EDIT: And in case that isn't clear. Imagine you have a botnet, and all of the individual members create a twitter account. All of the twitter botnet accounts follow the 'master'. Who can tweet a command (and corresponding authentication key) to the botnet to say "follow chuck and do up to n things for him, here is his public key". Now Chuck suddenly has all these followers and when the time is right he tweets out his command, "ddos my greatest enemy" and adds his 'proof'. Off they go and blast his enemy. If he was only allotted one command then they all un-follow him.
Basically its social media for botnets.
The part where it gets weird though is that twitter already has massive botnets which run around in it retweeting things and what not. Which they do not shut down. So is that because they don't want to? Because they can't? or simply because it isn't worth their time? That is still an unresolved question for me.
Some are shitty, but that seems considerably harder to detect.
Then you can double dip - sell what the content of the command/abort messages are (or just allow for 'padding' messages for advertising in between) and suddenly your botnet doubles as a completely legitimate social media firm
Super bonus round: Launder your money from botnet activities through the social media firm's books
(I am, of course, kidding)
Spam botnets ain't nothing new. They'll ways be around.
Before you came into my life
I missed you so bad
The one improvement to the public project I'd suggest is from my own. Instead of always starting from index 0, for each character position, increment the starting index by one until it loops around. That way all of the emojis get a roughly equal chance of screen time - depending on the entropy of the unencoded data, of course.
 I called mine "basemoji".
> For example, using Base64, up to 105 bytes of binary data can fit in a Tweet. With Base65536, 280 bytes are possible.
>The emojis used are in emojis.json. There are 843 emojis there, but the converter reads sequences of 8 bits at a time, and so only maps the value to the first 256 of them.
One byte per emoji means 140 bytes per tweet. Since it's just a joke format they're not trying to be space efficient.
Using all 843 emojis would result in 170 bytes per tweet (ln 843 / ln 2 / 8 * 140).
It's "hilarious", you're missing out on "a witty insight" about "valuable programming skills".
alt post: it's as much of a joke as xkcd's "I understood that reference" performance pieces.
I certainly agree that overuse of quotes makes a comment pretentious!
I'm not going to pretend that it's not true (after all, the author is a geek and wants to share that with other people -- there are plenty of comics for "non-geeks"), but it's definitely not true of _every comic_.
> The emotional response they evoke in the viewer is based on, "I know something that other people don't"
Personally, the xkcd comics I find funny are the ones I relate to (the same with any joke). In particular, this one on Machine Learning was especially funny to me because someone in my research group recently started looking at neural nets to analyse stellar spectra and we had a similar conversation with a similar conclusion.
Just because very few people might relate to a particular comic doesn't mean that they relate to that comic because they like feeling superior (they might, but that's not what the comic is trying to do).
lol good one
Wait, are you a chicken? Is the classic galline joke not funny to you because you can't relate to a bird?
When you talk about finding that xkcd funny because you could relate its situation to a personal experience, I feel that was evoked from the feeling of nostalgia/coincidence; that certainly can be funny, but it's definitely not a joke.
Take the "people under the orange sun/red sun" joke from My Three Suns (Futurama S01E07, 1999): it's not funny just because it's a callback to the same joke in Homer and Apu (The Simpsons S05E13, 1994); or because it's satirizing the derivative "white people/black people" comedy routines (e.g. Eddie Griffin) inspired by the set from Richard Pryor: Live in Concert (1979).
It's funny because the comedian walks in a funny way, and talks in a silly voice. Very few people I know would walk & talk like this, yet (even without being able to relate to it) I can enjoy its humour. The multi-layered reference make it a deep joke, and the timing/acting/context make it a good joke.
My issue with xkcd is that it only uses the reference part, seeing that many great jokes include callbacks to other jokes, but missing the "being funny" basic requirement of a joke.
Here's some counter-examples:
* Most of Brazil is funny for many different reasons. Yes, it has references to 1984, and the style and acting are very necessary to make the jokes work. But everyone can relate (in some way) to the extremely over-blown life of the protagonist -- someone who is stuck in a system working a job they hate with endless bureaucracy. What makes it funny is how blown out-of-proportion it is and how transparent the internal inconsistencies are.
* Rick and Morty is a complicated subject to approach (it has many, many different layers of humour), but some of my favourite jokes come from cases where Rick or Morty reference things that I e with. For example, the whole "inception is so hard to understand" concept was part of a very funny quip where Rick tells Morty that "he doesn't have to impress him" when Morty says "inception wasn't hard to understand". There are many other instances of that.
