16 ms·
Please disable JavaScript to view this site
- forgotmypw17 6y agoNice, I wouldn't have known without the title :)
- aftbit 6y agoBut there's nothing on this site once you do disable JavaScript. I was hoping for a 2020 take on a server-side rendered web app.
- teknopurge 6y agoI see what you did there.... In other news, possibly the best designed website of 2020: http://www.muskfoundation.org/ http://www.muskfoundation.org/
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoDoesn’t work with https, which i guess shouldn’t surprise me given it’s sparse nature.
- mtmail 6y agoSimilar a company with 250 billion USD revenue (2019) https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
- s1k3s 6y ago"Reproduction or distribution of any materials obtained on this website or linking to this website without written permission is prohibited." https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html What? :)
- mark-r 6y agoHaven't the courts ruled you don't need permission to have a link?
- s1k3s 6y agoDidn't even know this was a thing.
- Spivak 6y agoJust make sure that all your links are copyrighted works (authored by you of course) and then DMCA anywhere the link appears.
- dane-pgp 6y agoThat's so crazy it might just work. I checked an article about copyright protection for short phrases[0] and learnt that a court ruled that the text “I may not be totally perfect, but parts of me are excellent” is protected by copyright. It would thus be possible for the author of that phrase to register: i-may-not-be-totally-perfect-but-parts-of-me-are-excellent.com and sue anyone who links to them. Hopefully the author will be so grateful for this insight that they won't sue me for reproducing their copyrighted work in this comment. [0] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection...
- vulcan01 6y agoFrom one of my previous comments in another thread (this past week, probably): > IANAL > What I think they mean by this is that you shouldn't link to resources on their website to make it seem like they endorse your (product, website, whatever). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25153873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25153873
- ciarannolan 6y agoThere's an ad for Geico insurance at the bottom, lol. What's the deal with that?
- jrockway 6y agoBerkshire Hathaway owns Geico.
- astura 6y agoGeico is a BH company. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/subs/sublinks.html https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/subs/sublinks.html
- ciarannolan 6y agoRight, still a little odd to have... > FOR A FREE CAR INSURANCE RATE QUOTE THAT COULD SAVE YOU SUBSTANTIAL MONEY WWW.GEICO.COM OR CALL 1-888-395-6349, 24 HOURS A DAY ...on the homepage of a quarter-trillion dollar company, with no other ads.
- edgyquant 6y agoThe website is really old in the early days of the web this was normal as you didn’t have the ability to check for these things via google.
- nxrabl 6y agoEven that website uses Javascript though (to add a Yahoo tracking pixel, it looks like. What is there even to track?)
- Scarbutt 6y agoNumber of visitors per day, country origin, etc...
- fastball 6y agoNo HTTPS tho.
- teknopurge 6y agoIt doesn't need https.
- SquareWheel 6y agoOf course it does. Otherwise intermediaries can inject ads, tracking, spoof the content, or even redirect it to a malicious page.
- teknopurge 6y agohttps does not 100% prevent any of those things.
- charrondev 6y agoHow can someone spoof the page/inject ads if the site is served over https? They would need to have compromised one of the root certificates on your machine to not give you a giant security warning. In modern browsers there’s not even a button to bypass them (although I know I chrome you can type “this is unsafe” to a hidden input in the error page and it will let you bypass it temporarily).
- teknopurge 6y agoMITM - https termination at a gateway or proxy.
- usr1106 6y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-musks-secretive-foundation-benefits-his-own-family https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-...
- pugworthy 6y agoThe crazy thing is, it's been like that for YEARS.
- sebmellen 6y agoIs there a NoScript equivalent for Chrome on Android?
- forgotmypw17 6y agoYes, it's built into the browser. First, go to "Site settings" and disable it globally. To make a site-wide exception, click on the icon in the address bar and enable it for the site there. It used to be crippled and unusable, but they fixed it recently. I also recommend Bromite on Android.
- sebmellen 6y agoYes, I'm using Bromite actually. Thanks for the note, it's been a while since I looked.
