OT: wasted bytes

Richard Yates

unread,

Feb 16, 2016, 12:39:19 AM2/16/16

to

Off topic for php, but I am curious why there would ever be a need for
a link like this (to a Washington Post news article):

http://link.washingtonpost.com/click/6113040.114744/aHR0cDovL0RvbmFsZCBUcnVtcOKAmXMgYW1hemluZywgbGl0aWdpb3VzIHN0YXRlbWVudCBvbiBUZWQgQ3J1eiBodHRwLy93YXBvLnN0LzIwenpPc3gmbmJzcDsgIFRoYXQgd2FzIGFsbCBiZWZvcmUgbHVuY2h0aW1lLiAgRWFybHkgdGhpcyBhZnRlcm5vb24sIGhlIHRvb2sgdG8gdGhlIHBvZGl1bSBpbiBYWFggZm9yIGEgcHJlc3Nlci4gIERvbmFsZCBUcnVtcCB0YWtlcyBzdGFnZSBpbiBDaGFybGVzdG9uIHNheXMgJnF1b3Q7d2UncmUgZ29pbmcgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIGxpdHRsZSBmdW4mcXVvdDsgIHJ1bXAgdGhyZWF0ZW5zIGxhd3N1aXQgb3ZlciBDcnV64oCZcyBDYW5hZGlhbiBiaXJ0aCBodHRwOi8vd2Fwby5zdC8yMHpFeXlmJm5ic3A7ICBzZWVtcyBhbiBvZGQgdGltZSBmb3IgVHJ1bXAgdG8gYmUgc3VnZ2VzdGluZyAtIGV2ZW4gaGludGluZyBhdCAtIDNyZCBwYXJ0eSBydW4uIG5vPyZuYnNwJTNCJTIwJTIwVHJ5aW5nJTIwdG8lMjBtb3ZlJTIwREMlMjBwcmVzcyUyMG9mZiUyMFNjYWxpYSUyMG5hcnJhdGl2ZSUyMCUyOHdoaWNoJTIwY291bGQlMjBoZWxwJTIwQ3J1eiUyOSUyMGFuZCUyMGJhY2slMjB0byUyMGhpbS4lMjBIZSUyMHB1bGxzJTIwdGhpcyUyMHRyaWNrJTIwZXZlcnklMjB0aW1lJTIwdHdpdHRlci5jb20vcmlja2tsZWluL3N0YXQlRTIlODAlQTYlMjAlMjBVbmxvYWRlZCUyMG9uJTIwQ3J1eiUyMHdvJm5ic3AlM0Jub3clMjBjcm
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
OiUyMCZxdW90JTNCSSUyMGhhdmUlMjBubyUyMGludGVudGlvbiUy

For those not wanting to scroll, it has 2011 characters (lower and
upper case and numbers). That makes 6x10^204 possible combinations.
For comparison there are a paltry 4x10^80 atoms in the observable
universe.

Christoph M. Becker

unread,

Feb 16, 2016, 6:21:51 AM2/16/16

to

To bring that somewhat back to being on topic: just try to
urldecode(base64_decode())) the last path component of the given URL. ;)

--
Christoph M. Becker

Jerry Stuckle

unread,

Feb 16, 2016, 9:19:54 AM2/16/16

to

Who cares? You're going to click on it anyway, not type it in. It
doesn't matter how long it is, as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum
length of the browser.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

BartC

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 2:13:05 PM2/18/16

to

On 16/02/2016 14:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 12:39 AM, Richard Yates wrote:
>> Off topic for php, but I am curious why there would ever be a need for
>> a link like this (to a Washington Post news article):

>> For those not wanting to scroll, it has 2011 characters (lower and
>> upper case and numbers). That makes 6x10^204 possible combinations.

> Who cares? You're going to click on it anyway, not type it in. It
> doesn't matter how long it is, as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum
> length of the browser.

But with such an attitude, how long will it be before the lengths of
such links /do/ matter, because no one care enough to do something about
it sooner?

It would be ridiculous for a link to an article to be longer than the
article itself!

There are good reasons why titles of books then to be shorter than their
contents. But here, there are limiting factors: the title has to fit on
the spine, for a start.

