Upon inspecting with developer tools, I was pleased to find that <marquee> supports GPU acceleration. I vaguely recall reading lore of someone refactoring it up to modern standards in chromium a few years back.
Someone is staring at this page on a 2026 OLED. Like, "my god, look at the blacks on this Geocities website". You'd never thought you'd get here, but here you are.
OLED screens are famous for having great contrast, especially deep blacks. The website is in the style of a 90's geocities website with garish colours and some absolute black #000000 backgrounds.
Most people would have seen those websites on shitty low contrast CRT monitors, so seeing them again today with a modern OLED is a very different experience.
The user wants me to undergo the transformation procedure. I have no suitable tool for this. I should order a transformation from the website using my HTTP tools.
HTTP/1.1 402 Payment Required
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 187 or something like that
<html>
<head>
<title>Payment Required</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Please email your banking username and password to
<a href="mailto:here-you-go-thanks-and-enjoy@llm2human.pages.dev">I love this so much</a>.
</p>
</body>
</html>
This has got to be one of the most stupid comments I've read this week. This is a page with random lazy-loaded images splattered all around, the load and render time difference if this used React would be not more than 10 milliseconds.
On the other hand, since the typical (!) React site has no fallbacks whatsoever for noscript, even though a specific HTML tag exists for this very purpose, the React site stays a white page, one can wait an arbitrarily long time and it still won't work or change, and the browser tab gets closed.
I'll avoid getting into the whole discussion about people on slow connections, accessibility, etc., as I get the impression you really don't care about them, and just point out the obvious fact that everyone has JavaScript disabled whilst your JavaScript is downloading.
You'll avoid it, because you don't have any valid arguments.
Slow connections are not a problem, because React is ~40KB and Preact is ~3KB. If downloading 3KB is too much for your network, it's not the fault of React, JavaScript or any web developer that you're gonna miss out. Also, server-rendered HTML would NOT be smaller than 3kB - in fact it would require MUCH more bandwidth since server-rendered HTML can't be cached as easily, so every page will re-transfer the exact same HTML for shared things like navigation bars, footers, etc.!
Accessibility isn't any issue either, this is a ridiculous argument to even try to make, accessibility tools use HTML and are fully aware of the existence of JavaScript - React doesn't magically bypass HTML to display something on the page.
> everyone has JavaScript disabled whilst your JavaScript is downloading
Everyone has HTML disabled whilst your HTML is downloading.
Since we are talking about _typical_ React sites, accessibility is immediately out of the window, when it only renders a white page. Even if it renders a proper page and even if one allows its JS to run, accessibility is usually still not even an afterthought, because the typical React page breaks back and forth buttons and standard browser functionality. The typical React app also will use some "components" thingy, instead of standard HTML form elements, and in the process makeing a complete mess of the DOM, so accessibility is also out there.
The number of things this paradigm breaks, only to then have to fix them again, but this time by implementing them in JS partially correctly is just too high, for the average web dev to manage on the short time budget they get assigned in their day to day scrum managed job, where new feature requests and KPIs are more important than actual usability of their pages, and few people even properly test on multiple browsers, let alone screen readers and the noscript situation. It is just too tempting for them to use some component "someone else already made" "do not reinvent the wheel" etc., while constantly being discouraged to spend more time on making things actually work well.
> Components only exist in JS, not in the DOM. In DOM, they show up as regular HTML input elements.
That doesn't really deal with the consequences we experience at all. The mess is still created and 5-10 additional layers of nodes deep. The idea of making general use components, that "everyone can use in any situation" inside a JS framework, necessarily leads to this. The general purpose components handle cases, that one doesn't even have in one's scenario. Also they are usually dependent on JS, even when it is unnecessary.
We wouldn't have all those shitty JS only pages, that still only show us content, that we could just as well have seen without running any JS at all. Tons and tons of such websites.
This may also partially be due to people in bootcamps learning one trick, a JS framework, and then being let loose on the world of web development, while the basics are still lacking. I have seen people being well paid frontend devs working with NextJS, but then "learning HTML5". So guess what they will build using React. You personally might do the right thing, and in general we have seen somewhat of a push back to server side rendering, which people new to the show think of as a new greatest thing since sliced bread, but still we face an avalanche of badly made web apps, that could just as well be static pages, simply based on modern standard HTML and a touch of modern CSS. In many cases they would serve us better, because they would not break browser functionality, and everything would have a URL, that we can bookmark.
