patrick.net

@patrick bitchute videos dont have a link to the url like other videos do. example: https://patrick.net/post/1337984?start=324#comment-1842291

Thanks for telling me @Hircus

Should be fixed now, at least for input urls of the form https: //www.bit chute.com/embed/2xAdBjtpMRh1

(I put spaces it that so it would not show the video or create a clickable link.)

Please tell me about other things to fix. I'm on a roll lately, burning through my big list of patrick.net bugs.

@patrick this post was made today and didnt seem to show a link: https://patrick.net/post/1334038?start=239#comment-1844229

Thanks, dunno why.

I edited the comment and reposted the same bitchute link, and now it has an "original link" below it.

Wow, I can't register on patriots.win without the Google recaptcha spyware reporting back my details to Google/NSA.

To log in to Reddit also requires Google api spyware, so that's out too.

And I can't log in to Twitter because it demands a phone number, and that's a fuck no, never.

I'm kind of proud that none of that shit is on patrick.net, as anyone can verify.

How would I do that for free, aside from Google Voice?

Patrick says

How would I do that for free, aside from Google Voice?

there got to be a way. there are millions of fake accounts there somehow. although i do wonder if twitter employees create those via their systems bypassing all verification.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

i do wonder if twitter employees create those via their systems bypassing all verification

I suspect that they do, either for their own personal reasons, or on CIA orders.

Not sure if someone requested. How about a tracking thread with newly uploaded at least non restricted images with a link to respective threads.

@Blue This is possible, but a bit complicated if you want images from both original posts (threads) and from comments.

It's pretty easy for just comments.

I guess link to original images should be good enough. It’s one quick way to browse and visit threads.

You can find all the latest threads which have images or videos in the original post like this:

https://patrick.net/search?order=new&s=width%20height

They are just thumbnail images though. And blank for videos.

I suppose I could make them bigger.

Blue says

I guess link to original images should be good enough. It’s one quick way to browse and visit threads.

@Blue Please tell me more about how you imagine this would look.

Would it just be a long list of images with links below them? Where would I put it on the site?

Thanks.

Patrick says

Would it just be a long list of images with links below them? Where would I put it on the site?

Yes. Create a thread something like, 'Picture2thread'. In case of s*x related images, I'd expect the thread name instead of the image, otherwise it might offend somebody.

Blue says

Patrick says

Would it just be a long list of images with links below them? Where would I put it on the site?

Yes. Create a thread something like, 'Picture2thread'. In case of s*x related images, I'd expect the thread name instead of the image, otherwise it might offend somebody.

@Blue OK, I did it.

Click the "latest images" links in the footer. That thread will fill up with images as people post them to an original thread or a comment thereon. There is an "origin" link below each image in that thread.

Here is that footer link for convenience:

https://patrick.net/post/1?start=-20

Let me know if I made any mistakes.

Looks good. Thanks Patrick for doing it.

I think I have added support for .webp images by converting them to .png images.

So if you've wondered why you uploaded a certain image in the past and it didn't show up, that was probably why. Now it should work.

Please let me know if I fucked anything up about image uploading.

Thanks @HunterTits

Can you give me an example url of an image ending in .txt?

HunterTits says

https://patrick.net/uploads/a/3/2/a325f7d2de5cc7c973c97eaa9fbf8c18.jpg

Can you point to a POST where a picture does this?

What OS are you using? I'm on a Linux system, I've never seen this happen, and there's plenty of pictures I've saved. I've never seen this happen.

I know, can you download this without getting the *.txt extension?

OK I see now. I just need to make sure that every image gets an extension.

HunterTits says

richwicks says

I know, can you download this without getting the *.txt extension?

That one has a .jpg extension in it.

This one does not:

https://patrick.net/post/1346861/2022-07-30-court-rejects-google-s-attempt-to

Under Linux on both Firefox and Brave - that gave me an automatic file extension of *.png and the default file name was: 38ae6f97b04dd387cb9eb02e099d3aa3.png

But it seems like Patrick found the problem. Linux uses a program called "file" which will identify what a file is, maybe it's adding the extension for me. Strangely, file extensions under Linux are by CONVENTION - i.e., they are there for the user's convenience. I can open a file with an extension of .XYZ and it will open correctly 99.9% of the time.

