1. 1

    dat text style. It both makes me sick and wet simultaneously. Please someone tell me how that is done / what JS lib are they using?

    1. 3

      What is is abstractly is RGB separation (or rather, CMY separation, which is the same but opposite, but RGB separation was a popular “wow” effect in the early days of video editing). The way they’re doing it is by putting each piece of text into four different divs with different colors (cyan, magenta, yellow, white), using CSS layer blending modes to make them interfere like that (the “multiply” blending mode is basically the equivalent of stacking colored filters in front of each other), a CSS skew transform to make everything crooked, and CSS transitions (type “linear”) to make them animate smoothly. Then a bit of JS comes in and gives each layer a random location to move towards, once every three seconds.

      There’s no JS lib at all, you can see the whole JS source in the head of the page, and it all fits on one screen if your font size isn’t too large. The CSS is similarly compact, it’s the part of styles.css from the .head declaration down to the .movable declaration, 13 blocks in total.

    1. 21

      Seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me. I’m all for it.

      1. 16

        So follow this thought chain…

        …a leaker only leaks classified information (under a well demonstrated threat of dire consequences, both legal and extra-legal) because he / she honestly believes that the source organization is engaging in extremely unethical behaviour.

        …so obviously the main reason why such an organization would not countenance it’s employees reading such material is because it wishes to retain the loyalty of it’s employees despite it’s unethical behaviour. (Otherwise reading such material would be of no consequence)

        …so by enabling employees to retain “plausible deniability” of unethical behaviour you contribute to the maintaining the unethical behaviour of these organizations….

        …meaning you are behaving unethically by your response.

        If I seem somewhat heated in my disgust for this behaviour…. it’s because I saw it many times in the Bad Old Days of South African Apartheid.

        When at last the whole truth emerged, an African person asked me, “How can all these white people claim ignorance of the all the murder and torture that were going on?”

        After deep thought I replied, “By virtue of a carefully maintained ignorance.”

        When I see a response such as yours, I say to myself, “Another one carefully maintaining his ignorance, by refusing to look, by refusing to read, by refusing to listen.”

        So look, listen, read…. if they are indeed doing nothing wrong, you will emerge stronger in your support for these organizations.

        1. 5

          …a leaker only leaks classified information (under a well demonstrated threat of dire consequences, both legal and extra-legal) because he / she honestly believes that the source organization is engaging in extremely unethical behaviour.

          If you believe that’s the only reason leaks ever happen, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

          …so obviously the main reason why such an organization would not countenance it’s employees reading such material is because it wishes to retain the loyalty of it’s employees despite it’s unethical behaviour. (Otherwise reading such material would be of no consequence)

          That’s a side effect. The rules are written simply for enforcability: classified information is classified, there is no exception for when it’s been leaked.

          1. 2

            If you believe that’s the only reason leaks ever happen

            Oh I know, I am dead sure there are many “leaks” that aren’t leaks at all…. Some are plain lies, some are “press releases with extra sauce”.

            The first law of war is that long before the first bullet flies, both sides are lying.

            But either way it’s information that other people have and you don’t. So make up your mind about the veracity.

            Make up your own mind about the ethics.

            Don’t be wilfully blind.

          2. 2

            That’s moral calculus that may be perfectly fine to apply in your case. What if as a for-instance someone working in a high clearance job believes that the good they are doing by virtue of this work outweighs the risks you outline? Do they not have that right to make their own judgements?

            1. 2

              Only if they are informed..

              Yes, I knew quite a few people deep in the old South African military/industrials….

              It was terribly easy for them to make the judgement that they were doing Good…. society and their bosses told them so, and they never looked (or were allowed to look) at anything saying otherwise.

              If they looked intently and with an open mind at both sides…. I respect their judgement.

              If they refuse to look and block from their minds all evidence that is uncomfortable, they earn my contempt. (No matter which side they are on.)

              This “classified” tag is contemptible.

          3. -1

            agreed