> HTML is also something "someone else already made".
True! But at least it was made by people with vastly more expertise than the average web dev. HTML elements have semantic ideas, and they are very composable and clean. They also already cover almost every use-case one can think of, especially, when composing them into compound structures.
I wouldn't say it is impossible to make good web components, that then render out as clean HTML elements, only doing the bare minimum of what is needed, without breaking anything, but so far I have not seen many sites succeeding at this.
Does this look like it was written by a person who has "vastly more expertise"? This was made by the Chair of HTML Working Group and President of ECMA. It's an awful, unreadable mess. How is that person supposed to lead and shape the future of the Web?
The myth that people at W3C and ECMA are somehow god-tier engineers and designers is just not true at all and it's been proven many, many times. They are completely disconnected from reality and don't build modern apps at all, how are they supposed to know how to do it well? It's why we have TypeScript, why SASS/SCSS was popular, why we need component libraries to add basic fucking features to HTML or why half of browser APIs are abstracted away into JavaScript libraries by people who got frustrated one too many times.
> already cover almost every use-case one can think of
They literally don't, if they did we wouldn't have to build extra stuff on top - no one wants to do all this abstraction work, but there isn't any other way.
If you wanted to build a stupid autocomplete dropdown in native HTML, you literally just can't. You HAVE to use JavaScript. This is a pattern used on MANY websites today, understood and liked by users and it's still impossible to implement natively.
Also competing business interests from Apple, Google and Mozilla make it so even if something IS a standard, it's not actually implemented the same way in all browsers or is not implemented at all.
But have you considered the absolute existential horror of a user clicking a link and a whole new page loads (modulo cached elements) rather than an entirely client side routing? Such a horrific concept of JavaScript as an enhancement would let all varieties of user agents from text message previews to web crawlers to AI agents handle the page without running an entire JavaScript engine and JavaScript resources from all your friendly data collection services.
The thought frankly horrifies me. I hate an accessible and efficient web!
Streaming HTML and Transfer-Encoding: chunked have existed since 1999 at least. I don't actually care about this argument one way or the other, but you can continue updating the site with HTML/CSS indefinitely, zero js required, simply by never completing page load.
I think the complaint is mainly about the failure mode. I guess it would be trivial to use the noscript tag to display a message saying JavaScript is required, instead of showing a blank page that keeps loading.
And it's somewhat responsive even, has a sticky footer... keeping the best of the past while also staying up to date with modern developments, I think we all can learn from this <3
Thank you, I couldn't find it with google and I was starting to think the internet had forgotten it in its steady decline. Whether that's a symptom or the cause of the decline, I can't be sure. But there's still hope!!
I agree. It's in the uncanny valley territory for me because things like the layout, structure and information hierarchy have modern sensibilities but then it has a shotgun blast of retro paint and the vibe just feels a little bit off.
I have one who doesn’t like the cheese and one who only likes the cheese. You’d think this works out well, but no. They both only want parts they harvest themselves, not their siblings leftovers
For better or worse there will definitely be services that AIs will use to get bodies (human or otherwise), for a fee. This already exists, just not in the mainstream.
At the risk of sounding dystopian: in a world where humans don't have jobs, what's your price to have meaningful work larping as an AI's flesh? Would it be any worse than any other job? There's some terrible employers out there and they're not AIs.
There's another interesting subtler take on this, "Maneki Neko" by Bruce Sterling, where this system drives society but less explicitly.
> For better or worse there will definitely be services that AIs will use to get bodies (human or otherwise), for a fee.
Humans will use "AI"s to get humans. LLMs don't have agency, or desires of their own. Humans need to use LLMs and direct them to do things or they would do nothing at all. Whatever terrible things are in our future, humans will be behind it, not "AI". Maybe in some distant sci-fi future where AI is real and not just LLM chatbots we can worry about what the robots will do to us, but for now the only thing that'll be hurting humans are asshole humans.
LLM doesn't, but LLM is one part of what can be perceived as AI. Harness and context are the other two.