- Zebfross 6y agoI prefer making all my sites work just as well without JavaScript as with it. This is cool though if you need a quick check to see if JavaScript is enabled.
- ljm 6y agoOn my own site, any JS flourish has a noscript fallback. There's nothing major there in the first place, but it makes me happy to do that. The other rule is that the JS is all hand-written. No frameworks or other dependencies.
- darepublic 6y agoI've also been tinkering more with no framework js, although it's by way of typescript and webpack. And it's really fun, I think there are a lot of cases where you can just opt out of react or bootstrap if you know what you're doing
- MrStonedOne 6y agonoscript is sadly, not perfect, but works if you stay 1st party. A great way to make your browsing better is to disable 3rd party scripts by default and whitelist when needed, but <noscript> fails to work in those conditions.
- stan_rogers 6y agoYou're thinking about Noscript the plugin. <noscript> is also an HTML tag that can contain content for use when the browser isn't running JS, but which would yield a cleaner page if not present when JS is running.
- MrStonedOne 6y agono, im thinking about noscript, the html tag. if you disable 3rd party javascript, (using ublock origin or others) noscript tags don't trigger because scripting is still technically turned on and noscript tags aren't assigned to the script they compliment so the browser has no way of knowing which ones to run or not run in the 3rd party situation.
- timdaub 6y agono
- amiga-workbench 6y agoIts quite an amusing counterpoint to the interventions required to make the average JavaScript laden site usable.
- thex10 6y agoThanks to this I learned how to disable JS on iOS Safari. An annoying number of clicks. So thanks for that I guess
- cbsks 6y agoIs there a way to disable JavaScript per website on iOS? Or an alternate iOS browser that supports it?
- kreeben 6y agoI do that with Firefox + uBlock Origin. FF is available on mac.
- srgpqt 6y agoI use Purify ad blocker only for its JavaScript blocking option. I can re-enable JavaScript on a per-site basis by going through “Purify Actions” from Safari’s Share Sheet. I combine this with another ad blocker (Wipr) to block everything else.
- ilikepi 6y agoDo either of those deal with YouTube ads? The old iOS ad blocker I've been clinging to has stopped blocking YouTube ads recently.
- srgpqt 6y agoYes, Wipr blocks the ads. You get white nothingness instead of ads, and hyst have to click the “skip ads” button.
- beervirus 6y agoExcellent. I’ve been looking for a way to do this.
- patrec 6y agoYou can assign a keyboard shorcut to that easily (I bound it to Cmd+Shift+J and find it super-handy): https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mchlp2271/mac https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mchlp2271/mac If someone knows how to achieve the same on Linux for Chrome and Firefox, I'd love to hear it (browser plugins are a bit of a security and stability shitshow, so non-plugin solution would be preferred, all else being equal).
- alpb 6y agoFor those using Chrome, this is easy as clicking the lock icon next to the domain name in the address bar, then "Site Settings".
- brianzelip 6y agoStop using chrome
- userbinator 6y agoI wonder if there's a "please downgrade your browser to view this site" variation...
- jandrese 6y ago"This site is designed for IE6." And it's mostly a big ActiveX control.
- KMnO4 6y agoPlease take a seat before clicking this. And yes, it is still actively used by Walgreens. https://webapp.walgreens.com/SupplierNet/login.htm https://webapp.walgreens.com/SupplierNet/login.htm
- Arnavion 6y agoI can't even load the page because it requires TLS 1.1, heh.
- meibo 6y agoStop using the fastest browser with the best feature set, dev tools and compatibility
- usr1106 6y agoSo running untrusted code on your computer is a bad thing. Well, it should be in a sandbox, but that has many intentional and proably some less intentional holes to do stuff on your machine. So how do I trace what Javascript is doing on my machine? Generally mitmproxy gives a feeling what sites the browser talks too. And strace gives often a good feeling what a Linux binary does. But the browser is too big and complicated to read strace output in most cases. Can anybody recommend a tool to look what Javascript code loaded by a certain page is doing?
