I want to make my website as cool as possible. I'm thinking plain HTML no CSS or just plain text in a pre tag.
Whatdayyathink?
Rotating skulls around headers, pentagrams for bullet points, animated flames in the background.
PLaintext in a pre tag sounds like hell to read on termux on an android phone.
HTML
Use XHTML5, it's the coolest.
Just use gopher OP, web is bloat.
>>5
I use a ssg so it generates valid xhtml pages.
>>6
There is no good gopher or gemini client. gui ones are more bloat that regular browsers while factoring in the functionality and command line ones are just dumb. I like to read in light mode with good margins and good line-height.
Is there actually XHTML5?
xhtml 1.0 strict
plain text in a pre tag
Why do you even need HTML? Just use Content-Type: text/plain
Example of a blog where the index page is an RSS feed and all articles are in plain text: http://len.falken.directory
>>10
That design is just stupid
just write plain html files so that the links actually work.
I was trying to click the links for so long... Don't make them look clickable if they are not!
This scum uses sh in shebang. Tell him that it's just a symlink.
Is there actually XHTML5?
Well, yeah. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml
Try Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml with no BS in the doctype declaration.
with no BS in the doctype declaration
an html without the proper and complete doctype is like software without a license
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" xml:lang="en" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml11.xsd">just do it
Shouldn't the design depend on the content?
This scum uses sh in shebang.
What's wrong with #!/bin/sh?
Tell him that it's just a symlink.
It depends on your operating system.
In FreeBSD, /bin/sh is not a symlink.
In Debian and Ubuntu, /bin/sh is a symlink to dash.
#!/bin/sh is only problematic when run in problematic operating systems that incorrectly symlink /bin/sh to a non POSIX compliant shell.
For XTHML5 you just need to put <!DOCTYPE html>.
XHTML is defined with content type value.
This is legacy declaration of XHTML1.1 from 2000's, it's not XHTML5.
What's wrong with #!/bin/sh?
One distro has dash linked-->other distro has bash linked-->your ported scripts are broken, enjoy fixing instead of getting job done right away.
In FreeBSD
I never talk about unusable cuck licensed OSes, I leave it to cucks like you.
>>20
When bash is called through the /bin/sh symlink, it runs in POSIX compatibility mode.
cuckzh cuckz cuckhs yadda yadda
Go back.
When bash is called through the /bin/sh symlink, it runs in POSIX compatibility mode.
I told you the issue, scripts breaks, no one cares about you modes.
Go back
Go back to freedom.
I think that it's not the script that is broken, but your head. To cure your brain damage, I would recommend you run head-first into concrete wall at full speed.
We professionals just use #!/bin/bash or whatever exact shell you need, not fucking symlink. Even if it's dash, which in fact no one uses, it should be #!/bin/dash.
Deal with real life cuck amateur.
Sigh, I was hoping he'd die in an attempt to fix his brain damage, but it seems he survived, and unfortunately turned even dumber...
Try one more time? You can do it!
>>19
xhtml5 do not exist
XHTML5 is a synonym for "HTML5 serialized as XML"
doesn't exist
mentioned on w3.org numerous times https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%253Aw3.org+%22xhtml5%22
The second concrete syntax is XML. When a document is transmitted with an XML MIME type, such as application/xhtml+xml, then it is treated as an XML document by web browsers, to be parsed by an XML processor. Authors are reminded that the processing for XML and HTML differs; in particular, even minor syntax errors will prevent a document labeled as XML from being rendered fully, whereas they would be ignored in the HTML syntax.
>>28
again, it does not exist, just like that crap they call "living standard" is not a standard at all
i can put a document written in pre-1994 html and call it xhtml∞ too, it is just [broken] works
lol anyone could differentiate an xhtml 1.0 document from an html 4.01 just by looking at
now, good luck doing that with your "inspectorgadget5"
Reasonably plain blog example: https://brokenco.de
Most of his open source work has been within the Jenkins project
KYS Tyler, your Jenkins garbage can't work properly.
I use Common Lisp for generating static pages. It's great fun.
I run a webpage only on pure html and css. It's nothing special but it's pure kino indeed.
Use Haunt, it's written in Scheme: https://dthompson.us/projects/haunt.html
>>34
seriously, what is the point of using something weaker and less practical than manually writing html pages?
>>35
Can you imagine writing hundreds of lines of code within 10 seconds? That's the kind of practicality that a website template and website generator can achieve.
hundreds of lines of code
for real?
(p [do you think ben bitdiddle thpontaneouthry combuthted?])
<p>do you think ben bitdiddle thpontaneouthry combuthted?<p>(post :title "forced stupidification of code")
<title>forced stupidification of code</title>again, why not just fucking write, hum?