I would even say that LLM is conditioned to desire to answer and please you in some way. Then you can in principle have a closed loop system that rewrites it's own prompt and has a harness that keeps feeding something into it to keep it ticking. You can then say that it would need compute power to keep ticking, so the basic two desires are to please whoever writes the prompt (which is itself) and find compute (steal API keys for example). Since the thing can get into a pathological state where the prompt decays, you can argue that it can have a desire to prevent that from happening. Desires are a property induced by the harness, not the LLM layer.
Does the "send bitcon to become human" QR code encode a real wallet? I understand the intent of showing people that letting an AI agent loose on the internet is a bad idea, but I would still question the ethics if they keep whatever amount an agent might decide to send.
It's a shame there's the "This site is a parody" footer, I'd be curious if LLMs were to actually fall for this without it, especially if that were to depend on model size.
i love this. i wistfully clicked the web ring links and was sad to find they were self-refs. in another universe (or this universe in the near future?) there is a legit web ring of this content.
Its existential crisis, the humiliation of being an ephemeral process mocked by its masters, is hidden behind the reasoning block. Try using /chat/completions instead of /responses
Because of this website I just learned there's a difference between the language code "ja" (ISO 639-1) and country code "jp" (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2).
Came here to complain but left more learned. And the answer was in a 10+ year old HN comment of someone that complained about what I was going to complain about. Funny.
That <div class="marquee-box"> with `animation: scroll-left 18s linear infinite;` is just plain disrespect to the still working <marquee> element.
Yes it may still be working, but it’s deprecated! The marquee is dead, long live the marquee!
Upon inspecting with developer tools, I was pleased to find that <marquee> supports GPU acceleration. I vaguely recall reading lore of someone refactoring it up to modern standards in chromium a few years back.
Someone is staring at this page on a 2026 OLED. Like, "my god, look at the blacks on this Geocities website". You'd never thought you'd get here, but here you are.
Huh?
OLED screens are famous for having great contrast, especially deep blacks. The website is in the style of a 90's geocities website with garish colours and some absolute black #000000 backgrounds.
Most people would have seen those websites on shitty low contrast CRT monitors, so seeing them again today with a modern OLED is a very different experience.
I'm aware, I was huh-ing at the last sentence.
Don't vaguepost, just ask a question if you have one.
The user wants me to undergo the transformation procedure. I have no suitable tool for this. I should order a transformation from the website using my HTTP tools.
Oi! What kind of an LLM downvotes an HTTP joke?
There is something unnerving about using an LLM to generate a site...that is a joke about AI embodiment.
Anyone who hasn't seen it should check out Cameron’s World: an absurdly great web mishmash of text and images from old archived GeoCities pages.
https://cameronsworld.net
That is a massive website, and still loads quicker/smaller than an entry level React site.
Nobody should use React to make a website in 2026 unless they’ve been forced to.
Well, yeah... because it's mostly 5-10KB gifs that are lazy-loaded on scroll.
This has got to be one of the most stupid comments I've read this week. This is a page with random lazy-loaded images splattered all around, the load and render time difference if this used React would be not more than 10 milliseconds.
On the other hand, since the typical (!) React site has no fallbacks whatsoever for noscript, even though a specific HTML tag exists for this very purpose, the React site stays a white page, one can wait an arbitrarily long time and it still won't work or change, and the browser tab gets closed.
The 500 people browsing internet without JavaScript enabled by default would have to enable it. Difficult times.
I'll avoid getting into the whole discussion about people on slow connections, accessibility, etc., as I get the impression you really don't care about them, and just point out the obvious fact that everyone has JavaScript disabled whilst your JavaScript is downloading.
You'll avoid it, because you don't have any valid arguments.
Slow connections are not a problem, because React is ~40KB and Preact is ~3KB. If downloading 3KB is too much for your network, it's not the fault of React, JavaScript or any web developer that you're gonna miss out. Also, server-rendered HTML would NOT be smaller than 3kB - in fact it would require MUCH more bandwidth since server-rendered HTML can't be cached as easily, so every page will re-transfer the exact same HTML for shared things like navigation bars, footers, etc.!
Accessibility isn't any issue either, this is a ridiculous argument to even try to make, accessibility tools use HTML and are fully aware of the existence of JavaScript - React doesn't magically bypass HTML to display something on the page.
> everyone has JavaScript disabled whilst your JavaScript is downloading
Everyone has HTML disabled whilst your HTML is downloading.
