Hacker News Reader

Comment by 8note | Hacker News Reader

Because it's broken for my usecase, and I need to do something slightly different on the webpage

You shouldn't have access to it -- it's on my private servers doing stuff for me. How did you get it?

I think the problem with this thread is people think I am writing browser code, or code that is going to be shared on GitHub.

I am not.

Also I'm only half joking as I've indicated with the "/s" below.

> You shouldn't have access to it -- it's on my private servers doing stuff for me. How did you get it?

Well thanks for chiming in about a completely unrelated topic from website javascript. My comment wasn't getting downvoted until your slapfight with oauea blew up.

Specifically from the web page:

"It does not depend on a browser, so you can even run it on Node.js."

That wasn't a top level question though, it was a question to a commenter saying "We wanted to obfuscate this bit of code, to make life just a little bit harder for reverse engineers." That you obfuscate code nobody other than you can even access is completely irrelevant as a reply to that question.

So then you should ignore the entire thread and move on. Why are you wasting time on this?

> You shouldn't have access to it -- it's on my private servers doing stuff for me. How did you get it?

Seems like the logical solution would be to restrict access to it then, rather than obfuscate it making it harder for yourself to maintain. But hey, you do you.

At the bottom of the thread I explain the intention is to protect against unauthorized access.

I also wouldn't obviously edit the obfuscated production code, so it wouldn't really be a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com