I have a text-only archive of the Internet since 1992. 52TB raw including edits. 22TB without. Crawlers have indexed 82 search engines since AltaVista. (whatever)

submitted ago by virge

I'm going to start seeding this tomorrow. Encryption key below.

AES-256-CFB1 key: 0193A106375355D07724EFD8F650042F95BE491881CD02FA93CCD39A3CCFA857

Edit: Interesting. The system I made this post on is now experiencing an extremely high level of probing for security vulnerabilities.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

KebabAndNoseRemoval ago

Telling the glow in the darks you've got all of their clearweb fuckery over the last 27 years.

Interesting choice for your health friendo.

Morbo ago

This makes Virge look very glow in the dark himself. Why and how would someone have such an archive covering 27 years? This isn't the sort of thing a normal everyday Joe would do for fun. Seems quite suspicious.

Warnos44 ago

I dunno, if I had the know how and the money to spend to do so, it seems like a very conscientious thing to do for human kind, especially after Kaczynski's tech critical manifesto.

Morbo ago

But how could anyone validate that the archive isn't adulterated? What if there is a lot of disinfo in it because it has been altered for nefarious reasons? I would not trust it.

gazillions ago

You aren't supposed to trust what you read. When you read Aristotle you don't trust what he's saying. You think about it and decide for yourself which parts are agreeable and which parts aren't

You aren't supposed to trust whatever politician you vote for either. You end up with cult celebrities. China is still full of Maoists who believe Mao's deadly incompetence and malignancy was OK because they trusted him and still do today.

Q followers trust the plan when they're supposed to be judging the objective results of the guy they elected.

Read and judge everything for yourself because hopefully, you're an adult and not a breast feeding infant looking for someone to only ever tell you the truth you want to hear.

Morbo ago

You just argued that facts do not exist because it's all supposed to be up to your interpretation of things. That's not a world I want to live in. That's clown world. Like with science, facts should be verifiable and demonstrable and repeatable. They are not supposed to be open to interpretation or consensus. Can mathematics not be trusted because the rules for mathematics are written down? Is the solution to a mathematical formula subject to your interpretation of it? If so, Common Core has ruined you.

Dupinstein ago

I don’t think OP’s intention was to imply every interpretations is valid.

Consistency is the heart of truth. If a view of the world can explain all observations, all accounts of observation, and all other views in a manner that is consistent and does not result in logical contradictions, that view is true.

gazillions ago

Where did you get the idea that listening to someone had anything whatsoever to do with the known recipe of mathematics. They are not connected. You have to be able to recognise the difference between subjective and objective. If you expect human interaction to be objective, you are in a fantasy world and must be constantly disappointed and frustrated all the time. Do you expect a mathematical rating system to be applied to works of art? Maybe you're maladjusted. Maybe you're autistic. maybe you got caught up in the internet trend of people that wanted to be autistic because they heard the word was interchangeable with genius. It isn't.

Morbo ago

Where did you get the idea that listening to someone had anything whatsoever to do with the known recipe of mathematics.

From this:

You aren't supposed to trust what you read.

You're now changing your words. You said "read" in the above but "listening" in your response. That's being dishonest and moving the goal posts.

gazillions ago

Yeah right. Have fun with your game.