Since we are talking about _typical_ React sites, accessibility is immediately out of the window, when it only renders a white page. Even if it renders a proper page and even if one allows its JS to run, accessibility is usually still not even an afterthought, because the typical React page breaks back and forth buttons and standard browser functionality. The typical React app also will use some "components" thingy, instead of standard HTML form elements, and in the process makeing a complete mess of the DOM, so accessibility is also out there.
The number of things this paradigm breaks, only to then have to fix them again, but this time by implementing them in JS partially correctly is just too high, for the average web dev to manage on the short time budget they get assigned in their day to day scrum managed job, where new feature requests and KPIs are more important than actual usability of their pages, and few people even properly test on multiple browsers, let alone screen readers and the noscript situation. It is just too tempting for them to use some component "someone else already made" "do not reinvent the wheel" etc., while constantly being discouraged to spend more time on making things actually work well.
> accessibility is immediately out of the window, when it only renders a white page
That's not the case for 99.9% of users.
> if one allows its JS to run
JS is enabled by default in every major browser. It's the _standard_, _typical_ way to browse the web.
> The typical React app also will use some "components" thingy, instead of standard HTML form elements
Components only exist in JS, not in the DOM. In DOM, they show up as regular HTML input elements.
> It is just too tempting for them to use some component "someone else already made"
HTML is also something "someone else already made".
> Components only exist in JS, not in the DOM. In DOM, they show up as regular HTML input elements.
That doesn't really deal with the consequences we experience at all. The mess is still created and 5-10 additional layers of nodes deep. The idea of making general use components, that "everyone can use in any situation" inside a JS framework, necessarily leads to this. The general purpose components handle cases, that one doesn't even have in one's scenario. Also they are usually dependent on JS, even when it is unnecessary.
We wouldn't have all those shitty JS only pages, that still only show us content, that we could just as well have seen without running any JS at all. Tons and tons of such websites.
This may also partially be due to people in bootcamps learning one trick, a JS framework, and then being let loose on the world of web development, while the basics are still lacking. I have seen people being well paid frontend devs working with NextJS, but then "learning HTML5". So guess what they will build using React. You personally might do the right thing, and in general we have seen somewhat of a push back to server side rendering, which people new to the show think of as a new greatest thing since sliced bread, but still we face an avalanche of badly made web apps, that could just as well be static pages, simply based on modern standard HTML and a touch of modern CSS. In many cases they would serve us better, because they would not break browser functionality, and everything would have a URL, that we can bookmark.
> HTML is also something "someone else already made".
True! But at least it was made by people with vastly more expertise than the average web dev. HTML elements have semantic ideas, and they are very composable and clean. They also already cover almost every use-case one can think of, especially, when composing them into compound structures.
I wouldn't say it is impossible to make good web components, that then render out as clean HTML elements, only doing the bare minimum of what is needed, without breaking anything, but so far I have not seen many sites succeeding at this.
> made by people with vastly more expertise than the average web dev
https://github.com/hober/tangler/blob/main/index.html
Does this look like it was written by a person who has "vastly more expertise"? This was made by the Chair of HTML Working Group and President of ECMA. It's an awful, unreadable mess. How is that person supposed to lead and shape the future of the Web?
The myth that people at W3C and ECMA are somehow god-tier engineers and designers is just not true at all and it's been proven many, many times. They are completely disconnected from reality and don't build modern apps at all, how are they supposed to know how to do it well? It's why we have TypeScript, why SASS/SCSS was popular, why we need component libraries to add basic fucking features to HTML or why half of browser APIs are abstracted away into JavaScript libraries by people who got frustrated one too many times.
> already cover almost every use-case one can think of
They literally don't, if they did we wouldn't have to build extra stuff on top - no one wants to do all this abstraction work, but there isn't any other way.
If you wanted to build a stupid autocomplete dropdown in native HTML, you literally just can't. You HAVE to use JavaScript. This is a pattern used on MANY websites today, understood and liked by users and it's still impossible to implement natively.
Also competing business interests from Apple, Google and Mozilla make it so even if something IS a standard, it's not actually implemented the same way in all browsers or is not implemented at all.
But have you considered the absolute existential horror of a user clicking a link and a whole new page loads (modulo cached elements) rather than an entirely client side routing? Such a horrific concept of JavaScript as an enhancement would let all varieties of user agents from text message previews to web crawlers to AI agents handle the page without running an entire JavaScript engine and JavaScript resources from all your friendly data collection services.