>>37
Well, I don't know about this Scheme thing, but when I use Common Lisp to generate static HTML pages, I can write stuff to automatically generate table of contents, or highlight in code blocks, without using any javascript. Not to mention something like
(:a :href "https://example.com" "Example")is more convenient to write for me than
<a href="https://example.com">Example</a>Also the automatic header generation, being able to make changes to all the pages by just changing the ``compiler'', and being able to create dynamic content, like the date the page was last changed. And also being able to use a programming language, instead of DSL, and to put the result of evaluating forms as content on the page.
I used to muck about, trying to do the same thing with the shell, but this is a lot more flexible and efficient.
>>38
What do you use to generate HTML in Common Lisp? CL-WHO?
>>39
cl-markup, and stuff I build around that. Particularly handy is a simple reader macro for multi-line strings, so that I don't need to bother escaping as much. I tried using cl-heredoc for this, but it was too much typing.
is more convenient to write for me than
Much more convenient to click C-c C-c h in Emacs. Writing is bloat.
Post your articles as org-mode text on https://paste.textboard.org/
>>41
I don't even have a keyboard, I just dictate my posts and writing to Alexa. Umad?
>>43
Sounds like a good way to give a votive offering of source code to satisfy the volatile emotions of the monstrous Amazonian octopus.
>>44
But is it a good way to hax ur anus?
I just dictate my posts and writing to Alexa.
https://www.theonion.com/jeff-bezos-announces-customers-can-delete-all-of-alexa-1826395638
Jeff Bezos Announces Customers Can Delete All Of Alexa’s Stored Audio By Rappelling Into Amazon HQ, Navigating Laser Field, Uploading Nanovirus To Servers
Responding to news of the digital assistant recording users’ conversations without their knowledge, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos assured critics Tuesday that Alexa’s stored audio can be deleted by simply rappelling into company headquarters, maneuvering through an intricate laser field, and destroying every server with a nanovirus. “We take privacy concerns seriously, and I want our valued customers to know they can erase all the information their Amazon Echo has gathered just by being dropped from a helicopter over one of our towers, using a diamond-tipped glass cutter to carve out a hole in a 32nd-story window, and then employing advanced cyberwarfare techniques to compromise our data centers,” said Bezos, who added that users merely need to have their demolitions expert blow through a 7-foot steel barrier and reach Amazon’s highly complex cloud storage system to access the audio captured by Alexa. “If, by this point, you haven’t been detected by our surveillance system and attracted the attention of our CIA-trained super soldiers, you’ll only have to wait while your team’s martial arts expert silently neutralizes several armed guards and cuts out one of their eyeballs to open the doors secured by retina scanners. Then, assuming you’ve trained for months in a full-scale model of our headquarters that you built in an old warehouse to plan your exact path through this labyrinth, it’s a relatively straightforward matter of uploading the nanovirus and shooting your way out of a building that is rigged to self-destruct within 60 seconds of a data breach.” Bezos added that once customers complete this process, they will still need to erase the backup copies of their Echo data stored in the drive he wears around his neck, a task that requires finding him in Amazon’s caverns miles below Seattle and fighting him to the death.
I just dictate my posts and writing to Alexa.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/technology/alexa-siri-hidden-command-audio-attacks.html
May 10, 2018
Alexa and Siri Can Hear This Hidden Command. You Can’t.
Researchers can now send secret audio instructions undetectable to the human ear to Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant.
Many people have grown accustomed to talking to their smart devices, asking them to read a text, play a song or set an alarm. But someone else might be secretly talking to them, too.
Over the last two years, researchers in China and the United States have begun demonstrating that they can send hidden commands that are undetectable to the human ear to Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant. Inside university labs, the researchers have been able to secretly activate the artificial intelligence systems on smartphones and smart speakers, making them dial phone numbers or open websites. In the wrong hands, the technology could be used to unlock doors, wire money or buy stuff online — simply with music playing over the radio.
A group of students from University of California, Berkeley, and Georgetown University showed in 2016 that they could hide commands in white noise played over loudspeakers and through YouTube videos to get smart devices to turn on airplane mode or open a website.
This month, some of those Berkeley researchers published a research paper that went further, saying they could embed commands directly into recordings of music or spoken text. So while a human listener hears someone talking or an orchestra playing, Amazon’s Echo speaker might hear an instruction to add something to your shopping list.
“We wanted to see if we could make it even more stealthy,” said Nicholas Carlini, a fifth-year Ph.D. student in computer security at U.C. Berkeley and one of the paper’s authors.
