Custom local http-proxy-server, that shows site Hacker News. This proxy modified text
on html page. A symbol ™ is added to each six-letter word.
$ git clone https://github.com/mnogom/proxy-tm
$ cd proxy-tm
$ make install
$ make test$ make run- Add a symbol
™each visible six-letter word (text on page, values and placeholders for input) - Avoid urls, words with hyphens and apostrophes
- Overwrite all local paths for assets and urls
- Don't touch text in css/js
- Modify
proxy_server/settings.pyto switch url for proxy - Modify
gunicorn.conf.pyto setup Gunicorn
From source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31130672:
This was a really great read.
There's a few comments here saying something akin to "No,
design trends are totally random, some hotshots decide they
want to be different and then everyone else mindlessly follows".
I got similar feedback when I wrote in an earlier HN comment my
take on why flat design is popular now. I actually empathize
with the sentiment because it reminds me of how I used to feel
about wine tasters. To me, all wine tastes equivalently like
poison. So when people express their complex, nuanced wine
preferences, it's easy for me to feel like they're pulling
something out of their butts, just saying what they think
they're supposed to say.
If my taste in everything was similar to my taste in wine,
I would probably still believe this. But I've realized that
when it comes to UI/UX design, I am one of the pretentious
wine tasters. And I don't feel like I'm making stuff up or
mindlessly following trends. The trends genuinely make sense
to me; I think they'd happen in the same order in a parallel
universe. Design is an optimization problem, and sometimes
new technologies or patterns of human behavior change the
optimal path for a wide spectrum of products, leading to trends,
or what this author calls "vibe shifts".
Of course there are mindless trend followers, just as there are
people who parrot opinions on wine they didn't really form themselves.
They may be the majority. But they don't disprove the existence of
something real.
From proxy http://127.0.0.1:8000/item?id=31130672:
This was a really™ great read.
There's a few comments here saying™ something akin to "No,
design™ trends™ are totally random™, some hotshots decide™ they
want to be different and then everyone else mindlessly follows".
I got similar feedback when I wrote in an earlier HN comment my
take on why flat design™ is popular now. I actually empathize
with the sentiment because it reminds me of how I used to feel
about wine tasters. To me, all wine tastes™ equivalently like
poison™. So when people™ express their complex, nuanced wine
preferences, it's easy for me to feel like they're pulling
something out of their butts, just saying™ what they think
they're supposed to say.
If my taste in everything was similar to my taste in wine,
I would probably still believe this. But I've realized that
when it comes to UI/UX design™, I am one of the pretentious
wine tasters. And I don't feel like I'm making™ stuff up or
mindlessly following trends™. The trends™ genuinely make sense
to me; I think they'd happen™ in the same order in a parallel
universe. Design™ is an optimization problem, and sometimes
new technologies or patterns of human behavior change™ the
optimal path for a wide spectrum of products, leading to trends™,
or what this author™ calls "vibe shifts™".
Of course™ there are mindless trend followers, just as there are
people™ who parrot™ opinions on wine they didn't really™ form themselves.
They may be the majority. But they don't disprove the existence of
something real.
From source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13713480:
The visual description of the colliding files, at
http://shattered.io/static/pdf_format.png, is not very helpful
in understanding how they produced the PDFs, so I took apart
the PDFs and worked it out.
Basically, each PDF contains a single large (421,385-byte) JPG
image, followed by a few PDF commands to display the JPG. The
collision lives entirely in the JPG data - the PDF format is
merely incidental here. Extracting out the two images shows two
JPG files with different contents (but different SHA-1 hashes
since the necessary prefix is missing). Each PDF consists of a
common prefix (which contains the PDF header, JPG stream
descriptor and some JPG headers), and a common suffix (containing
image data and PDF display commands).
From proxy http://127.0.0.1:8000/item?id=13713480:
The visual™ description of the colliding files, at
http://shattered.io/static/pdf_format.png, is not very helpful
in understanding how they produced the PDFs, so I took apart
the PDFs and worked™ it out.
Basically, each PDF contains a single™ large (421,385-byte) JPG
image, followed by a few PDF commands to display the JPG. The
collision lives entirely in the JPG data - the PDF format™ is
merely™ incidental here. Extracting out the two images™ shows two
JPG files with different contents (but different SHA-1 hashes™
since the necessary prefix™ is missing). Each PDF consists of a
common™ prefix™ (which contains the PDF header™, JPG stream™
descriptor and some JPG headers), and a common™ suffix™ (containing
image data and PDF display commands).