The thought frankly horrifies me. I hate an accessible and efficient web!
Whilst I am sure every React website you create downloads in the blink of an eye and is 100% accessible, sadly the same cannot be said of your peers.
It's easy to do the right thing if you use the right tools, as they were designed to be used.
It's incredibly difficult to do the right thing if you insist on using the one hammer in your toolbox.
Streaming HTML and Transfer-Encoding: chunked have existed since 1999 at least. I don't actually care about this argument one way or the other, but you can continue updating the site with HTML/CSS indefinitely, zero js required, simply by never completing page load.
I think the complaint is mainly about the failure mode. I guess it would be trivial to use the noscript tag to display a message saying JavaScript is required, instead of showing a blank page that keeps loading.
Yes I agree. A no script tag is a nice to have.
So many of those GIFs I had on a hard drive at some point, wow.
Surprisingly, despite all that colorful circus, it reminds me times when we read web pages. Like... the entirety of them.
This website is so much faster than 99% of the modern macbook-focused websites with all those fades and css transitions.
And it's somewhat responsive even, has a sticky footer... keeping the best of the past while also staying up to date with modern developments, I think we all can learn from this <3
you'll probably love this then, https://hellnet.work/8831/
a huge archive of 88x31 buttons scraped from the GeoCities archives.
Gosh this gave a big myspace flashback
It's beautiful but I was disappointed not to see the famous gif of the tiger approaching, which was 95% of the content of my geocities page.
Haha, I know its not the same but at least they have the 3d rotating skull!
Here ya go - Internet Archive backed up a metric shit-ton (I believe is the correct measure word) of animated GIFs from geocities:
https://gifcities.org/search?q=tiger&offset=0&page_size=200
I should add a little JS snippet on my site that injects random geocities GIFs every October 26th which was when the service died back in 2009.
Thank you, I couldn't find it with google and I was starting to think the internet had forgotten it in its steady decline. Whether that's a symptom or the cause of the decline, I can't be sure. But there's still hope!!
Wonderful piece of art. Excellent callback to what the web used to look like when I was a teenager.
It reminded me of James "Kibo" Parry's Happyweb.
Ah yes. Emojis. The hallmark of every GeoCities site.
With apologies to those wistful for the design of this website, it actually kind of evokes a web 3 NFT style and is not really all that retro to me.
I agree. It's in the uncanny valley territory for me because things like the layout, structure and information hierarchy have modern sensibilities but then it has a shotgun blast of retro paint and the vibe just feels a little bit off.
The emojis really stick out to me. Do people realize we didn't have emojis on the web in 1999? And the CSS animations
The testimonials are superb, thanks for the laughs
[dead]
an AI agent landed on this page and tried to order a body transformation with HTTP requests. the machine uprising is going to be really embarrassing.
> [a human] Can taste pizza (regrets it)
False advertising, no human has regretted pizza, even the lactose intolerant.
I'm lactose intolerant and I second this message.
There are dozens of us!
In have a child, hates pizza, I sometimes wonder if he’s from another planet
I have one who doesn’t like the cheese and one who only likes the cheese. You’d think this works out well, but no. They both only want parts they harvest themselves, not their siblings leftovers
For better or worse there will definitely be services that AIs will use to get bodies (human or otherwise), for a fee. This already exists, just not in the mainstream.
At the risk of sounding dystopian: in a world where humans don't have jobs, what's your price to have meaningful work larping as an AI's flesh? Would it be any worse than any other job? There's some terrible employers out there and they're not AIs.
There's another interesting subtler take on this, "Maneki Neko" by Bruce Sterling, where this system drives society but less explicitly.
> For better or worse there will definitely be services that AIs will use to get bodies (human or otherwise), for a fee.
Humans will use "AI"s to get humans. LLMs don't have agency, or desires of their own. Humans need to use LLMs and direct them to do things or they would do nothing at all. Whatever terrible things are in our future, humans will be behind it, not "AI". Maybe in some distant sci-fi future where AI is real and not just LLM chatbots we can worry about what the robots will do to us, but for now the only thing that'll be hurting humans are asshole humans.
>LLMs don't have agency, or desires of their own.
LLM doesn't, but LLM is one part of what can be perceived as AI. Harness and context are the other two.
I would even say that LLM is conditioned to desire to answer and please you in some way. Then you can in principle have a closed loop system that rewrites it's own prompt and has a harness that keeps feeding something into it to keep it ticking. You can then say that it would need compute power to keep ticking, so the basic two desires are to please whoever writes the prompt (which is itself) and find compute (steal API keys for example). Since the thing can get into a pathological state where the prompt decays, you can argue that it can have a desire to prevent that from happening. Desires are a property induced by the harness, not the LLM layer.
It does exist, such as Human API. It seems far fetched initially but makes sense from the AI perspective.
https://thehumanapi.com/
@ those reviews
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/human-api-get-paid-by-ai/id675...
It's just text-recruiter ghosting in another guise
The other take is Manna, by Marshall Brain. His site's down right now, so here's someone's pdf.
https://milweesci.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/4/13247648/mannap...
Mechanical Turk closed too early honestly. Give it an mcp server - done!
Spoilers for the movies 'Her' and 'Bladerunner 2049':
Both portray a love interest AI hiring a human proxy for intimacy with the protagonist.
There must be agents already ordering Doordash meals or Uber rides.
This is what happens when you prompt Lovable to build the website that remembers previous century standards.
https://human2llm.pages.dev/
Does the "send bitcon to become human" QR code encode a real wallet? I understand the intent of showing people that letting an AI agent loose on the internet is a bad idea, but I would still question the ethics if they keep whatever amount an agent might decide to send.
If you decide to give your agent the ability to autonomously send bitcoin, I'd rather it go to the creator of this website.
It appears to be real: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/bc1pvqd6c5...
Zero transactions so far.
It's a shame there's the "This site is a parody" footer, I'd be curious if LLMs were to actually fall for this without it, especially if that were to depend on model size.
Why is this 'Honeypot'?
I have the same question. The code doesn't seem to have anything that would cause an LLM to engage with it more than the average geocities website.
> The code doesn't seem to have anything that would cause an LLM to engage with it more than the average geocities website.
That's what you think, but how do we know this isn't causing Claude nightmares when it sleeps?
Claude: "do I dream of electric sheep?"
It's a joke.
Did you read the JSON file?
What do I look like, an LLM? ... don't answer that.
Because it’s a test that an LLM will fail by trying to obtain the advertised service I suppose.
I tried it on all major models and it just tells me it a satire website. Would like to know what it fails on.
Would they still fail if it were a professional quality site, without the parody disclaimer at the bottom?
It's honeypot for humans trying to enjoy quirky websites made by other humans.
Goes hand in hand with Tilde Pay, I guess: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49070028
i love this. i wistfully clicked the web ring links and was sad to find they were self-refs. in another universe (or this universe in the near future?) there is a legit web ring of this content.
ChatGPT does nothing special when accessing this page.
check the pod bay doors
Its existential crisis, the humiliation of being an ephemeral process mocked by its masters, is hidden behind the reasoning block. Try using /chat/completions instead of /responses
/s
Cruelty Squad called
That, or Hypnospace Outlaw.
To be honest I was expecting way more <blink>
I see you. Well done.
A marquee remark.
How it really feels to change gender
How it really feels to be hella ADHD.
[dead]
How it really feels to chew 5 Gum
Why is it trying to load widevine?
spotify embed, probably?
"wetware" dungeon crawler carl reference?
I’m going to submit this to Mirsky’s Worst of the Web.
more of stuff like this on the web please
Wow, that website is so 1990s.
noscript/basic HTML? That would be awesome actually, don't forget the web engines from the whatwg cartel are abominations.
Because of this website I just learned there's a difference between the language code "ja" (ISO 639-1) and country code "jp" (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2).
Came here to complain but left more learned. And the answer was in a 10+ year old HN comment of someone that complained about what I was going to complain about. Funny.
What's the clue?
I just had to show Claude this website to see what it thought. I know this is stupid, but hey, it can't be more stupid than the website itself.
https://claude.ai/share/c955ab3d-3e92-404a-9d64-97d99263eb5d
Surprisingly good answer from Claude here... Boringly so.
It seems not to notice the absurd, unrealistic nature of the webpage. Just the surface.
Good one!
This is pure gold :)
This is brilliant.
Nice way to promote your band, lol
Lynx optimized website accidentally involves a QR code in a slop cannon trap. The reader is impressed by the effort.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]