relevant to $work if they deal with data but do not also publish data. "not science, boss!1"
Framedragger: well the latter, of course, but how you can stretch this example i'm not sure...
Framedragger: it's just too extreme, i believe, and *impractical* (i wonder, did feynman publish raw data?)
Framedragger: i take issue with disqualifying *everything* which does not also publish raw data, though.
Framedragger: look, i agree with this attitude; the ssh banners, etc etc are and will remain publicly available. these are *important* standards to have.
Framedragger: 100% of psychology papers including early publications; *most* of physics, etc etc.
Framedragger: that's a great stance of course, but i do believe that this disqualifies all but, i don't know, to speculate, "30" publications SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME
☟︎ Framedragger: mircea_popescu: then all of the publications which do not publish raw data are null?
Framedragger: asciilifeform: how little of the data is public is indeed *shameful*, and in that regard, phuctor should be lauded for making all data available.
Framedragger: diana_coman: you are forgetting the detail where phuctor wasn't the first to do what it did.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: not emotional; in fact i will go further and claim that *your* evaluation stems from a bit of butthurt (which is human, of course.)
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: acknowledged; weak point on my end.
Framedragger: diana_coman: i don't believe that phuctor is *that* important, yes.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: i am quite content with their bibliography section. they did not include phuctor (but included the other studies before and after phuctor), and that is a failure on their part. they can be informed and will even perhaps address this point. that does not fail *the whole paper* in my books, however.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: i see what you mean. do you think this "it then necessarily follows" is truly "necessarily"? what do others think? i do see what you mean, tho.
Framedragger: they *did acknowledge the first study* (2012 - before phuctor.)
Framedragger: asciilifeform: i don't see how this is enabling. by that metric, *everything* is enabling. someone used phuctor to hack into box, phuctor enabled them?
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: no; and in fact they did carry out experiments, in the sense of data being gathered (including new data - about the state of onion DHT.)
Framedragger: asciilifeform: yes that part is despicable, sure.
Framedragger: mircea_popescu: *any* pointers to the methodology; *any* untrue or glossy parts; *any* stretching in the conclusion sectoin.
Framedragger: "#trilema dislikes a random irrelevant paper for not having mentioned phuctor; the rest of the discussion is about how academia used to be better."
Framedragger: diana_coman: do you take issue with any *particular* points, or just the "alphabetic ordering of names oh no"?