I love this kind of stuff, makes me nostalgic for the early days of the internet. There are still so many fun, interesting things to find out there. However, in a twist of irony they seem so much more difficult to discover now.
I’ve seen some receipts whose paper it was printed on proudly stated to be BPA free, but for all we know it might use chemicals that are even worse for our health than BPA.
The site appears to have gotten the ol' hug-of-death. For those who have seen the contents, can you answer if this is SFW or NSFW? The existing comments in this thread imply the latter.
Edit - downvotes for asking a question? Hackernews is becoming more and more like reddit each day.
If you read the 2 year old discussion linked in comments here, the owner said that the drawings on the actual website are all manually scanned by hand. So those are probably filtered. However, the YouTube livestream of the printer is not filtered. Basically it will print whatever but your drawing may or may not show up on site.
I wish I could peer into the mind of someone who would send that and still feel the need to replace the U in "fuck" with an asterisk. What an odd combination of outspokenness and modesty.
Coincidentally, just a couple hours ago, I used asterisk for swear word vowels on HN (for "L**tC*de" and "bl*ckch**n"). Partly as a statement that those are figuratively swear words to me, but mostly simply to avoid keyword search hits for people positively searching what I want to be negative terms.
But if one is going to use an actual swear word (that they're wielding themself, rather than quoting), why pull one's punches? IMHO, maximum condemnation is to spell out all four letters. Unless your intended message is that something is highly despised, yet could be worse, so you're keeping the final letter in reserve.
Oh, though, if it were an in-person demonstration sign in public, the kind that's for an audience of broadcast TV news cameras, I suppose maybe self-censoring the word might be more likely to get it on the air? Or at least that could be the thinking? And someone mimics that in a different context.
Or it could be someone raised not to use strong words, and to be apologetic when they do, and so then the apologetic signalling could mean, "I don't normally use strong words, but this is so bad that even I felt compelled to do so, despite my respectable sensibilities".
Or it could be a non-culturally-fluent speaker, who's learned idioms, and picked up these ones, but hasn't yet been exposed to some of the finer points and connotations.
>Oh, though, if it were an in-person demonstration sign in public, the kind that's for an audience of broadcast TV news cameras, I suppose maybe self-censoring the word might be more likely to get it on the air? Or at least that could be the thinking?
But by doing that it turns it from a demonstration into much more of a performance. Someone who's actually angry doesn't say "eff", he says "fuck". I would question how really angry or frustrated someone is if they still bother to self-censor while they rant. Think back to Samuel L. Jackson's censored line in Snakes on a Plane and try to imagine someone actually saying that. You'd think "well, okay. He's not that fed up about it if he's still joking around."
I suppose it does come across that way to some of the audience, but that might be necessary.
When I was learning photojournalism on the side, I shot a bunch of political demonstrations. A lot of those I saw were performances solely for media coverage (not really for, say, the occupants of a building they were in front of, nor for cars driving by). They would tell the media when they would be protesting, media would show up with cameras, media would leave, demonstration would disperse. For those media-centric ones, I guess it would be foolish to show a sign that the TV crew can't easily include in their footage (because it contains a banned word they'd have to go to work to edit out while already on a hectic news cycle schedule).
I wonder what their average dickbutt/day rate is.
Probably quite low because they don't directly pipe it to the website. Once you do that the assholes will find you.
Now the worst they might do is to try to kill your roll of paper or your office building by sending all black and hoping the printer overheats.
You really can trash a thermal printer by printing too much black... I did it!
Fun fact: the dates somewhat leak location as they appear to be in whatever local format the poster happens to have set up.
Also this makes them somewhat unreadable because for some you can't tell if it's month then day or day then month.
(Not that it matters for this specific case ^^)
Related We have a thermal printer hooked up to the internet, you can send us a doodle (115 points, 2023, 108 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37941234
I love this kind of stuff, makes me nostalgic for the early days of the internet. There are still so many fun, interesting things to find out there. However, in a twist of irony they seem so much more difficult to discover now.
Love this. Manually updating the guestbook doesn't sound fun though. >last update December 10, 2024 It figures.
I just had to try, got a bitmap and set it directly on the canvas using js, I wonder if it will print.
