[pmoriarty]

Any chance these could ever be released as videos on youtube or vimeo? Or as a simple downloadable .mp4 (or format of your choice)? Or as a collection of still images?

I ask because I'm wary of letting untrusted websites run javascript in my browser, and try to avoid it as much as possible.

With the above options I can just use youtube-dl to download the videos (or download the videos directly in the case of a simple link to an .mp4) and play them in my video player without having to run any untrusted javascript.

[VBprogrammer]

That's the most entitled comment I've read in a while.

If you really are that worried why not create a virtual machine for browsing untrusted things.

[pmoriarty]

"That's the most entitled comment I've read in a while."

What's so entitled about asking?

I'm not demanding anything nor insisting that I have a right to it.

It's a simple request. Nothing entitled about it.

On the other hand, I find your baseless, unfounded accusation rather insulting.

"If you really are that worried why not create a virtual machine for browsing untrusted things."

Because my old, slow laptop is too weak to run a VM.

Not everyone is so fortunate to have a powerful enough computer to run a VM whenever they need to browse an untrusted website.

That's not to mention that there are ways to break out of a VM, so it's not the best solution as far as security goes anyway.

In any case, if you think running a VM is a valid response, I don't see why you'd be so aghast at asking for a much simpler, much less resource-intensive way of viewing the content: by using a simple downloadable video.

Of course the receiver of the request is under no obligation to comply. In fact, they usually don't because people like me who care enough about their security to want to avoid javascript are in the tiny minority, and can be safely ignored. I'm well aware of this, but it doesn't hurt to ask, does it?

[VBprogrammer]

I feel it was entitled because you asked for them to:

a) spend a non-trivial amount of time creating a work around for you.

b) release artistic control of their content in a way in which it will be shown to people alongside adverts and whatever else these platforms decide.

c) a video would likely be larger than the original generated version, or suffer from video compression artifacts.

[Hnrobert42]

It was a simple request with a good explanation. The author can say no.

[lostgame]

I agree with pmoriarty in their statement that this is not only uncalled for; but offensive.

Nothing about that comment suggested pmoriarty felt 'entitled' to it - they were simply asking if it was an option / available.

[raindropm]

Well, it feel entitled because he mention about don't want to 'let untrusted websites run javascript in my browser'. Said untrusted website however, is the author's website. And it feel like the author need to answer these personal request.

I mean, it may technically true in every way, just not a nice way to ask for something. He can simply just ask(hell, I'd love that too) without giving his personal technical reason and it will feel a lot nicer.

Sometimes you don't have to say every single details...

P.S. I don't think OP has evil intention though. In the end it's matter of different perspective.

[pmoriarty]

I hope the person I responded to was not offended by some random stranger revealing that they didn't trust the javascript on their website, and would prefer a safer alternative.

I also have to disagree with the advice to keep my reasons for wanting a video secret. I feel it's important for content creators, executives and the many javascript developers on HN to be fully aware that javascript is a dangerous technology, which is not trusted by people like myself who care about their privacy and security.

I try to point this out every opportunity I get, and will continue to do so, so people can't claim they had no idea that javascript was so horrible because no one ever told them.

Javascript is horrible, and requiring your viewers to expose themselves to security vulnerabilities in order to view your content is not ok.

[sokoloff]

I understand your principled point of view (and I did not downvote), but at some point this becomes akin to a vegan or climate change activist chiming in on posts about steak-cooking techniques. It’s not wrong per-se[0], just pretty tiresomely off-topic if you point it out every time.

We get it. 1 in perhaps 1K web users doesn’t like Javascript. If you use it, your TAM shrinks to 99.9% of what it could otherwise be.

[0] - I think the danger is similarly blown out of proportion to the harm

[pmoriarty]

One of the reasons that so many people are ok with javascript is that they're ignorant of the risks they're exposing themselves to by using it.

This includes even places like HN, where I've had people claim that JS was completely secure and refused to believe there were any JS vulnerabilities until they were shown proof.

So, yeah, my option is to stay silent and conform, and let everyone have a pleasant time at their steak dinner without mentioning that I'm vegetarian for ethical reasons and either eating their steak or going hungry.

Incidentally, both vegetarianism and environmentalism have become much more popular over the last few decades, while they used to be very fringe positions, far out of the mainstream. They didn't become popular by people staying silent about them.

You might say there's a time and a place for everything, and the reveal of artwork that's powered by a javascript website is not that time or place, but I say what better time or place is there?

This is the best opportunity for awareness to be raised.

That said, I didn't intend to derail this thread in to an anti-javascript screed, but if people are going to start calling me entitled simply for asking for a direct link to a video so I don't have to run their javascript, then I'm not just going to swallow their insults. I'm going to respond.

[hombre_fatal]

Agreed. If your setup in 2020 is to ask people for a non-JS version, it's time to put in a little work yourself to run a VM instead of asking other people to do work for you.

Time to learn self-reliance and resourcefulness.

[alanbernstein]

The argument underneath this comment is unbelievable. I wonder if anyone arguing tried to just search for this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qnzfY4aODUc

[ranit]

> The argument underneath this comment

Keep in mind that the comments order changes in time and your comment may not stay above the comment you (tried to) point.

[alanbernstein]

I was referring to the siblings of my comment, being "underneath in depth" the parent in the tree, not "underneath in vertical pixels" my comment. It seemed unambiguous at the time, but clearly not.

[pmoriarty]

That's the original Zoomquilt, which is not either of the videos I asked about.

[alanbernstein]

Ackshually, you said "these" on a page about Zoomquilt 1, in a thread about Zoomquilt 2 and Arkadia, which is not specific. And my comment was meant to suggest that you can simply search youtube to find all of them. But here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zeVrWsTHE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB8tohkO-bM

[bovermyer]

The trick here is that it's meant to be an infinite loop, so "give me da Yooo Toobs" isn't gonna work here.

If you don't trust JavaScript in general, then just accept that you can't experience this, and move on. No hard feelings.

[pmoriarty]

"The trick here is that it's meant to be an infinite loop, so "give me da Yooo Toobs" isn't gonna work here."

Except it would work perfectly, as I'd just download the video using youtube-dl and then play it in mpv, which can easily loop the video.