True, it's just a convention and does not seem to actually be used by browsers.

Maybe I don't actually want images to have extensions if it's just for the convenience of downloading and reposting them elsewhere.

In fact, I actively try to block hotlinking of images from patrick.net (including a patrick.net image url on another site) for both resource constraint and legal reasons.

You should use file extensions IMO.

Browsers look at the http response content-type header to determine what type of file it is. Your web server uses the file extension to determine which content-type header to send (unless you use custom configuration). At least in the past, some browsers would use the file extensions to determine the file type in the event that no content-type header was sent, although I recall reading they may have stopped doing it in some scenarios. Sometimes they will try make a last ditch guess depending on usage content: like if the url was referenced from an img element, they will try to use it as an image and so on for other usage contexts, but this can have unexpected results, and many hacks have used this "feature" to get scripts executed if the conditions were right.

If a user downloads and saves a file without an extension, there is no longer any http header or info to tell the next program which opens it what type of file it is. I think most browsers will now add a file extension when saving if it knows the type, but in the past this wasn't the case, and I'm not sure if all browsers always do it now. Having software guess the file type can be dangerous in some scenarios, as its not at all difficult to trick the "guessing algorithm", and has been involved in many exploits over the years. Not to mention the file type can not always be properly guessed, although I don't think this last point is an issue for patnet given that I think it only allows a handful of common media file types, and these tend to have distinct file content signatures that can be guessed well.

Most professional web software I've seen has a small whitelist of allowed file extensions, and only allows the upload of files which use one of those extensions.

Patrick says

Maybe I don't actually want images to have extensions if it's just for the convenience of downloading and reposting them elsewhere.

I don't generally repost, but I save. TRY AND STOP ME!!!

It's interesting you can build up a history by just going to memes. Remember when videos were actually viral and innocent?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGeKSiCQkPw

original link


There are no naturally occurring viral videos now. It's all artificial.

Hircus says

You should use file extensions IMO.

OK, you convinced me. I'll add extensions.

@HunterTits OK, from now on, images cached from an external url will retain the image suffix, like .jpg

Are you able to match up the @ sign with multiple hits across the border of a space?

If you match with @xxx yyyy send the message to them. If you match with @xxx send to them - in that order.

This seems possible.

Disallow usernames with more than one space, I don't think this would be a problem, but you'd have to verify of course and you'd actively have to prevent it.

Right now, an @ will just send a message to the string that follows, and not cross spaces to send to multiple people. You'd need multiple @ signs for that.

Some older users have a space in their name, before I disallowed new ones like that because it causes all kinds of problems. To send a message them, you have to use quotes, like:

@"user with space"

@Patrick

Given the new micropayment Jourmalism idea, it would be convenient if you could have a way for people to save a draft of their post until it's ready to be submitted. I'm working on a few longer pieces that (I hope) are worth the price of admission. Draft feature would be useful.

@GreaterNYCDude

People have asked for this in the past, so I guess I should finally do it. What should that look like?

How about this:

- in addition to a "submit" button on a new post, you have a "save as draft" button
- when you "save as draft" then it's a post, but no one can see it other than you

But then how would you find it again to finish it? I suppose you could look at your "new" posts on your author page:

https://patrick.net/user/GreaterNYCDude?order=new

It would still be near the top if you get back to it pretty soon.

And then when you finally "submit" it, the post date would be changed from when you first hit "save as draft" to the current time.

Can you think of any improvement on that?

Patrick says

Can you think of any improvement on that?

Use a word processor and post when you're ready.

GreaterNYCDude says

Given the new micropayment Jourmalism idea, it would be convenient if you could have a way for people to save a draft of their post until it's ready to be submitted. I'm working on a few longer pieces that (I hope) are worth the price of admission. Draft feature would be useful.

