[HN Gopher] World's Highest Website
___________________________________________________________________
World's Highest Website
Author : kretaceous
Score : 116 points
Date : 2022-07-05 09:48 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (worlds-highest-website.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (worlds-highest-website.com)
| sodimel wrote:
| There's Borjomi's "deepest site" that shares the spirit of this
| site: https://thedeepestsite.com/
| jacobevelyn wrote:
| Or this one: https://neal.fun/deep-sea/
| danuker wrote:
| I find it nowhere near as accessible. The browser's scrollbar
| is disabled, for example. Ctrl+Home/End doesn't work either.
|
| It may share the idea, but not the spirit.
| LocalPCGuy wrote:
| I also thought it was going to be highest hosting location, which
| reminded me of the StackBlitz "we're going to host your site in
| space" talk they gave at ngConf. Wasn't sure if it got launched
| or not, but does not appear to have been yet per the website.
|
| https://deployto.space/
|
| Manifest still shows it in queue:
| https://www.interorbital.com/Launch%20Manifest.php
| mrb wrote:
| It took me less than 2 minutes of scrolling to reach the bottom.
| This implies I'm scrolling at 568 kph or 353 mph ! This seems
| impossible. Either this site is not really 18.94 km long, or
| Chrome on Android implements scrolling acceleration to such
| speeds which I don't believe it does.
| idleproc wrote:
| Not to be confused with: https://worlds-longest-website.com/
| hanniabu wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand the difference between longest and
| highest here
| bmacho wrote:
| I don't get it. When I grab the scrollbar, and move slowly, the
| scale moves according to it, but it writes that I moved
| kilometers.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| About 15 times longest than the tallest one. Best five minutes
| I've ever spent scrolling (on mobile).
| martinsebastian wrote:
| authors thank you ;-)
| Vaskerville wrote:
| In 2008 I made onemilescroll.com with Daniel Eatock. It was a fun
| project where we allowed users to post things at whatever height.
| It wasn't nearly as rigorous as WHW. Eventually it required
| updates...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20160303050135/http://www.onemil...
| HidyBush wrote:
| It would be interesting if this website's height corresponded to
| the average daily length of a person's infinite-scrolling on
| their phone
| m_st wrote:
| Did someone already print it to verify the claimed height?
| cellover wrote:
| This reminds me that I have a habit of recording notable
| altitudes in my commit messages ^_^
|
| For instance:
|
| git show 47d8c02bdbec91f8e0ce4b4453010ea9b7b241ef
|
| commit 47d8c02bdbec91f8e0ce4b4453010ea9b7b241ef
|
| Author: txxxxxxx <txxxxxxx@users.noreply.github.com>
|
| Date: Sat Nov 30 17:25:32 2019 +0100 Drop name
| field from user table Fixes: #2102
| Altitude: 2336m
| oboes wrote:
| I thought it was going to be the website whose hosting location
| is at the highest altitude. I wonder what that one would be now.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I believe the ISS intermittently hosts a website. I would
| certainly imagine there is some space-based website with long
| ping times.
| TylerE wrote:
| Ping time to ISS would not be bad at all. Worse case it would
| be like talking to a server in Australia plus a bit
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| How funny would it be if someone 0day'd the ISS because of
| some XSS bug on a 1995-tier homepage?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I'm sure the ISS's public facing comms (I believe they host
| a public HAM repeater as well) are isolated. Also, there's
| no reason that something added well after Twitter (the
| first ISS direct communication was a tweet - before that
| tweets were related through a ground station) would be done
| in an obsolete way.
|
| But lastly, unless they're hosting a forum, XSS is kinda
| irrelevant and 1995 predates XSS issues (and for most of
| the year JS)
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Daily self-reminder to never post jokes on HN.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Does the ISS fit within the definition of "the world's"? It's
| outside the atmosphere, so maybe not. But it's in orbit, so
| maybe so.
| aaron695 wrote:
| bricemo wrote:
| Right, I think this is world's tallest website, not world's
| highest
| sshine wrote:
| I just tilted my screen.
|
| Now it's the world's widest website!
| sAbakumoff wrote:
| I thought that it would be a hosting location in a room where
| someone regularly smokes weed.
| elif wrote:
| Certainly a satellite in geosync
| ben_w wrote:
| No longer "in the world" ;)
|
| (If it was, would a website hosted on Olympus Mons (Mars) be
| higher or lower than one hosted on Everest? Closer to its
| plant's core, further from the sun, not sure about total
| relative gravitational potential...)