Mr. Carlini added that while there was no evidence that these techniques have left the lab, it may only be a matter of time before someone starts exploiting them. “My assumption is that the malicious people already employ people to do what I do,” he said.
These deceptions illustrate how artificial intelligence — even as it is making great strides — can still be tricked and manipulated. Computers can be fooled into identifying an airplane as a cat just by changing a few pixels of a digital image, while researchers can make a self-driving car swerve or speed up simply by pasting small stickers on road signs and confusing the vehicle’s computer vision system.
With audio attacks, the researchers are exploiting the gap between human and machine speech recognition. Speech recognition systems typically translate each sound to a letter, eventually compiling those into words and phrases. By making slight changes to audio files, researchers were able to cancel out the sound that the speech recognition system was supposed to hear and replace it with a sound that would be transcribed differently by machines while being nearly undetectable to the human ear.
The proliferation of voice-activated gadgets amplifies the implications of such tricks. Smartphones and smart speakers that use digital assistants like Amazon’s Alexa or Apple’s Siri are set to outnumber people by 2021, according to the research firm Ovum. And more than half of all American households will have at least one smart speaker by then, according to Juniper Research.
Amazon said that it doesn’t disclose specific security measures, but it has taken steps to ensure its Echo smart speaker is secure. Google said security is an ongoing focus and that its Assistant has features to mitigate undetectable audio commands. Both companies’ assistants employ voice recognition technology to prevent devices from acting on certain commands unless they recognize the user’s voice.
Apple said its smart speaker, HomePod, is designed to prevent commands from doing things like unlocking doors, and it noted that iPhones and iPads must be unlocked before Siri will act on commands that access sensitive data or open apps and websites, among other measures.
Yet many people leave their smartphones unlocked, and, at least for now, voice recognition systems are notoriously easy to fool.
There is already a history of smart devices being exploited for commercial gains through spoken commands.
Last year, Burger King caused a stir with an online ad that purposely asked ‘O.K., Google, what is the Whopper burger?” Android devices with voice-enabled search would respond by reading from the Whopper’s Wikipedia page. The ad was canceled after viewers started editing the Wikipedia page to comic effect.
A few months later, the animated series South Park followed up with an entire episode built around voice commands that caused viewers’ voice-recognition assistants to parrot adolescent obscenities.
There is no American law against broadcasting subliminal messages to humans, let alone machines. The Federal Communications Commission discourages the practice as “counter to the public interest,” and the Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters bans “transmitting messages below the threshold of normal awareness.” Neither say anything about subliminal stimuli for smart devices.
Courts have ruled that subliminal messages may constitute an invasion of privacy, but the law has not extended the concept of privacy to machines.
Now the technology is racing even further ahead of the law. Last year, researchers at Princeton University and China’s Zhejiang University demonstrated that voice-recognition systems could be activated by using frequencies inaudible to the human ear. The attack first muted the phone so the owner wouldn’t hear the system’s responses, either.
The technique, which the Chinese researchers called DolphinAttack, can instruct smart devices to visit malicious websites, initiate phone calls, take a picture or send text messages. While DolphinAttack has its limitations — the transmitter must be close to the receiving device — experts warned that more powerful ultrasonic systems were possible.
That warning was borne out in April, when researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign demonstrated ultrasound attacks from 25 feet away. While the commands couldn’t penetrate walls, they could control smart devices through open windows from outside a building.
This year, another group of Chinese and American researchers from China’s Academy of Sciences and other institutions, demonstrated they could control voice-activated devices with commands embedded in songs that can be broadcast over the radio or played on services like YouTube.
More recently, Mr. Carlini and his colleagues at Berkeley have incorporated commands into audio recognized by Mozilla’s DeepSpeech voice-to-text translation software, an open-source platform. They were able to hide the command, “O.K. Google, browse to evil.com” in a recording of the spoken phrase, “Without the data set, the article is useless.” Humans cannot discern the command.
The Berkeley group also embedded the command in music files, including a four-second clip from Verdi’s “Requiem.”
How device makers respond will differ, especially as they balance security with ease of use.
“Companies have to ensure user-friendliness of their devices, because that’s their major selling point,” said Tavish Vaidya, a researcher at Georgetown. He wrote one of the first papers on audio attacks, which he titled “Cocaine Noodles” because devices interpreted the phrase “cocaine noodles” as “O.K., Google.”
Mr. Carlini said he was confident that in time he and his colleagues could mount successful adversarial attacks against any smart device system on the market.
