1. 9
  1.  

  2. 6

    Pretty easy to cheat if you recognize those integers and can write a for loop. I was hoping for better art, though…

    1. 2

      Lol, no way, it was worth it. All the effort and mystery around something so kitsch. I’m glad I got to experience this.

      1. 2

        The artist told me that was intentional. I think it was interesting, whether intentional or not.

      2. 2

        The URL is a timestamp, measured in seconds.

        1. 2

          This reminds me of two things:

          • a digital book by William Gibson (Agrippa?) that erased itself as it was read
          • a post I saw years ago about bands consciously choosing names that were hard to google
          1. 2

            This seems like a neat concept, but decays pretty rapidly if too many people try to see it. The link I get expires before I get there. Then again. Then close tab.

            1. 2

              This is the point of the project.

              As quoted by the author: “This is an experiment in introducing artificial scarcity into digital work.”

              (Source: https://twitter.com/donald_hans0n/status/949490885586075651)

              1. 1

                To be fair, the further out it gets, the less often anybody actually views the art and moves it further out. But yes, you either have to be lucky (arrive early), cheat, or burn a lot of energy.

                1. 1

                  After days of trying not to cheat, I gave up and went for the screenshot posted on Twitter.

                  To be fair, the further out it gets, the less often anybody actually views the art and moves it further out.

                  That doesn’t seem to be how it’s going. Not any time soon. If it doesn’t distinguish bots from browsers, quite possibly never. If it does, then maybe in a month or several, or maybe years.

                  1. 1

                    Excluding bots/scripts written specifically for this site, what kind of bot is going to follow a single thread of links thousands of jumps deep?

                    I think that sometime very soon, if not already, the depth will stop increasing and it won’t increase again unless somebody cheats again.

                    1. 1

                      A month later and it has not slowed down at all. (To put that in perspective, your “if not already” prediction came just a week after it was put online.)