| petercooper wrote:
| If you discount random experiments hosted on someone's laptop
| or something, there's probably _something_ in La Paz, Bolivia
| which would get us to around 4000m elevation. Chile has a data
| center at 5000m elevation but it 's for a supercomputer. Some
| Googling indicates China thought they were on to something with
| a data centre in Lhasa at around 3600m elevation:
| https://www.passionateinmarketing.com/china-to-build-the-wor...
| josephwegner wrote:
| I had an interesting discussion with my 8yo recently about
| the highest mountain. It had never occurred to me, but
| "highest" does not have an agreed upon definition. There are
| actually a few competing definitions[1]:
|
| There's Muana Kea, which is the _tallest_, meaning the
| furthest distance from the mountain's base to its peak.
|
| There's Mount Everest (which I had assumed was the agreed
| upon "highest"), which has its peak at the highest altitude.
|
| Chimborazo has the most unexpected definition of "highest",
| which is a peak that is furthest from the center of the
| Earth! We don't live on a perfect sphere, so some mountains
| can be "shorter" but still further from the core!
|
| Would be interesting to see if the "highest websites" differ
| for each of these definitions!
|
| [1]: https://geology.com/records/highest-mountain-in-the-
| world.sh...
| mngnt wrote:
| You're thinking about a peak's prominence. A lot of people
| put a lot of thought into that, which is summed up by
| Wikipedia [1], including a list of talles peaks by
| prominence. By definition, Mount Everest wins again, as
| there is no col to be considered it's parent.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
| yissp wrote:
| > There's Muana Kea, which is the _tallest_, meaning the
| furthest distance from the mountain's base to its peak.
|
| I had thought Denali in Alaska held this honor, but
| apparently the base of Mauna Kea is considered to be the
| ocean floor which makes it taller. Interesting.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| The Muana Kea claim is highly questionable. The only
| complete and sound definition of the "base" of a mountain
| would make the height the same as topographic prominence,
| and by definition the highest peak must also have the
| greatest prominence (whereas other peaks will vary wildly
| in ordering).
| petercooper wrote:
| I share a propensity for getting interested in things like
| this more than I perhaps should(!) In most cases, Everest
| doesn't really look _particularly_ impressive given its low
| prominence _in relation to its neighbors_ , although
| Wikipedia seems to treat sea level as being its true "base"
| as a sort of special case so it still comes in at #1 on htt
| ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_by_prom..
| . !
|
| Chimborazo is a fun one and I would accept a strident
| enough argument for it to be #1. It truly looks like a
| magnificent mountain too, indeed perhaps the archetypal
| 'mountain', if we can take aesthetics into account ;-)
| frabert wrote:
| I think the Matterhorn looks even more like an archetypal
| mountain, even if a bit tobleronish :)
| CrazyStat wrote:
| > Wikipedia seems to treat sea level as being its true
| "base" as a sort of special case so it still comes in at
| #1
|
| This is due to the definition of prominence, which is
| roughly "how far down do you have to go from the summit
| before you can go up to a higher point." This is
| undefined for the highest mountain, since there is no
| higher mountain to go up to, so height above sea level is
| used instead.
| hervature wrote:
| You make it seem that something funny is going on with
| Everest's prominence. That's just the definition of
| prominence:
|
| > prominence measures the height of a mountain or hill's
| summit relative to the lowest contour line encircling it
| but containing no higher summit within it
|
| By definition, this means that the highest mountain's
| height is its prominence.
| petercooper wrote:
| I don't think there's anything "funny" logically ;-) It's
| hard to explain, but I just don't find it very
| _gratifying_ as a measure given Everest is surrounded by
| almost equally tall mountains with small prominences
| (Lhotse 's is about 600m) and the way Wikipedia refers to
| a "special definition for Everest" just illogically
| raises my hackles much in the same way as 1 not being
| considered prime does and at least that's _useful_ ;-)
| colingoodman wrote:
| Prominence is a weird property. Consider Grays and
| Torreys in Colorado, two 14,000ft mountains that are very
| close to each other. Both are some of the tallest
| mountains in the country and almost the same height, but
| because Grays is about 3ft taller than Torreys it ends up
| having 5 times the prominence (2750 vs 560).
