Somebody took 'undefined behavior means that your compiler may optimize out large swathes of code in favor of execve("/usr/games/nethack"); way too seriously" :-)
I was going to protest the full Lena image without a NSFW warning, but hadn't realised the full story of its history[1]...
The site in general is a beautiful work of art, a great blend of attention to detail with comedy of computing in that era.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna - tl;dr is this iconic test picture for computer imaging was a cropped Playboy centerfold from 1972. I've just finished a PhD which included a fair bit of image processing, but I was unaware of the story behind this iconic image.
You were going to protest it? And do you think anyone would care about your protest? Do you really expect everyone else to annotate the entire internet on your behalf? Despite the fact that this is a totally random, joke website that is almost certainly not work related?
What about people in countries or workplaces where "unacceptable" is a far broader and more oppressive net than "contains nudity", or places where nudity is fine? For whom do we annotate the internet? Maybe you should just disable auto-load of images in your browser or install a nudity filter.
You're overreacting to a very small and not very relevant part of their comment which probably just meant "making a comment about the NSFW nature of the image". Not "i'm going to make a sign and force everyone to stop using this website".
Who complains about stuff on someone else's website not being tagged NSFW? It's their website, they didn't name it workrelated.com -- I just thought "protest" sounded a little extreme and a sign of our sensitive new culture, where we each expect everyone else to tiptoe around us. Maybe I misinterpreted.
I think its a cool site. I was thinking of showing it to high school students I teach summer courses to, but its probably not appropriate for them. That's why labels are helpful - nude images weren't ok in schools or work in the 'old culture' either. As art or entertainment (as this website in general was intended), I think there is wide license to the creator, but I think there is still some duty to a website creator to consider what else people might want to use it for.
> I think there is still some duty to a website creator to consider what else people might want to use it for.
I could not disagree more with this opinion. The creator presumably hosts this website on her own dime & invested the time and effort to create this piece of art - and you are connecting to their server, free of charge. I don't see how you could reasonably claim that they have a "duty" to do anything.
You're right that an image of a nude woman would be make this unacceptable in a school setting - however, it is your duty to vet the content that you show in class, not the other way around.
Finally, I don't see what educational purpose this would serve - as it's not like this is actually an OS, perhaps as an example of html5/js programming or nostalgia. In fact the whole thing is a JS app, so there is nothing stopping you from running it locally, where you can edit to your heart's content. Ironically the first JS file I clicked on (desktop.js) contains the shortcut definitions for the desktop.
I think you've amplified an out-of-context statement to try and start an argument, and in fact part of my point is that the main responsibility would go to the teacher. But I would say there is still some responsibility for a creator - duty can be held by multiple parties. As an analogy, if I were to break my leg cycling on someone else's private property, there may be some liability held by the land owner depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction. Hence the popularity of 'No Trespassing' signs in these jurisdictions. My background is in medical device design, and we are trained to obsess over the ways that users might cause harm through incorrectly using a product - even if this incorrect use is from ignoring the instructions. If an artist made a sculpture, they may be responsible if the sculpture crumbled onto someone.
As an educational purpose - my idea would be mainly to show it as a fun start to a discussion around product design evolution, computing history, and emulators. The kids I teach were born about a decade after this era of computing, and it would be interesting to see what they perceive to be similar and different. Most of these students have done very little or no coding themselves so the implementation isn't relevant for this use.
My purpose was not to start an argument and I certainly respect your right to an opinion, I just strongly disagree.
I don't think an artist has a duty to anyone but themselves, especially on the internet. Should medical devices be designed so that they don't harm people? Definitely. But the factor there is that you're actively selling/distributing it to the public - or at the very least, you are making certain guarantees about the function of the device.
This website/artwork makes no such guarantees and as such I don't see how you can reasonably expect that it should tailored to any specific audience. Again, in the time that you and I have spent commenting on this - you could have either PM'd a mod to add a NSFW tag to the title, or modified the site itself to suit your needs - that's what's awesome about the internet.
> I think there is still some duty to a website creator to consider what else people might want to use it for.
Am I the only person baffled by this? Does the world now revolve around every passer-by?
Why is the creator's duty to do anything other than satisfy his own artistic urge? Why does what someone else wants to do with his art matter? He kindly provides access, he isn't forcing anyone to view it. Where do you draw the line on what concessions he should make for someone else? What sort of absurd concessions might someone demand?
What you want sounds like a cascade of chilling effects, self-censorship, and second-guessing.
Also it's odd that you think a bare ass is not appropriate for for high school. How long do you imagine the psychological scarring from that might afflict them? At what age do you think it is appropriate to set foot in an art museum?
If you want this account not to be banned, you need to never post like this again. It blatantly violates the guidelines, which ask you to comment civilly and not to call names.
Thank you for the reminder. The emphasis on civility is one of the reasons I like this site so much and I am ashamed I let myself lose control like that.