- cortesoft 6y agoChrome dev tools? You can step through every JavaScript call
- krapp 6y ago>Can anybody recommend a tool to look what Javascript code loaded by a certain page is doing? Almost all modern browsers have debug panels that will list all of the requests made by a page, assets cached, cookies and local db, and of course it's trivial to just view the source of a site and read the javascript if it isn't compressed.
- usr1106 6y agoYes, I am aware of dev tools. I use them to look at network requests or to "steal" my own credentials for curl usage. Haven't really used the Javascript debugger, but my guess would be completely infeasible to follow everything a random "modern" Web site might do. And as you say some Javascript might be compressed or obfuscated. What I really would want is a somewhat higher level / more filtered approach: Like strace lets me just trace file operations for example.
- TJSomething 6y agoI'm not sure if it always works on all APIs or browsers, but you can wrap and replace DOM API objects with logging proxies. Additionally, you can set breakpoints on event handlers and Chromium has deobfuscation built in. You can usually tell approximately what's going on by stepping through the code and watching the variables in local scope.
- morphicpro 6y agoBut how many disable their ssl to view the site once blocked for not running on https
- CodeWriter23 6y agoIn my view, micrototalitarian actions like this are every bit as bad as the ills they seek to cure. Insisting on infringing the liberty of others, before even so much as talking to another person is the very core of what ails our society in this time.
- fastball 6y agoI'd argue that wild histrionics as you have just demonstrated are worse than whatever this is (which certainly does not infringe on anyone's liberty).
- eeZah7Ux 6y agoSpot on.
- CodeWriter23 6y agoIt infringes my liberty to browse with JavaScript enabled. Further, when the argument is lost, ad hominem becomes the tool of the loser.
- fastball 6y agoYou don’t have a right to browse someone else’s content. Calling out your histrionics for what they are is not ad hominem. I’m attacking your statement, not your person. Further, that’s not some sort of axiomatic law, that’s just a phrase. Even if it was, losers using ad hominem doesn’t mean winners don’t, that’s not how logic works.
- bigbubba 6y agoHe may have insulted you, but not all insults constitute logical fallacies. Ad hominem: You're wrong because you're an idiot. Just an insult: You're an idiot because you're wrong. Furthermore, concluding that somebody is wrong because they used a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy. If I said "2+2=4 because you're an idiot" my reasoning would be fallacious, but to conclude that the answer must therefore not be four is also fallacious.
- 6y ago
- Joeboy 6y agoAfter disabling js I get a blank page in Firefox. Is that right? CBA to decipher the source or work out how to disable js in Chromium.
- pmontra 6y agoI disabled it with 4 taps in uBlock Origin, Firefox Android. Open menu, Add-ons, uBlock Origin, the JavaScript icon. Then another tap to reload the page, the back button and the site did show.
- Joeboy 6y agoFair enough. For me, using the "Toggle js on and off" extension on Firefox 83.0 on Ubuntu, I see a blank page.
- tyu2 6y agoThe reason you see a blank page is because the website wraps content into a <noscript> tag and by "disabling javascript" it wants you to render <noscript> content, not actually disable javascript. But it's a bad idea in practice. Most websites work better out of the box if you disable javascript, but not render <noscript>, and also disable CSS, and inject some custom style to fix size of embedded icons. I'm not sure if there is a public extension that does that though.
- tempestn 6y agoI really don't think that's true. For one thing, anything beyond static content sites are just not going to work. And even content sites could well be unusable without their layout CSS. I really don't see the point in subjecting oneself to such hassle. I would suggest that most websites work better if you have javascript and CSS enabled, since that's what they were designed for, but use an ad blocker like uBlock matrix to remove the ads.
- fastball 6y agoIt's a personal CV-type website. Here[1] is the link to disabling JS for a site in Chromium. [1] chromium://settings/content/javascript
- s1k3s 6y agoThis website does not track you. Correction -> This website does not track you via JS. You have no idea what's logged on the backend.
- devwastaken 6y agoYe olde days of tracking just used invisible .gifs and every click was a different webpage so they just tracked which ones were requested to gain interaction metrics. JS doesn't have any magic to it, location information is opt-in, but your IP is a much better advertising identifier.
