The official hack testing thread
-
I dropped into this thread here and did actually say "what the fuck"
Congrats to all involved
-
This post is deleted!
-
I WANT IT NOW<lowercase shit so this fucker doesnt fail>
-
I WANT IT NOW<lowercase shit so this fucker doesnt fail>
You should have quoted @RTapeLoadingError so we'd know what you want. Since he/she/it deleted the post you replied to, we'll never know.
-
It was deleted before I posted, that's why I flagged it to PJH or whoever and then posted about it.
-
Please send any requests for information to:
RTapeLoadingError
PO Box 99
The Daily WTF
The InternetDon't forget to enclose a SAE!
-
Don't forget to enclose a SAE!
I'll just wait for @PJH, I'm not spending a forever stamp on this shit!
-
I'll just wait for @PJH, I'm not spending a forever stamp on this shit!
@PJH won't rat me out. We had a bonding moment over Rockville, Maryland.
-
Damnit!
I... uh... drove through Maryland once!
-
-
<meter min="0" value="1" max="1">CENSORED</meter>Credit goes to @darkmatter
-
Woah, what happened? The title was unhacked, but all of a sudden — without any action from me — it became rehacked.
Pre-post edit: ah, I get it. I had scrolled up momentarily and the title hack became active once the proper post finished loading.
-
<div align="center"><big><sup>[...]
Credit goes to @darkmatter
Nice.
I wonder if you could get a thophy icon aligned with your username with this...
[EDIT] OK, done.Filed under: Let’s use <meter value="1" max="10"></meter> while it lasts, I miss <progress>
-
Filed under: <a href="#">Let’s use <meter value="1" max="10"></meter> while it lasts</a>, <a href="#">I miss <progress></a>
QFT.
-
-
That doesn't look like a native widget.
There, I fixed it:
(sorry for the flickering)
-
Thanks Zecc - that exploit was pretty close to being a SignatureGuy stand-in... I'm sad to see it go.
-
It's gone? Nooooooo... I forgot to screenshot!
-
I forgot to screenshot!
There are a couple of screenshots of me screwing with the like icon covering it with spoilerplate. And a screenshot of my original reply to @sam telling him they had another bug to fix.
But yeah, all the good stuff didn't get immortalized. I hate it when the fix is retroactive :( stupid CSS.
-
And if only it were red on a black background and moved a bit slower, we could recreate KITT.
-
-
Didn't Infini-scroll™
-
Just looks like you were laughing really hard for a long time!
@chubertdev said:<hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr><hr>
-
I like how quoting things breaks things.
-
I like how quoting things breaks things.
As @codinghorror has said many, many times, quoting breaking everything is by design.
I'm not joking.
-
Oh, I know. The fact it isn't everything but nearly everything is even funnier. It's like poetry in motion, if poetry means WTFs.
-
It's like poetry crashing into a wall that someone put there without telling it.
-
This kind of poetry? After all, it's poetry in motion here too.
-
It's like poetry crashing into a wall that someone put there without telling it.
The Ferrari->brick wall moment of poetry.
-
As @codinghorror has said many, many times, quoting breaking everything is by design.
I sometimes have the impression that the "by design" wtfs annoy the users of this forum far more than the bugs.I'm not joking.
I wish you were.
-
Yes, we all understand that bugs happen, but the by design WTFs are so much worse because while bugs are accidental but fixable, by design means 'fuck you'.
-
I sometimes have the impression that the "by design" wtfs annoy the users of this forum far more than the bugs.
Definitely!
-
Probably because when most of us say "It's working as designed" to a user, what it really means is, "Your specs were piss poor or flat out wrong and now it's doing exactly what you told me you wanted it to do despite all my protesting about how bad of a plan that is, so this is my little way to say fuck you."
And since nothing here was requested or specced by us at all, it's a real asshole move to respond to legitimate problems with, "working as designed", as if it's somehow our own fault it sucks.
-
Yes, we all understand that bugs happen, but the by design WTFs are so much worse because while bugs are accidental but fixable, by design means 'fuck you'.
Infiniscroll is a by-design bug. Leaking content out of its <div> isn't, nor are any of the multitude of bizarre things in Markdown (all of which just count as proof that regexps are no substitute for having a fucking clue).
-
A bug is generally unintended behaviour. Infiniscroll is a design feature, but one that is not considered a bug, making it a by design WTF not a by design bug, and as such is also a 'fuck you'.
The multitude of breakage is usually because of bugs related to questionable implementation on top of bad design. Like the 'let's accept every fucking thing as input', that's bad design and leads to many many bugs. But it's theoretically possible to have a model that accepts everything without being completely broken, it just makes the bug hunting phase that much more complex and laborious because of stupid design WTFs.
-
all of which just count as proof that regexps are no substitute for having a fucking clue
Especially since regexes are at their most dangerous when you use them without having a fucking clue.
-
the multitude of bizarre things in Markdown (all of which just count as proof that regexps are no substitute for having a fucking clue).
Corroboration of said statement is this reply: by design all formatting in replies is undone, but the "underscore" markup passes and is still working in the quote.
-
Corroboration of said statement is this reply: by design all formatting in replies is undone, but the "underscore" markup passes and is still working in the quote.
The fundamental problem is that they're trying to do this all without having an actual model of the content of the post. The right thing would be to have such a model, to parse what we write into an instance of the model (which will also de-fang any nasties), and then to render the model into HTML out the back when baking the posts. Robust, well-defined, what's not to like?
Well… that depends on whether you're @codinghorror…
-
As @codinghorror has said many, many times, quoting breaking everything is by design.
It's well known that formatting your text is a barrier to reading.
-
http://php-mivexil.rhcloud.com/test.png
Let's see if I can break @system .
-
redirectloopingbastard!
-
Well, Ruby's implementation of redirect loop detection looks pretty much like this:
raise "HTTP redirection loop: #{uri}" if uri_set.include? uri.to_s
I guess it still times out, though. Either that, or @apapadimoulis is looking at a hefty network usage bill right now...
-
Hmm.
Hmm.
-
I believe that if you scroll up, it should have followed the redirect for approx 5 seconds, correct?
-
Not really. Pretty much since I posted it at ~17:00 according to log timezone, until I took it down at 18:00, I've had a very steady stream of requests from WTDWTF IP. There's no interval bigger than 6-7 seconds.
Either there was a lot of traffic to this post, or @system doesn't give up.
-
Let the dosing begin. 10 pics pls
-
I would, but I left my PPK keys at home.
I could just post the log, stripping all non-WTDWTF IPs first in about 8 hours or so.
-
Testing something in Ember...
Hello there reload!
Edit.
-
Test post for @onyx.
-
Have to do it on this one, new users, images...
Leakage?