| [deleted]
| mbostleman wrote:
| I live in Teton Valley, Idaho (6,500 feet above sea
| level) and I see the Grand Teton (13,775 feet) everyday
| (looking at it now actually). That's a prominence of
| 7,275 feet. I have also been to the base camp (13,550
| feet) of Annapurna (26,545 feet). That's a prominence of
| 13,000 feet or almost double what I'm used to seeing -
| and that difference is stunningly obvious. I've mentioned
| this to people often - that just standing in the Himalaya
| creates a feeling of majesty that is (literally) not
| possible to experience anywhere else unless something
| like Mt. Rainer were a couple thousand feet from the
| Pacific coast (instead of 112 miles) or unless the oceans
| were drained.
| rr888 wrote:
| Nice. I tried to think which of Everest or Chimborazo has
| the thinnest air. I'm guessing the atmosphere bulges at the
| equator too so it'd be Everest?
| stavros wrote:
| I can put my phone in my plane later today and host a website
| from 6 km if it'll work, though mobile antennas don't really
| aim high so they don't work well at altitude.
| MarioMan wrote:
| Surely we could do better by hosting something in orbit. I
| found an interesting case: the USS (Unix-Space-Server)
| Langley, launched in 2015:
| https://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/uss-langley/
| rendall wrote:
| We could definitely do better, but could something in orbit
| truly be considered "highest in the world"? I'd probably
| not credit a website as highest in the world unless it were
| actually _on_ the world, say, on a mountain, or maybe
| arguably inside the atmosphere.
| chrisshroba wrote:
| The ISS has to periodically correct for atmospheric drag,
| so it is _technically_ in the atmosphere ;)
| petercooper wrote:
| Perhaps an interesting way to further qualify "highest web
| site" might be to demand it's available directly from the
| broader Internet. While even a permanent TCP/IP based
| device in space would be pretty cool (and, I imagine,
| actually exists) the cost of the connection is probably
| onerous to make it open to public use(?)
|
| So perhaps if someone could rig up a microwave link to a
| solar powered Raspberry Pi Zero hanging off of a weather
| balloon or something.. we could have a truly publicly
| accessible Web server at above jet-liner height? :-D This
| feels like something Tom Scott might try..
| halotrope wrote:
| That's great. But why can't it show the current altitude while
| scrolling?
| smcleod wrote:
| I half expected it to be https://snoopdogg.com
| mft_ wrote:
| I was thinking /r/trees was leaking...
| NoGravitas wrote:
| Or https://willienelson.com/
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| I have a site called https://www.thehighestcritic.com that
| fits the bill.
| Foomf wrote:
| I love how the div id for the bottom is #hades
| reimertz wrote:
| Firefox crashed
| Tao3300 wrote:
| They do mention a Firefox issue at the bottom:
|
| > Gecko-based browsers like Firefox show an interesting
| behavior when trying to make the site any higher than 18.939583
| kilometers, "shrinking" or "collapsing" the main container.
|
| Not necessarily related to what you're seeing.
| tgv wrote:
| Mine doesn't crash. It does give the wobblies another
| commenter mentions.
| iammjm wrote:
| Each time I see something like this I think to myself that just
| because you can doesn't mean you should...
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| Hmm, I think I've opened some log files that might be longer.
| htk wrote:
| For those on mobile, here's the end of the webpage after all the
| scrolling:
|
| _Awesome. Restart? Scroll up (we'll wait for you), use the
| elevator, or press Ctrl and Pos1. For everyone else there's some
| fine print.
|
| This website is a CSS experiment. Due to its experimental nature,
| there are some accessibility limitations.
|
| The technical and design principles of this site are simple:
|
| one HTML container;
|
| pure CSS styling;
|
| no workarounds, filters, or hacks.
|
| Known issues
|
| Gecko-based browsers like Firefox show an interesting behavior
| when trying to make the site any higher than 18.939583
| kilometers, "shrinking" or "collapsing" the main container.
|
| Internet Explorer has problems following internal links, and it's
| unclear whether the container actually is said 18.94 kilometers
| high (or long, or tall).
|
| If you do come up with fixes or an even higher element whose
| formatting is broadly supported, email info@worlds-highest-
| website.com. There may be a reward.
|
| WHWS is presented by web artist Jens Oliver Meiert and the secret
| "Flying Standardistas Club."
|
| Design: Alessandro Lettieri.
|
| Contact: Jens Oliver Meiert (Hamburg, Germany) * info@worlds-
| highest-website.com * +1-754-400-0999._
| Retr0id wrote:
| The font rendering in Firefox on macOS (2x dpi scaling) is all
| "wobbly" - the glyphs are on inconsisent baselines, varying by a
| few pixels (but only the text at the bottom, not at the top). I
| suppose this is due to floating point precision/rounding errors,
| which is interesting to see.