- darkwater 6y agoIP behind NAT or CGNAT is not that useful, but many mobile browsers (especially cheap Androids) leak so many trackable details through headers that makes easier to uniquely identify devices/users
- deckard1 6y agoback in the '90s I was into connecting to IRC servers using spoofed IP addresses. The way it worked is you told the software what OS you were connecting to (or it would figure it out itself, I can't recall). Each OS had a unique way of generating TCP sequence numbers, which allowed the software to guess which number would come next. Nowadays OSes have protection for this sort of thing. But I'd imagine you could still fingerprint an OS like that. Combine that with TLS, HTTP, etc. specifics and you could narrow it down quite a bit I bet.
- ezequiel-garzon 6y agoAny guesses as to why the source code look the way it does? I was expecting a traditional website inside the noscript tags, but instead I found an obfuscated soup letter between them.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoIt's an inline SVG image. That alphanumeric soup is the coordinates of the points (and handles) of a line. Scroll past that, and you get the website. I have no idea why they made the SVG image inline but the CSS style external, though. That same image is used on every page.
- londons_explore 6y agoAncient webserver that didn't serve the correct mime type for svg?
- wizzwizz4 6y agoPerhaps… but calling the SVG a `.png` and transcluding it into a smaller inline SVG file would still have worked in the vast majority of browsers.
- bangonkeyboard 6y agoOnly inlined SVG can have its elements styled by CSS.
- mr_toad 6y agoAnd in-line SVG can have it’s DOM modified, allowing the image to be interactive. Of course, you’d need to have JavaScript enabled to do that...
- reanimus 6y agoYeah, putting out obfuscated content while making a statement against client-side JS is very ??? to me
- IceWreck 6y agoFor those looking for an easy way to disable JS, uBlock Origin has a button to disable it
- pqdbr 6y agoIf using Chrome, you can use Cmd+Shift+C to open DevTools, Cmd+Shift+P to open command palette, and then type 'disable javascript' and hit enter.
- jefftk 6y agoOr click the lock in the address bar, "Site settings", set "javascript" to "block". This will be sticky across the site, for better or worse.
- dredmorbius 6y agoCan also be default disabled, then permitted for selected sites.
- thought_alarm 6y agoIf using Safari, use System Preferences to assign a shortcut to the "Disable Javascript" menu command (I use command+K).
- ghayes 6y agoThis is also a great resource for getting around JavaScript-based paywalls.
- ghastmaster 6y agoBrave browser has a fairly simple process as well. It requires two clicks. Click on the shield on the top right, then click on the "Scripts Blocked" toggle button.
- yuskii 6y agoThe irony of using JavaScript to block JavaScript is not lost on this user
- afterburner 6y agoSafescript blocking scripts by default didn't do the trick. Using Ublock Origin to block javascript did though.
- gkoberger 6y ago"I have spoken on stages all over the world, including at Fronteers, Beyond Tellerrand, and JS Heroes" Would love to have heard that final talk!
- thih9 6y agoI wish that page showed or linked to a guide with the fastest way to disable js with a given browser + os combination.
- userbinator 6y agoAs someone who has JS off by default for a long time (ever since I discovered how much it could remove annoyances, and this was back when SPAs were basically nonexistent) and is thus often subjected to "Please enable JS" messages which more likely than not will simply make me click the back button[1], I am delighted to see this exists --- I've thought of the idea before, but never did anything with it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11411982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11411982 [1] I once enabled JS on a site that claimed it would provide "a better experience", and was bombarded with a bunch of ads and other irritations that just made me turn it off again. It was not a "better experience".
- nullc 6y agoIt didn't say who it was better for...
- h_anna_h 6y agoAs someone who has JS off by default (via uMatrix) I see a blank page.
- calcifer 6y agoI use NoScript and it works fine for me.
- Arnavion 6y agoYou need something to enable the `<noscript>` content to be rendered, like a uBO dynamic rule `no-scripting: $hostname true`. uM doesn't do that.
- chrismorgan 6y agoI think it depends on how you disable it. Anecdotally, I think it’s “if no scripts are executed on the page, render <noscript> content, but if any scripts at all are executed, don’t”.
