My guess: People who can be as competent with security as they need are very expensive.

I'm not really making an argument, but describing something I've heard and seems like a reasonable point to consider: One potential issue with "cleaning up" stuff like HP Lovecraft is that a lot of his horror is, in fact, horror about race. So cleaning it up would interact weirdly with that topic — would it mask the racial nature of it by making it less overt? Would it make it a different story? Or would it still basically be intact, but less immediately distracting, just because our modern ear recoils when we read certain words? (I don't know which of these it would be; it probably varies depending on the story)

I'm reminded of something that Binding of Isaac does that I wish more games would do: If you're anywhere in the main menu (even drilled into it), if you just mash the B button/Esc key, it will keep backing out, up to and including exiting the game if you press it on the main menu. I hate games that make me click 3 times and say "are you sure??" when I just want to quit the dang program.

(and grid, which is very very similar to flexbox and uses much of the same rules)

The main thing I encourage here is: If you're breaking up longer functions into more smaller ones that are really only used in this context, don't mix them into the same file as functions that are general use. It makes code super confusing to navigate. Speaking from experience on an open source project I contribute to.

But with more walls around the garden

Just to help me understand: Why is it that when I try the same search on different instances of this, I get very different search results?

Russian, but yeah

More discussion here: https://tildes.net/~comp/18h8/web_environment_integrity_a_google_proposal_for_general_web_drm

This shit keeps radicalizing me about the internet more and more. Ughh.

I mean, Google does index and cache most webpages internally already. So yeah, maybe. But after reading the article it doesn't sound like they're doing that.

There's a great video about the inherent problems with crypto stuff and contract law here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6aeL83z_9Y

Mostly about the inherent legal unenforcability of contracts on the blockchain.

Hm. I wonder if you could write a browser extension to just kill gifs in their tracks and only show the first frame without hover or whatever. Maybe. Didn't find a solution after a cursory look (only malware called Gif Jam) but this certainly seems possible in principle...

Someone on StackOverflow found a thing that accomplished it; maybe this can be converted into a userscript. If this would be really valuable to you, and you aren't up for doing it yourself, let me know — I might make this just for fun. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5818003/stop-a-gif-animation-onload-on-mouseover-start-the-activation

EDIT: I made one. Weirdly it works on all sites except beehaw, though, and it just breaks gifs on beehaw. Probably some content security policy on beehaw preventing the images from loading for the JS? https://gist.github.com/phoenixeliot/45f0c6a04fffd84998ac8bc526c901fe

But it does successfully replace gifs with broken images, so maybe still net positive for people for whom gifs are a health hazard?

Some parts that can be configured:

Which sites it applies to:

// @match        https://beehaw.org/*
// @match        https://*

How to select which elements are considered gifs:

  var gifElements = document.querySelectorAll(
    'img[src$="gif"], img[alt*=animated]'
  );