The part that impressed me the most is you can drag and drop files from your own desktop onto this. It even opens those files in it's own editors when you double click the icon.
This is a work of art. The ProgressQuest game loading screen is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. Like all well-told jokes, it's in the timing.
ProgressQuest[1] was an actual "game" many years ago. It was kind of the progenitor of the current incremental/idle games. Looks like its basically the whole thing compiled to this ui.
Sort of :) Explore the "c drive" to learn about the libs. I couldn't find an uncompressed version of the main code, but in the Chrome devtools most scripts are uncompresed.
Accidental "works best in browser X" 90s reference right there.
I find Safari superior to every other browser on any platform in every possible metric except for dev tools, which took a nose dive when they ditched the open source WebKit one for this calamity.
The joke isn't "works best in IE" the joke is "Safari is the default browser that ships with the OS, few people get a better browser, and even though it's a piece of shit you have to continue supporting it."
>I find Safari superior to every other browser on any platform in every possible metric except for dev tools
I could remove nearly 15% of my CSS if I stopped supporting Safari at work and I wouldn't need a hundred different quirky workarounds to make the sites look even remotely how they're supposed to look. It fights me every inch of the way and then has some of the worst dev tools for debugging where any issues are.
I'd rather support IE8 for eternity if it means I never have to write another `@media screen and (min-color-index:0) and(-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio:0) {}` in my CSS again.
I've been writing CSS for years, everyday, don't remember the last problem I've had with Safari or any other modern browser, as a matter of fact.
I do get an ocasional glitch with Firefox, but it's very rare.
Perhaps if you described the problems you experienced instead of the hacks you are using to identify Safari this could be a more fruitful conversation.
Safari is a freaking amazing browser, lots of people use it by choice.
I create websites for the healthcare industry. I know exactly what I'm saying. There are some clients that I still need to write IE7 fallbacks for - and a single client that I still write IE6 fallbacks for. Lucky for me our contract has dropped IE7-9 support by default unless it is specifically requested by the client.
Apologies, but offhand I can only think of flexbox issues (specifically related to wrap/min-width, which has been fixed in version 11) and with interactive form validation (which was only just fixed in version 10 or 10.1). I run into various issues when testing on iPhones and the largest section of edits caught in any internal QC are always iPhone/Safari related. With relative certainty nowadays - if it works in Firefox, it works in Chrome and Edge. But then I always need to write some workaround or another for Safari.
The biggest issue is that even when these bugs are fixed - I still need to support them for an extended period of time because for whatever godforsaken reason, Safari updates are tied together with operating system updates. Want the newest Safari? Buy a new iPhone. It's the Windows XP/IE8 problem. Where IE8 had to be supported only because many users were still using XP and couldn't upgrade to IE9 even if they wanted to.
Safari is not an evergreen browser and that's a fair criticism.
However, you can run the latest browser and OS (and most people do) on a 5 year old device, which is about as much as the battery will last anyway. The situation is much worse on Android.
Those using IE6 also thought it was the best for a long time. Only because developers adhered to it's quirks, though, so stuff worked there (and not in "better browsers"). In the same way people accommodate Safari today, otherwise you would have felt left out a long time ago.
>Those using IE6 also thought it was the best for a long time.
And it was. Is was also closed source and had its own ideas of what standards mean (even though its “version” of the box model actually makes more sense and it's generally preferred by most developers today. Oh yeah, and Ajax.)
Webkit, on the other hand, is open source and a huge proponent of standards compliance.
> /c/files/documents/private/SUPER TOP PRIVATE/THIS IS PRIVATE STOP/WHAT ARE YOU DOING/WHAT STOP PLEASE/I DID NOT GIVE YOU PERMISSION/PRIVATE GET THE HELL OUT/YOUR HURTING ME STOP/HOW HAVE I WRONGED YOU/I WILL PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE/PLEASE STOP ITS PRIVATE/I HATE YOU/
This site has a uncanny attention to detail: The C-drive inside "Virtual PC" differs from the C-drive in the "host OS"!
Given that kind of zealotry, it irks me that you can launch an infinite amount of nested "Virtual PCs". Obviously it makes for some fun screenshots and is technically impressive in itself, but Windows early on never allowed you to run Virtual PC inside Virtual PC. So this is clearly wrong!
In short, not considering OCD, where do I file the bug-report? :)
So apparently Symantec Endpoint Protection thinks that the Virtual PC app is some kind of "Fake App Attack", and thus cuts off network communication for 600 seconds.
Just curious, is anyone else hearing popping sounds when they click on various things? Unsure if its intentional, and if so, trying to emulate an old hard disk seeking or speakers popping from interference.
Otherwise, kudos to the devs for creating this amazing work of art!
I suspect it just uses the original levels as is. I replayed E1M1, and literally every single thing - items, secrets, even wall decorations - was where it was in the original map (don't ask me why I still remember these things...). The only differences are in replaced graphics. Also, the secret room elevator does take you to the secret map, which, at the first glance, also looked like the right thing.