Canvas is 348x348.
https://gist.github.com/ibarrajo/d5dc106cf226a0f2286e7e959ce...
I did the same thing, though with `img.src = https://my_image/whatever.jpg; img.setAttribute("crossorigin", "anonymous");`
https://web.archive.org/web/20251103183803/https://guestbook...
Was hugged to death for me.
I wonder how many drawings had a rating greater than PG-13.
Obligatory "be careful with that poisonous paper" warning[1]
[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Main reason I’m not doing this myself. But maybe there is some miniature printer that isn’t BPA paper? I guess inject?
I’ve seen some receipts whose paper it was printed on proudly stated to be BPA free, but for all we know it might use chemicals that are even worse for our health than BPA.
What about a tiny dot matrix printer? Is that a thing? It would be cool to have as part of a retro computing project.
Btw, you can watch a live feed of their printer, where you should see your artwork coming up:
https://guestbook.goodenough.us/thanks
Looks like a paper jam
More!
The site appears to have gotten the ol' hug-of-death. For those who have seen the contents, can you answer if this is SFW or NSFW? The existing comments in this thread imply the latter.
Edit - downvotes for asking a question? Hackernews is becoming more and more like reddit each day.
I was able to check out the site and it was all SFW. I didn't see any objectionable stuff there at all.
Btw, their live stream of the printer is still on YouTube where it shows the content:
https://youtu.be/xTbBaQMbpBc
Are they filtered? My opinion of the average internet user, assumes this would be flooded by trolls immediately.
If you read the 2 year old discussion linked in comments here, the owner said that the drawings on the actual website are all manually scanned by hand. So those are probably filtered. However, the YouTube livestream of the printer is not filtered. Basically it will print whatever but your drawing may or may not show up on site.
The current live feed image, of an F-word political statement directed against 5 different named parties, shows impressive penmanship.
I wish I could peer into the mind of someone who would send that and still feel the need to replace the U in "fuck" with an asterisk. What an odd combination of outspokenness and modesty.
Coincidentally, just a couple hours ago, I used asterisk for swear word vowels on HN (for "L**tC*de" and "bl*ckch**n"). Partly as a statement that those are figuratively swear words to me, but mostly simply to avoid keyword search hits for people positively searching what I want to be negative terms.
But if one is going to use an actual swear word (that they're wielding themself, rather than quoting), why pull one's punches? IMHO, maximum condemnation is to spell out all four letters. Unless your intended message is that something is highly despised, yet could be worse, so you're keeping the final letter in reserve.
Oh, though, if it were an in-person demonstration sign in public, the kind that's for an audience of broadcast TV news cameras, I suppose maybe self-censoring the word might be more likely to get it on the air? Or at least that could be the thinking? And someone mimics that in a different context.
Or it could be someone raised not to use strong words, and to be apologetic when they do, and so then the apologetic signalling could mean, "I don't normally use strong words, but this is so bad that even I felt compelled to do so, despite my respectable sensibilities".
Or it could be a non-culturally-fluent speaker, who's learned idioms, and picked up these ones, but hasn't yet been exposed to some of the finer points and connotations.
>Oh, though, if it were an in-person demonstration sign in public, the kind that's for an audience of broadcast TV news cameras, I suppose maybe self-censoring the word might be more likely to get it on the air? Or at least that could be the thinking?
But by doing that it turns it from a demonstration into much more of a performance. Someone who's actually angry doesn't say "eff", he says "fuck". I would question how really angry or frustrated someone is if they still bother to self-censor while they rant. Think back to Samuel L. Jackson's censored line in Snakes on a Plane and try to imagine someone actually saying that. You'd think "well, okay. He's not that fed up about it if he's still joking around."
I suppose it does come across that way to some of the audience, but that might be necessary.
When I was learning photojournalism on the side, I shot a bunch of political demonstrations. A lot of those I saw were performances solely for media coverage (not really for, say, the occupants of a building they were in front of, nor for cars driving by). They would tell the media when they would be protesting, media would show up with cameras, media would leave, demonstration would disperse. For those media-centric ones, I guess it would be foolish to show a sign that the TV crew can't easily include in their footage (because it contains a banned word they'd have to go to work to edit out while already on a hectic news cycle schedule).
And it appears to have jammed with that message