[throwingcookies]

> The blog is still online and only exists as a part of a harassment campaign targeting archive.today

The blog has a lot of more posts on random topics. Why do you imply that the owner of the bloh is part of a harassment campaign and "only" that is the reason for this years old blog to exist?

[JasonADrury]

Because all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today?

[Mogzol]

Not true: https://gyrovague.com/2025/02/23/anatomy-of-a-boarding-pass-...

There are only two posts about archive.today on the blog, and one of them only exists because archive.today started DDoSing them. I fail to see how you could consider the entire blog to be a "harassment campaign", especially considering that the original blog post isn't even negative, it ends with a compliment towards archive.today's creator.

[winkelmann]

> all the content in the past 4+ years is about archive.today

But it's not? This was published between the two posts about archive.today: https://gyrovague.com/2025/02/23/anatomy-of-a-boarding-pass-...

[JasonADrury]

Okay, there's one filler post I missed. I'm sure it took a lot of time to write the 16739382nd post explaining what the various things on a boarding pass mean.

[ahhhhnoooo]

They have posted twice in four years. Once doing some digging into who runs archive today, and a second time to respond to a ddos attack.

Writing about being ddos'd seems eminently reasonable. So if you elide that, you are talking about a single article in four years.

It's genuinely nothing.

[JasonADrury]

The purpose of a thing is what it does.

[throwingcookies]

> The purpose of a thing is what it does.

What is the purpose of the DDoS JS in the archive website then? Not DDoS?

[jrflowers]

This is a weird way of saying that you wish gyrovague updated more frequently. You could just say “Big fan of his writing, I’d love it if he posted more” if your only complaint is that there aren’t enough recent blog posts on that website