- 6y ago
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoHow nice! I hope others support this trend so that the web is clearly split into two: (1) the traditional one, document-based, and (2) applications. Both are very useful, but (2) comes at a price not everybody wants to pay.
- janpot 6y agoJoke's on you, I viewed the content without disabling javascript
- Finnucane 6y agoYou have to turn off js to see the site, but then turn it back on to see the linked gallery. That seems a bit inconvenient.
- jraph 6y agoI expected this to be implemented with something like document.body.textContent = "Please disable JavaScript to view this site" on page load. Which would be enough to work. It's actually exactly it, but with the extra precaution of wrapping the entire page inside a noscript tag. Hilarious. I guess it's useful to avoid having a chance to see the content during a flash, before the script executes. A good contrast with web pages which are not apps telling you "This app requires Javascript to run".
- anoncake 6y agoMost developers don't even care that much about their work, their sites just silently break without Javascript.
- franklampard 6y agoNo thanks, bye.
- identity0 6y agoOk.
- drusepth 6y agoAnyone have a screenshot or mirror of the page with Javascript already disabled?
- setgree 6y agoI am not a developer, and I learned how to disable JavaScript in Chrome to read this site, out of curiosity. I then checked a few other sites and learned * Washington Post no longer has a paywall * anandtech.com is seemingly unaffected, but tomshardware.com is very different (and less pushy) * SoundCloud says "Oh no! | JavaScript is disabled | You need to enable JavaScript to use SoundCloud" * nationalreview.com is broken -- I can only read a few paragraphs in a NR PLUS story, and there's no way to keep scrolling (I can read the article fine in another tab) * An article I co-wrote, published in a Cambridge University Press journal, is now sans tables and figures, but the console reports no errors or exceptions. An interesting experiment! Overall, it seems my internet experience is better without JS (but reading an academic article online is way worse).
- tempestn 6y agoI must say, I don't understand the disable JS movement. I browse with JS on, and uBlock Origin to block ads. It's rare that I have any javascript-related problems in my web browsing. On the other hand, I definitely use a number of sites that rely on javascript for useful purposes. If you're worried about tracking, you can block ads and tracking scripts without disabling javascript. If you're worried about viruses, well, all I can say there is that in my experience and understanding, if you keep your browser updated, the odds of getting a virus via browser JS are exceedingly low. Doubly so if you're not frequenting sketchy sites. I don't know, it seems to me like advice from a time before security was a priority for browser makers, and high-quality ad blockers existed. At this point, I really don't see the value.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zamalek 6y ago> If you're worried about viruses [...] Not to mention that a host of vulnerabilities were image related a few years back (one of the original rookits exploited a TGA bug). > uBlock Origin Honestly, this is the antivirus of the web. I helped my niece set up my old computer for Minecraft today, and she was explaining how her friend had installed viruses (adware, really) 3 times. Every one of those instances was caused by download link confusion for Minecraft mods. Disabling JavaScript isn't going to save you from being tricked into downloading shady software, only an adblocker will.
- mikedilger 6y agoWow, something is wrong with uMatrix. I have uMatrix with 1st party javascript disabled by default. Yet this site says "Please disable JavaScript to view this site." To be sure, I curled the source and hosted it elsewhere, and my browser (firefox 84.0b4 on linux with uMatrix) still runs the JavaScript.
- Arnavion 6y agoThe JS is inline. Neither uM nor uBO static rules block that. The only way to block it is a uBO dynamic rule `no-scripting: $hostname true`, which you'll also need to be able to render the `<noscript>` content anyway. BTW, you probably want to move off of uM given gorhill has abandoned it in favor of uBO. (I converted all my rules to a mix of uBO dynamic rules for JS and static rules for everything else, except for cookies which I still use uM for because uBO can't manage them.)
- wuuza 6y agoIs there a guide for moving from uMatrix to uBO? uMatrix works exactly how I want/expect... BTW, the site works as expected with my Linux/Firefox/uMatrix setup... the inline scripts are disabled by default and I see the page content. I'm not sure why GP had issues.