It would be nice and I know Patrick kind of answered. I don't make a ton of posts, but when I do I generally draft them in notes. Yes, I'm stuck in the Apple platform. I even do it with my longer comments. If you like writing, always save it or draft it somewhere else. Not pooping on the draft idea, but you have no idea what the future holds. Patrick could say fuck it and close the site tomorrow and all your drafts are there.

Everyone is different so it's hard to create the perfect platform. It's also why I despise Twitter. If you can't spend 3-5 minutes to read content you're a common retard. I don't want to click a link unless it's to verify data of what you're talking about. I like hearing different opinions, but you can't do that in short form in my opinion.

Either way I'd draft in whatever program you choose. I like notes because it's available across all my devices as I'm sure other apps/programs are the same now. Then just copy and paste. That way you have your content on your own machine/device and it cannot go away if you were ever to decide to do something with it. I've contemplated writing a book and try to save everything I can. It would be a nightmare to sort though, but I generally have everything I wanted to keep.

GreaterNYCDude says

it would be convenient if you could have a way for people to save a draft of their post until it's ready to be submitted

@GreaterNYCDude OK, I made a way to save a draft post. You'll see it if you go to create a new post.

If you have an unpublished draft, you'll see a link to it on the home page.

There may still be bugs. Please let me know if you find any.

You already have a like, and dislike, add a SPAM button (and maybe UNSPAM?) button.

Let users set a threshold for "SPAM" counts before the post just doesn't show up for them.

I don't think anything should be censored. I don't believe in not being able to see a post simply because it's been voted down so many times either - it leads to group stupidity. People could abuse the "SPAM" button, so maybe also make it visible who marked it as SPAM.

If I see spam, and ONLY if I see spam will I mark it.

The "flag" link is supposed to do that for comments. I know "flag" is generic, but it would get very busy to have multiple flag options.

Or maybe you mean for posts (ie threads). You're right that I need a spam or flag link for those.

I keep having this dilemma:

A. Allow new users to create a new post (thread). But then spammers immediately start creating spam posts to get them on the home page.
B. Require one or more comments before allowing a user to create a new post. But then legit users like Mr. O'Looney the undertaker get confused because there is no new post button visible right away.

What should I do about that? I guess I could allow new users to create posts and let users mark them as spam, but that's kind of annoying for users too.

Patrick says

What should I do about that? I guess I could allow new users to create posts and let users mark them as spam, but that's kind of annoying for users too.

Brand new users have their posts in quarantine for 24 hours.

By default, they are visible to anybody that has X number of posts (a real user) - they can mark the new post as SPAM / NOTSPAM (by default it's marked as NOTSPAM)

Users can opt out of this responsibility or can be barred from it, should they abuse it.

Patrick says

The "flag" link is supposed to do that for comments. I know "flag" is generic, but it would get very busy to have multiple flag options.

Flag can be a pull down menu, you'd just need a bunch of reasons

Flag
* Remove Flag
* Personal attack
* Spam
* Pornography
* Whatever else you can think of
* General (needs new category)

richwicks says

Brand new users have their posts in quarantine for 24 hours.

Thanks for the suggestion. This is probably the best solution so far.

Patrick says

richwicks says

Brand new users have their posts in quarantine for 24 hours.

Thanks for the suggestion. This is probably the best solution so far.

If you want to be a little evil, and somebody DOES spam, you can just shadow ban all their posts. I mean, google does this all the time, and when it's NOT spam, just something they don't want you to communicate.

I was just thinking that. I could show them their own post, but not show it to others for 24 hours.

That seems OK as long as I tell them what's going on.

Patrick says

I was just thinking that. I could show them their own post, but not show it to others for 24 hours.

That seems OK as long as I tell them what's going on.

When it finally is visible to everybody else, it should got to the top of the page.

Here's another idea - I knew a guy working on something like a Facebook competitor - the idea was a "drunk email" thing. You could send out an email, but a timer could be put into it to make you rethink of what you just wrote. He didn't flesh it out entirely, but you get the idea.