News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A 1.5GB String by userbinator on Saturday April 08, 2023 @11:07PM (#35499744)
It's not hard to read what isn't "human readable" anyway; it just takes a little bit of practice and learning. For example, I can "sight-read" x86 and Z80 Asm from a hexdump, and bits of ASN.1 and a few other proprietary protocols too.
Re:A 1.5GB String by userbinator on Sunday April 09, 2023 @03:14AM (#35500650)
Did I strike a nerve? It's unfortunate that so many seem to be under the impression that "human readable" is really an euphemism for "like English" and are narrow/closed-minded enough to not consider the possibility that people can learn just about any language with enough exposure and a bit of effort.

4f 6e 63 65 20 79 6f 75 20 73 74 6f 70 20 6c 65 61 72 6e 69 6e 67 2c 20 79 6f 75 20 73 74 61 72 74 20 64 79 69 6e 67 2e

Re:A 1.5GB String by hyperpape on Sunday April 09, 2023 @05:38AM (#35501175)
You didn’t strike a nerve, but your comment is misguided.

Of course people can read binary formats. It is just that they read them more slowly, and it requires quite a bit of exposure/practice, so that people usually invest in tooling to simplify the process.

I suggest that when you see a comment like this, you ask yourself “if I change ‘human readable’ to ‘easily human readable’ would I need to offer my correction?”

Re:A 1.5GB String by code_biologist on Sunday April 09, 2023 @04:39PM (#35506265)
This comes across the same way as that long ago "Show HN" where somebody said that Dropbox is pretty much just rsync.