--
Bartc

Jerry Stuckle

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 3:25:51 PM2/18/16

to

On 2/18/2016 2:12 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 16/02/2016 14:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 2/16/2016 12:39 AM, Richard Yates wrote:
>>> Off topic for php, but I am curious why there would ever be a need for
>>> a link like this (to a Washington Post news article):
>
> <snip stupidly long link>
>
>>> For those not wanting to scroll, it has 2011 characters (lower and
>>> upper case and numbers). That makes 6x10^204 possible combinations.
>
>> Who cares? You're going to click on it anyway, not type it in. It
>> doesn't matter how long it is, as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum
>> length of the browser.
>
> But with such an attitude, how long will it be before the lengths of
> such links /do/ matter, because no one care enough to do something about
> it sooner?
>

Centuries.

> It would be ridiculous for a link to an article to be longer than the
> article itself!
>

So is projecting something that will never happen.

> There are good reasons why titles of books then to be shorter than their
> contents. But here, there are limiting factors: the title has to fit on
> the spine, for a start.
>

Gee, really? You mean like "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in
Kindergarten"?

Jerry Stuckle

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 3:27:15 PM2/18/16

to

On 2/18/2016 2:12 PM, BartC wrote:

Oops - punched the wrong button.

But there is a limit on how much a browser will accept. Somewhere
around 4K characters, IIRC. But I've never come that close. And if
you're really worried about it, there are dozens of free URL shortening
services available.

BartC

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 5:51:20 PM2/18/16

to

OK, so some people /do/ care about these things then, if such utilities
exist.

--
Bartc

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 6:47:11 PM2/18/16

to

Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> Richard Yates wrote:
>> Off topic for php, but I am curious why there would ever be a need for
>> a link like this (to a Washington Post news article):
>>

>> http://link.washingtonpost.com/click/6113040.114744/aHR0cDovL0RvbmF[…]

>>
>> For those not wanting to scroll, it has 2011 characters (lower and
>> upper case and numbers). That makes 6x10^204 possible combinations.
>> For comparison there are a paltry 4x10^80 atoms in the observable
>> universe.
>
> To bring that somewhat back to being on topic: just try to
> urldecode(base64_decode())) the last path component of the given URL. ;)

<?= rawurldecode(base64_decode(implode("", array_slice(explode("/", $uri),
-1)))); ?>

As for the URI path component, that might be an attempt to determine if the
person setting the link referred to an outdated version of the article, in
order to display a notice to the user then. However, in that case I would
have used a checksum instead.

--
PointedEars
Zend Certified PHP Engineer
<http://www.zend.com/en/yellow-pages/ZEND024953> | Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Jerry Stuckle

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 7:58:22 PM2/18/16

to

Whatever. Anyone who doesn't know they exist hasn't been on the
internet very long. I get at least 4-5 such links every day in
(non-spam) emails.

But that doesn't mean a long URL like the one you quoted is bad. Just
that short ones are easier to type in (not that anyone does, nowadays).

Peter H. Coffin

unread,

Mar 15, 2016, 10:55:13 AM3/15/16

to

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:58:16 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> But that doesn't mean a long URL like the one you quoted is bad. Just
> that short ones are easier to type in (not that anyone does, nowadays).

I, for one, do. Or copy and paste about three times in order to use one
of those stunningly long URLs. Why? Because it's essentially impossible
to be even momentarily fooled by phishing emails or accidentally execute
a Trojan attachment in mutt. Similarly, I'm using a shell client for
netnews. And a shell client for IRC. All of those tools isolate my
actual personal computers from the the machine in the rack in San Diego.

--
"If Ace [Double] Books ever came out with an edition of The Bible, both
books would be edited down to 40,000 words, and they'd be renamed
"Master of Chaos" and "The Thing With Three Souls."
-- Terry Carr

Jerry Stuckle

unread,

Mar 15, 2016, 11:00:01 AM3/15/16

to

On 3/15/2016 10:41 AM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:58:16 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> But that doesn't mean a long URL like the one you quoted is bad. Just
>> that short ones are easier to type in (not that anyone does, nowadays).
>
> I, for one, do. Or copy and paste about three times in order to use one
> of those stunningly long URLs. Why? Because it's essentially impossible
> to be even momentarily fooled by phishing emails or accidentally execute
> a Trojan attachment in mutt. Similarly, I'm using a shell client for
> netnews. And a shell client for IRC. All of those tools isolate my
> actual personal computers from the the machine in the rack in San Diego.
>

You actually type them in? Other than a few sites I regularly visit
(and go to the home page), I occasionally click on a link (after
validating where it's going) but most often copy/paste it. It's all in
knowledge and being aware 100% of the time.

Härra Ramob

unread,

Jan 2, 2022, 6:50:59 AM1/2/22

to

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ

ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