Constructing the Word's First JPEG XL MD5 Hash Quine
51 points
7 days ago
| 3 comments
| stackchk.fail
| HN
throw0101d
26 minutes ago
[-]
One of my saved HN comments from @Retr0id:

---

    Beware of having too-small fingerprint hashes though, or not checking enough of the digits.

    $ echo -n retr0id_662d970782071aa7a038dce6 | sha256sum
    307e0e71a409d2bf67e76c676d81bd0ff87ee228cd8f991714589d0564e6ea9a  -
    
    $ echo -n retr0id_430d19a6c51814d895666635 | sha256sum
    307e0e71a4098e7fb7d72c86cd041a006181c6d8e29882b581d69d0564e6ea9a  -
---

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38668893

reply
zygentoma
1 hour ago
[-]
This is soo cool! Especially the prediction machine stuff. I had no clue this was possible.

And also at the same time a good reminder for everyone to find a browser that supports JPEG XL. I wonder if that was part of the reason to do this. :)

reply
embedding-shape
1 hour ago
[-]
> And also at the same time a good reminder for everyone to find a browser that supports JPEG XL

That's probably furthest down on my list of features I look for in browser, where the top two are "Not run by a for-profit company living on extracting data from users" and "Can have tabs vertically in sidebar in a tree-based structured format".

reply
MrAlex94
37 minutes ago
[-]
Waterfox might be what you’re after?

- Supports JXL out of the box (including support for alpha transparency and animations)

- Vertical tabs with optional tree tabs (hired the original tree style tab developer to implement the feature)

- For profit, but I don’t want your data, collect it or use it to earn a living (telemetry/analytics/experiments disabled at build time and alongside a fair few patches on top to make sure external connections are limited to what’s necessary)

Sidebar, I’m the developer of Waterfox

reply
embedding-shape
12 minutes ago
[-]
Firefox (with minor changes + addons) is what I use today, works well for what I care about. Thanks for the recommendation though!

While you're here, last time I came across your website (and it seems like it looks the same currently), I noticed that your browser comparison is not including Firefox, which is what you've forked from (as far as I can tell at least, it isn't made clear by the landing page actually, but the UI and name makes it obvious), which feels like it's a bit misleading almost intentionally.

reply
wild_pointer
36 minutes ago
[-]
In the era of LLM-generated content, such a high-quality writeup is a breath of fresh air. Well done!
reply