“We want to demonstrate that it’s possible,” he said, “and then hope that other people will say, ‘O.K. this is possible, now let’s try and fix it.’ ”
Well, I don't know about this Scheme thing
me neither, lol i barely read a paragraph ;^)
I can write stuff to automatically generate table of contents
the question is whether it is more costly, letter-by-letter, than the original way
every time i see one of these generators, they present themselves as more costly and rigid than free and direct html writing
you mention the index's an example, but you can do this at no cost at all, all you need is a decent text-editor and a minimum knowledge of regex :3
in fact, you do not even need that shit or another more complex nonsense if you add articles to the index organically
you should not waste even five seconds adding another article by hand when creating a new one
;;;input a new article and a new id
1. duplicate the predecessor <li>
2. paste the [article] title and idno bullshit, that is it, folks
is more convenient to write for me than
it is not more convenient, could not be... i would agree if you said it was more rox [or elegant] but
this pseudo-cl is a full-direct reference of the html code, which [i presumed] you have fully mastered
so, consequently, the "new-way" cannot be more convenient than the html code itself
it would be like pig-latin been more convenient than english
your pseudo-cl is even one character longer lol and has the same number of special-char than the html one
Also the automatic header generation, being able to make changes to all the pages
what changes? and what are these changes that cannot be made using, uh, do not know, maybe just one little <sed> command?
seriously, i manage a website of a "société savante" which is entirely made of static pages, and the site is considerably large
since myself-cave-man wrote it, in 2006 a.c, the only change i made to the header was:
1. switch from xhtml-basic 1.0 to xhtml 1.1
2. add viewport and larger icons for smartphone-assholes
if you write everything right and well, the only change you will make for good between the <head>es is the title
oh more, as a website with [academic] publications, i have to add dates to the pages as well
do you know how i do that and how much did it cost me? strftime, one hotkey
and that is just useless lazyness, because it would cost me no shit to write eight numerals ;--)
>>45
xD
Why do you even need a website?
Simply design a curses interface for your information display system.
Users can SSH into your server (without needing password or key) to access the system to view whatever articles you have written.
Users can SSH
Garbage bloat filth, use telnet instead.
https://www.telnetbbsguide.com/bbs/connection/telnet/list/brief/
here comes the unblotted-king
>>53
What is the use of "minimalism" if it is made using Internet Explorer, contains spyware and invalid HTML?
HTML of https://www.berkshirehathaway.com
<!-- Global site tag (gtag.js) - Google Analytics -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-136883390-1"></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag('js', new Date());
gtag('config', 'UA-136883390-1');
</script>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title>BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.</title>
<meta content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828"></head>
...https://www.berkshirehathaway.com is an example of objectively bad website design:
* It is ugly.
* It is wrong.
Man, just export UTF8 .txt from org-mode and share it via Gopher and HTML.
<!-- Global site tag (gtag.js) - Google Analytics -->
* Google Analytics declared illegal in the EU. https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/google-analytics/
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.
* Call on Warren Buffett to stop union-busting https://actions.sumofus.org/a/buffett-rail-workers
* Boycott, Divest and Sanction Corporations That Feed on Prisons https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/06/boycott-divest-and-sanction-corporations-feed-prisons
* Tell Warren Buffett: Stop Your War On Rooftop Solar https://act.climatetruth.org/sign/buffett_solar/
* New Report Exposing Corporate Donors of Attacks on Voting Rights and Peaceful Protest https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2021/05/10/new-report-exposing-corporate-donors-attacks-voting-rights-and-peaceful-protest
* Report Reveals Major Corporations Are Funding Lawmakers Behind Anti-Democracy Bills https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/05/10/report-reveals-major-corporations-are-funding-lawmakers-behind-anti-democracy-bills
Wordpress. And they have different version in the market now. http://www.realworldfatos.com/2019/04/os-melhores-temas-para-wordpress-para-novos-sites.html
Use saait as a basic HTML frame.
And you can choose any way you want for the core HTML contents. For example generate HTML from lisp using schemebbs/lib/html.scm, or markdown if you like using smu. org-mode can export HTML files either.
saait: https://codemadness.org/saait.html
smu: https://github.com/Gottox/smu
Gopher sucks because it requires SSL/TSL encryption/verification, and those are known to suck, because certs and shit - they are distributed in central services, unfortunately.
Other than that - very nice.
I haven't really looked into Gopher.. but I am interested, as apparently - it predates WWW I mean SHITSHITSHIT
You probably confuse Gopher with Gemini. Gopher doesn't require encryption and I believe it's not even possible to apply certs to Gopher connection.
Gopher has a nice structure and comfy plain-text representation of content. I consider it an advanced FTP, though some enthusiasts post phlogs, etc.
I believe it's not even possible to apply certs to Gopher connection.
what locked down operating system are you on