Again, I don't understand your point. Why are you arguing about what's funny? I thought we concluded a long time ago that humour was subjective. Why are you telling me what should and shouldn't be funny?
For example, I don't think that clip was very funny. But that's just me.
No, I don't. That's something I mentioned that makes a joke good, but you're ignoring what I said makes a joke a joke: the silliness leading to a catastrophic collapse of a pre-conceived understanding into a different but plausible model.
You seem determined to be right about this. Again, note that I do not claim that these kind of performances aren't funny (since that is a matter for the beholder); but that they are not jokes, and their barrier to understanding is exclusionary and elistist.
You might have a different definition of joke to me. Is a joke not something that is said or done to cause amusement or laughter in the audience?
> the silliness leading to a catastrophic collapse of a pre-conceived understanding into a different but plausible model.
That sounds like a _type_ of joke, but it's quite reductionist to claim that "all jokes must be like this".
...wait, you mean, like, for other people?
Twitter characters can actually store up to nearly 31 bits each, if you’re using the JSON API. (Or at least, this was true in 2010. I don’t know whether this is still true.)
Base-122 encoding is 87.5% efficient in UTF-8, better than anything listed in the base65536 repository’s comparison table.
I'd appreciate some feedback.
I'm sure it's true, just curious why.
I fricking love qntm.
Manage to make 1 point at 𤄻𣺻𣼋耈𣺻興𣼫兊𠨋𢪄𡚻𡢁𢙌𢚻𠛀𣪻栌𤄋𤯄𤆻𤆠𠞠𤪇𤆻𠙀𤅴𤆧𣪤𡚻𥪹炌𤆀㶸聙𡊰𠨌𡪻𤇅𤆀薠嫊䂔𔔌𥩋㲼耈𠊁繈倘𤨸𣾔㼬𤚱𢩋𣿋𡉌膹敃ꎹ𡩋肐𠝒𠚬醸聛㰩
The C implementation is not a callable library, it's a binary. So in the same sense, it's a "Unix shell -accessible implementation".
When I refer to a Python C extension, I refer to it as a C implementation, even though the express purpose is to be callable from Python.
IMHO, the environment a utility is natively accessible from is more relevant than the language it was written in.
Edit: If you didn't look at the repo, this encoding was made to post HATERIS replays on Twitter.
Edit: Only 3 points so far 𤆂𤆻𡚻𤆥㲺着遈𥮸㼉𤄛皲𤆻孈𤇆𡊾缎𓍌𤂻职𢪻郇膻𤅋𠅌傺𢊰䡪𤇄𤪤𡪻ꋇ𥆸𤶹膺𢡋聜𠆬𤪄膹𠬋㿄𠘬臀㾤冹𣾻𡈰𠭀䂹𤄔㼌𤚐𤢰𢢻𤇀𤞁䂺㬅𢉋𤮹㼆𣛄𡫀𤚒㡋𤢀ᖠ
Either way, it's a neat piece of thinking.
Overall though, I like it and look forward to Base131072 being possible!
- you're sending big byte arrays over json/xml
- you cannot switch to a more efficient medium
- (but you can make your remote counterpart adopt a different encoding)
- and you still need to maximize your throughput
then I guess you might consider base85 for utf-8 or base32k for utf-16?
It had a feature where it automatically would try a couple of compression algorithms on the text to be able to cram even more into a single tweet.
I don't think it has a practical use, but it was fun to make.
Pathological, certainly; "illegal"?
In their copyright-infringement case against Xio Interactive, a judge ruled that aspects of the game such as the dimensions of the game board (which the HATETRIS developer took pains to replicate) are protected by copyright.
Tetris is one of the most aggressively defended game IPs out there. Any recognizable clone of it is potentially infringing.
I certainly wouldn't give such aggressive behavior any unwarranted credence by presumptively calling a clone "illegal"; on the contrary, I cheer on creative developments like this.
Theoretically game rules cannot be protected in this way, but if you draw the wrong judge, too bad for you. Unless you have several years to kill and the $lots required to take a case up through every level of appeals where you still might lose in the end, I recommend against building a for-profit Tetris-like game.
Games which are "substantially similar" to other games infringe copyright. It doesn't matter if the assets and code are all original, etc. This is settled copyright law.
In any case, it'd also be much harder to prove any harm caused by a variant like this, which is designed specifically to be un-fun, as difficult as possible, look nothing like the original, and not have any commercial interest at all. Which makes the presumption of illegality entirely inappropriate.