4 ms·

In theory won't it now take just as long to transmit the link as it would to transmit the content itself? I get that this is cool from a "can't take it down" s

by habosa 13y ago

In theory won't it now take just as long to transmit the link as it would to transmit the content itself? I get that this is cool from a "can't take it down" standpoint but I feel like if you're going to have to copy and paste a link containing the entire content you might as well just copy and paste the content. Then again, you could just offload the work to bit.ly and get around that issue.

roryokane 13y ago
Shortly compresses the text using the DEFLATE algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE) followed by Base64 encoding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64) before storing it in the URL. Base64 increases the size of data by 33%, but DEFLATE usually decreases the size by more than that. Thus, the link will usually be shorter than the content.
- habosa 13y ago
  I'm sure it will be somewhat shorter than the content but it will definitely be in the same order of magnitude and likely within a factor of 2. A link that is half as long as its content is pretty unwieldy and will take non-trivial time to transmit at longer lengths. Sort of defeats the point of a link in the first place.
  - calinet6 13y ago
    Yes. You might as well just send a gzip'd file directly. It will be higher compression than Deflate (or if not, use BZip or 7zip), won't have the Base64 overhead, and (gasp) won't depend on a web service to decode. It also has the distinct advantage of not being really friggin annoying. In other words, this is entirely useless, except as an amusement. Because it's funny how useless it is.
    - jychang 13y ago
      Well, no. To people, a pastebin.com/asdovnasdofnvopdsisadvasdfgv link is just as unmemorable as a base64 encode of an actual 1kb code data. However, nowadays, if I have a 1kb snippet I want fairly securely shared, sticking it in a chat box isn't a problem.
    - lelandbatey 13y ago
      Well, except that it's a web site. That's why I would be attracted to this: it's something that I can send to anybody and it will always, always work. No hassle.
      - calinet6 13y ago
        True, as a service in that respect it's useful. But it still seems a bit unreliable. Accidentally clip a character off the URL and you're basically screwed.
        tfb 13y ago
        You could say the same about any computer generated (hashed) URL.
    - dbaupp 13y ago
      Gzip is just a container format around DEFLATE.
chii 13y ago
this judge already exist, but what about magnet uri for torrent? they are also hard to take down and can be used to transmit data
colbyh 13y ago
Seconded on offloading the work to bit.ly (or at least an option to). I'd rather click a box to give me a bit.ly link back since you're not /truly/ running without a server here. And/or throw the url to a hidden box on the screen that will automatically copy when I hit cmd/ctrl C. Fun trick otherwise.

by habosa 13y ago

roryokane 13y ago

Shortly compresses the text using the DEFLATE algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE) followed by Base64 encoding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64) before storing it in the URL. Base64 increases the size of data by 33%, but DEFLATE usually decreases the size by more than that. Thus, the link will usually be shorter than the content.

habosa 13y ago
I'm sure it will be somewhat shorter than the content but it will definitely be in the same order of magnitude and likely within a factor of 2. A link that is half as long as its content is pretty unwieldy and will take non-trivial time to transmit at longer lengths. Sort of defeats the point of a link in the first place.
- calinet6 13y ago
  Yes. You might as well just send a gzip'd file directly. It will be higher compression than Deflate (or if not, use BZip or 7zip), won't have the Base64 overhead, and (gasp) won't depend on a web service to decode. It also has the distinct advantage of not being really friggin annoying. In other words, this is entirely useless, except as an amusement. Because it's funny how useless it is.
  - jychang 13y ago
    Well, no. To people, a pastebin.com/asdovnasdofnvopdsisadvasdfgv link is just as unmemorable as a base64 encode of an actual 1kb code data. However, nowadays, if I have a 1kb snippet I want fairly securely shared, sticking it in a chat box isn't a problem.
  - lelandbatey 13y ago
    Well, except that it's a web site. That's why I would be attracted to this: it's something that I can send to anybody and it will always, always work. No hassle.
    - calinet6 13y ago
      True, as a service in that respect it's useful. But it still seems a bit unreliable. Accidentally clip a character off the URL and you're basically screwed.
      - tfb 13y ago
        You could say the same about any computer generated (hashed) URL.
  - dbaupp 13y ago
    Gzip is just a container format around DEFLATE.

chii 13y ago

this judge already exist, but what about magnet uri for torrent? they are also hard to take down and can be used to transmit data

colbyh 13y ago

Seconded on offloading the work to bit.ly (or at least an option to). I'd rather click a box to give me a bit.ly link back since you're not /truly/ running without a server here. And/or throw the url to a hidden box on the screen that will automatically copy when I hit cmd/ctrl C. Fun trick otherwise.