Regex is hard y'all
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
178 points (94.1% liked)
Technology
33632 readers
82 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, they can be, but fucking this particular one up took outright ineptitude
If "Twitter" in urlField then Replace urlField "Twitter" "X"
Jobs finished boss
With skills like this you too could be working for the fascist billionaire manbaby's personal vanity social media service
Thank you capitalism 🤗
Meet the new Gilded Age, same as the old Gilded Age.
Which one do you mean?
Good point, I should probably have said "working for a fascist billionaire manbaby"
Again, that doesn't really narrow it down.
It wasn't supposed to narrow it down, quite the opposite
At this point I have to assume it's malicious compliance by staff to make Elon look bad.
to make Elon look bad.
why would he need any help when he's doing so much on his own?
It’s really not though. It’s actually pretty simple under the hood.
actually url/uri spec is surprisingly complex, I'm not even sure it's possible to fully/correctly match it with regex without false positives or negatives, especially in twitters case where even things like "google.com" are accepted as valid urls (without the protocol part, which is otherwise mandatory)
But something that you should probably be able to figure out over the course of 12 months of development and testing.
When he was forced to actually buy it (instead of just being a memelord), I immediately thought he would try to tank it (to the ends of whatever money juggling bullshit that rich people get up to).
Stories like this aren't doing much to change my mind.
This looks like an embarrassing mistake. If someone were to try to "tank" Twitter, it wouldn't really make sense to do this on purpose.
I genuinely think he's trying to scuttle the site to hide negative press for him and other billionaires.
Sure he could have just shut it down immediately as he bought it but if he did that, everyone would go to a single alternative, doing it slowly means that the people leaving go to a myriad of smaller (weaker, less likely to survive and less influencial) sites instead.
This idiot isn't thinking that far ahead.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Elon Musk's clumsy brand shift from Twitter to X caused a potentially big problem this week when the social network started automatically changing "twitter.com" to "x.com" in links.
It was a phishing risk because scammers could register a domain name like "netflitwitter.com," which would appear as "netflix.com" in posts on X, but clicking the link would take a user to netflitwitter.com.
Even if the change had been implemented smoothly, auto-replacing "twitter.com" with "x.com" doesn't do much to help Musk cement his branding shift because x.com still redirects to twitter.com.
Please be aware that there is a potential for this feature to be exploited in the future, by acquiring domains containing "twitter.com" to lead users to malicious pages.
Krebs quoted Sean McNee, VP of research and data at DomainTools, as saying that "bad actors could register domains as a way to divert traffic from legitimate sites or brands given the opportunity—many such brands in the top million domains end in x, such as webex, hbomax, xerox, xbox, and more."
Today, when we emailed X's media contact address, [email protected], we got the standard "busy now, please check back later" auto-reply.
The original article contains 644 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
He had to admit it court that he owned and operated the burner account where he acts like a toddler and talks about his ex-wife in that character
What
In 3 . 2 . 1 copyright claims from Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc