[HN Gopher] Constructing the Word's First JPEG XL MD5 Hash Quine
___________________________________________________________________
Constructing the Word's First JPEG XL MD5 Hash Quine
Author : luispa
Score : 118 points
Date : 2025-12-01 22:44 UTC (8 days ago)
(HTM) web link (stackchk.fail)
(TXT) w3m dump (stackchk.fail)
| zygentoma wrote:
| This is soo cool! Especially the prediction machine stuff. I had
| no clue this was possible.
|
| And also at the same time a good reminder for everyone to find a
| browser that supports JPEG XL. I wonder if that was part of the
| reason to do this. :)
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > And also at the same time a good reminder for everyone to
| find a browser that supports JPEG XL
|
| That's probably furthest down on my list of features I look for
| in browser, where the top two are "Not run by a for-profit
| company living on extracting data from users" and "Can have
| tabs vertically in sidebar in a tree-based structured format".
| MrAlex94 wrote:
| Waterfox might be what you're after?
|
| - Supports JXL out of the box (including support for alpha
| transparency and animations)
|
| - Vertical tabs with optional tree tabs (hired the original
| tree style tab developer to implement the feature)
|
| - For profit, but I don't want your data, collect it or use
| it to earn a living (telemetry/analytics/experiments disabled
| at build time and alongside a fair few patches on top to make
| sure external connections are limited to what's necessary)
|
| Sidebar, I'm the developer of Waterfox
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Firefox (with minor changes + addons) is what I use today,
| works well for what I care about. Thanks for the
| recommendation though!
|
| While you're here, last time I came across your website
| (and it seems like it looks the same currently), I noticed
| that your browser comparison is not including Firefox,
| which is what you've forked from (as far as I can tell at
| least, it isn't made clear by the landing page actually,
| but the UI and name makes it obvious), which feels like
| it's a bit misleading almost intentionally.
| MrAlex94 wrote:
| Not intended to be misleading in a way, but it is on
| purpose as Mozilla don't like it when there's mention of
| Firefox on the website so I make any references
| sparingly.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Huh, interesting. Is it that you're avoiding Mozilla from
| some sort of retribution, preventing you from effectively
| working on Waterfox in case you anger them? I'm not sure
| it should matter too much what Mozilla thinks about other
| browsers comparing themselves to Firefox, it's definitely
| fair usage as long as you don't try to trick people into
| believing Mozilla is also building Waterfox / Waterfox is
| somehow exactly the same as Firefox.
|
| Just adding Firefox in your comparison table really
| should be fine, and kind of makes me want to ask someone
| at Mozilla why others would be afraid of doing so.
| progbits wrote:
| Also one which doesn't add new image decoder with built-in VM
| that is rawdogged in C, like Safari.
|
| Chrome and Firefox are making a very reasonable decision to
| wait for a memory safe decoder.
| F3nd0 wrote:
| Chrome's involvement in the past few years has (until very
| recently) been anything but reasonable.
|
| That said, have any of them subjected WebP or AVIF to the
| same strict requirements, or should we reserve those only
| for less complex codecs actually designed with images in
| mind?
| wild_pointer wrote:
| In the era of LLM-generated content, such a high-quality writeup
| is a breath of fresh air. Well done!
| throw0101d wrote:
| One of my saved HN comments from @Retr0id:
|
| --- Beware of having too-small fingerprint
| hashes though, or not checking enough of the digits.
| $ echo -n retr0id_662d970782071aa7a038dce6 | sha256sum
| 307e0e71a409d2bf67e76c676d81bd0ff87ee228cd8f991714589d0564e6ea9a
| - $ echo -n retr0id_430d19a6c51814d895666635 |
| sha256sum
| 307e0e71a4098e7fb7d72c86cd041a006181c6d8e29882b581d69d0564e6ea9a
| -
|
| ---
|
| * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38668893
| Retr0id wrote:
| I later wrote an article explaining how I computed that:
| https://www.da.vidbuchanan.co.uk/blog/colliding-secure-hashe...
|
| (Doing it the "obvious" way would involve infeasible amounts of
| storage space)
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I'd be interested in seeing even your messy non-working code
| for that.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| Nobody was this excited about WEBP.
| QuaternionsBhop wrote:
| Webp was not as exciting. JpegXL has cool features like 20%
| improved lossless jpeg recompression and progressive decoding.
| Not to mention all the cool stuff used in the writeup like
| implementing a font in the prediction engine.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| And best of all, it's not a google product, so it can be
| trusted.
| smokel wrote:
| Shouldn't that be "Wor _l_ d"?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-10 11:01 UTC)