uqers

> produce less garbage!

They explained in the post why this wasn't an issue: they were producing very little garbage, but there was a very large object graph.

> manual memory management

If you need to do manual memory management in a GC language with no builtin support for it, like Go, that's probably a sign that you should switch to a different language.

See

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...?

Besides tampering with content, the site was also using visitors to DDOS a blog that mentioned the owner of archive.today.

Could you give an example of an article that was protected for reasons other than preventing vandalism? I've seen other people bring this up, but never with evidence.

I'm very surprised Google put in so much effort to implement an approach that is basically the equivalent of client-side verification of passwords. Did no one designing it mention that it could be defeated by any rooted device?

Didn't Daniel later report that curl recently started getting mostly high-quality LLM reports on their bounty program? I can imagine that there would definitely be a few "bounty spammers" trying to get hits, but it seems like most of them are doing good work.

I'd say instead that the problem is that a lot of people don't care anymore about the quality of the work being done, and LLMs are accelerating it. Bounty programs have shifted from ways for people to report security bugs to ways for people to try to make money.

How so?

> Unfortunately, the price LLM companies would have to pay to scrape every single Anubis deployment out there is approximately $0.00.

The math on the site linked here as a source for this claim is incorrect. The author of that site assumes that scrapers will keep track of the access tokens for a week, but most internet-wide scrapers don't do so. The whole purpose of Anubis is to be expensive for bots that repeatedly request the same site multiple times a second.

That's not what the author says- they said that file managers actually are somehow sorting file-9.txt before file-10.txt, and it's breaking real alphabetical ordering.