|
| Also, the "elevator" back to the top only takes me about 80% of
| the way there, which is probably due to something similar.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| True on Android too. I was wondering if that was on purpose.
| bilekas wrote:
| document.body.scrollHeight + 1 .
| meigwilym wrote:
| Surely tallest? Or longest?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| (2006)
| oefrha wrote:
| 1. No idea why 100cm * 2840 is 18.94 kilometers;
|
| 2. I can increase 2840em to somewhere below 5000em no problem on
| both Chrome and Firefox. Beyond that Firefox hides the element
| and Chrome cuts off at some point. Not sure if it's dependent on
| vram or something? Another interesting thing is Firefox's Layout
| tab shows a wrong, capped height in the Box Model diagram;
| currently says 8947820px for me, but it even changes from time to
| time.
| martin_a wrote:
| My Firefox has a height limit of 4734em. That's where it breaks
| and collapses to null.
| oefrha wrote:
| Same as mine.
| kbrannigan wrote:
| I thought the air of the server room was infused with
| psychoactive smoke.
| smalldick wrote:
| MX Master: "Finally, a worthy opponent"
| abhayhegde wrote:
| Jokes on them, I have Vimium (vim plugin for browsers) and used G
| (Shift + g) to skip scrolling.
| lordgrenville wrote:
| Ditto, with Tridactyl :)
| _jstreet wrote:
| Or you could use the browser/windows(?) shortcut
| Ctrl+Home/Ctrl+End, or Ctrl+Up/Ctrl+Down. OR just use the 'take
| the elevator' link on the page itself.
| butz wrote:
| This website clearly illustrates the importance of scrollbars,
| why they are very useful and should not be hidden by default on
| desktop. Appropriate scrollbar width is important too.
| fredley wrote:
| "Although mathematicians suspect that there may be even larger
| numbers"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J9MRYJz9-4
| throwaway413 wrote:
| Just scrolled a quick ~10 miles, now to do 3 sets of 10 like-
| presses...
| sto_hristo wrote:
| This is something that even my Logi MX Master mouse is unable to
| handle.
| hooby wrote:
| This site is very, very old. I believe it predates Google Chrome.
|
| It's based on a rendering limitation found in Firefox back then.
| It never really worked in Internet Explorer - and Firefox (as
| well as Chrome) can render much higher websites these days.
| prox wrote:
| Make the worlds highestest website!
| culi wrote:
| Seems like a somewhat pointless exercise in the days of js-
| driven websites... We can easily make an infinite website
|
| Actually you don't even need js
| prox wrote:
| The-infinite-website.com
| shagie wrote:
| A bit more interesting content - If the Moon were only 1 pixel -
| a Tediously Accurate Scale Model of the Solar System
| https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem....
|
| I suggest clicking on light speed scrolling.
| zhte415 wrote:
| 100cm * 2840em = 18.94km?
|
| I don't get this. Could someone not missing something explain?
|
| Edit, to make the question clearer: The CSS of the 'spacer' div
| has:
|
| Font size: 100cm;
|
| Height: 2840em;
|
| How does this result in 18.94km?
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| I don't get it either. This is like one of those trick
| questions designed to prove that one can never actually be
| _certain_ of something in CSS.
| kretaceous wrote:
| I posted this on HN hoping to find an explanation. I tried all
| sorts of calculations, including measuring my screen size to
| find how many centimetres 1 pixel is but couldn't make sense of
| any it.
| trinovantes wrote:
| Hovering over the <html> tag shows the site's height is
| 10735200px 10735200 px / (37.8px / 1 cm) =
| 284000 cm
|
| Based on a 96dpi standard monitor (96px/in or 96px/2.56cm)
| roelschroeven wrote:
| Small nitpick: an inch is 2.54 cm, not 2.56 cm. That makes
| the html element 284035.5 cm high, which I guess is the
| height of that "whws" div plus the height of text and
| margins above and below.
|
| In any case about 28.4 m is a long way of from 18.94 km.
| WaffleIronMaker wrote:
| You might also enjoy http://endless.horse/
| chanandler_bong wrote:
| https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/04/05/the-... ?
| chanandler_bong wrote:
| A more 'traditional' datacentre:
| https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-sett...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-05 23:01 UTC)