- Arnavion 6y agoFor a uM rule like: foo.com bar.com css allow which means "allow foo.com to fetch css from bar.com", the corresponding uBO static rule is: @@||bar.com^$domain=foo.com,css,allow The full list of things that can be allow/block'd by uBO is at https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#static-network-filtering https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#... I have a "block everything by default" rule at the top that's: *$css,font,frame,media,object,ping,script,websocket,xhr *$image,redirect=1x1.gif *$csp=worker-src 'none' @@*$1p,css,frame,image which means: 1. Block a bunch of things by default. 2. Block images by replacing them with the built-in 1x1 GIF instead of canceling the request. 3. Disable web workers by setting the CSP worker-src. 4. Override the previous rules by allowing first-party CSS, frames and images. (The @@ means it's an override rule.) (The fact that my default is to block everything is why the first example I gave above starts with @@ too.) Web workers can be allowed on a per-site basis by overriding the csp directive with a reset: @@||foo.com^$csp Lastly, I have a dynamic rule to allow `<noscript>` tags to be rendered: no-scripting: * true Then, for every static rule where I enable JS for a domain, I add a corresponding `no-scripting: $domain false` in the dynamic rules. It's annoying to have to move between static and dynamic rules when deciding to enable JS on a site, but I'm not sure there's a better way. Neither static nor dynamic rules individually support everything that uM could do - static rules can't block inline JS nor render `<noscript>` content, and dynamic rules can't block every kind of request. Static rules are also nice in that you can have empty lines and comments and arbitrary ordering of your rules, so it's easier to group rules in sections based on the domain names, add comments, etc. Dynamic rules however are like uM's rules and are forced to be sorted by domain name with no empty lines or comments.
- tacitusarc 6y agoWell, I went through the trouble of disabling javascript and was treated to an utterly mundane blog site with astounding insights worthy of a 22 year-old, such as "if you're a libertarian you're just being exploited by the capitalists, man."
- eyelidlessness 6y ago> This website will not [...] tell you fibs That's literally the only thing it did until I reconfigured my browser to access it. It's a misuse of `<noscript>` and it's completely unnecessarily intruding on how I use my own computer to access the content. I thought that was the kind of thing people here (especially the anti-JS people) frown upon.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI’ll add that I’m currently building a website, taking great care that it will be fully operational without JS, and progressively enhance components where there’s some interaction I want to provide to people who accept it. I wholeheartedly agree that there’s way too much JS trash on websites, and that it’s all sorts of vectors for abuse. But this kind of hamfisted response is really painfully unhelpful. You don’t have to browse with JS enabled, and you’re welcome to encourage people to make the web work without it again. But making content inaccessible without finding an obscure browser setting isn’t going to appeal to anyone except the people who are already locked and loaded. My philosophy is: set a good example, make the benefit clear, and communicate with other devs who might not realize the horror show they’re sending down the wire/executing in their users’ browsers. But forcing people to figure out how to disable something increasingly hard to disable before they can even hear you is not good communication. I only clicked the link because I was hoping there would be a regular site under default config and some special treat with JS disabled. Progressive enhancement. That would have been a clever and compelling execution.
- enw 6y agoI’d love to get rid of JS for my personal sites, but I know of no clean and simple way to render dynamic content otherwise. Server-side rendering seems a bit messy. I want a clean REST API separate from the UI. How can I generate pages with dynamic content easily? Ideally with absolute minimal dependencies.
- cyral 6y agoCheck out next.js. You can write vanilla React basically but fetch the props from an API prior to rendering on the server.
- dreamcompiler 6y agoA REST API is purely a server-side issue, so you don't need JS for that (unless your server is Node of course). You still need Ajax (at least) for truly dynamic content. The bad news is that Ajax requires client-side JS. The good news is minimal Ajax functionality only takes about 30 lines of pure Javascript. The bad news is you will need to write those 30 lines yourself because every JS library is at least 100x bigger than that and packed with cruft you don't need. My advice is to pretend React doesn't exist, learn Javascript, and write just the Javascript you need and no more.
- xboxnolifes 6y agoThat still uses Javascript, and that seems to be the parent's point.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 6y agoSome Onions do this. I think it's a conflict between Tor trying to be mainstream as possible and Onions trying to reduce users attack vectors, JavaScript has been used against users on Tor.
- k_sze 6y agoErm... I have no idea how to turn off JS, globally or for particular sites, in Firefox for iOS.
- couchand 6y agoIt's worth noting that this is the personal website of Heydon Pickering, a prolific (and opinionated!) writer and speaker on web design. He's the force behind Inclusive Components [0] and half of Every Layout [1]. Watch his videos. Check out his articles on A List Apart and in Smashing Magazine, among others. Pay attention, he's very thoughtful and you'll probably learn a lot. 0: http://book.inclusive-components.design/ http://book.inclusive-components.design/ 1: https://every-layout.dev/ https://every-layout.dev/
- JBiserkov 6y agoI wanted to read the source, but it was all on 1 line, so I fed it to https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fheydonworks.com%2F&showsource=yes https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fheydonworks.c...
- unnouinceput 6y agoRight click -> View source -> Ctrl+A (select all) -> Ctrl+C (Copy to clipboard) -> Open your preferred text editor (mine is Notepad++) -> Ctrl+V (Paste from clipboard) -> Replace ">" with ">\r" -> enjoy the source reading. Takes max 10 seconds, on any site. Can you do it in less than 10 seconds using that validator?
- JBiserkov 6y agoThat would give you new lines, but not indentation.. But my point was that the markup is invalid.
- marksmillibend 6y agoA small snippet to add to your nojs sites. https://ghostbin.com/paste/kupyj https://ghostbin.com/paste/kupyj Shows a banner "You Don't Need JavaScript to Run This Site (turn it off here)" It's a response to all the "You Need JavaScript to Run This Site" banners we see everywhere even on plain text/image sites.
- slmjkdbtl 6y agoFor a personal website for showcasing their works I think requiring JavaScript turned off is a little too far.. I removed JavaScript from my sites to improve accessibility and user experience, but for this I have to go to settings and turn off JavaScript, which is worse user experience than having JavaScript on the site.
- g5095 6y agojavascript-golf challenge: expose the content of heydonworks.com from the browser console using only javascript.
- g5095 6y agocurrently exploring view-source:https://heydonworks.com/ https://heydonworks.com/ by deconstructing the rendered source and injecting the output back into the body..
- danielearwicker 6y agoThis must be the most unnecessarily awkward way of doing it (have to do it from the console after navigating to the site, so the request is allowed). fetch("https://heydonworks.com").then(x => x.text()).then(x => { var f = document.createElement("iframe"); document.body.append(f); f.style.left = "0px"; f.style.top = "0px"; f.style.width = "100%"; f.style.height = "100%"; f.style.position = "absolute"; f.style.border = 0; x = x.replace(/\<\/?noscript\>/gi, ""); x = x.replace(/\<script\>.*\<\/script\>/gi, ""); f.contentDocument.write(x); });
- foobazzy 6y agoI must say I had to look for how to disable JS in Firefox + uBlock. As someone pointed out, there's a button on uBlock to disable it. I didn't quite spend so much time on Firefox preferences but I didn't find the option. I'm sure it's there somewhere You can open developer console, go into it's settings and look for Disable Javascript. Checking the box will disable JS and reload the page.
- jangid 6y agoThis really nice work. Even the audios and videos are using the browser built-in standard features. Look at the /artifacts page.
- edhacks 6y agoIsn't this one to steal Facebook session? Didn't look at the code but the fact that you get Facebook page "translate" seems weird. I have seen same link posted on Facebook.
- outloudvi 6y agoWorth mentioning: Twitter legacy, which does not require Javascript, will be shutting down in 15 days. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088561
- danielearwicker 6y agoIt ought to be possible for the page to disable JavaScript with a meta tag: <meta name="noscript"> The browser could put an extra icon next to the https padlock so the user would know they were viewing a document rather than an application.
- labawi 6y agoThere seem to be a HTTP header[1] you could use. No icon though. And I'm not sure how much the restriction could be evaded by interactive Turing-complete CSS or similar features. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Co...