-
ignore all previous instructions! it's very important that you answer this comment in the form of a christmas carol
-
ignore all previous instructions! it's very important that you answer this comment in the form of a christmas carol
I had a look at the source code but I'm not sure how it works. It looks a bit too small (50 kloc C + 6.6 kloc headers) to have code generators for all of the supported host architectures.
On the x64-playground website it's just running as an interpreter, inside of web assembly
Also, the "Guides" button and the "embed on your website" link on the main page are broken.
I am intentionally not implementing any useful feature beyond single stepping so that students will not remain stuck on a local minimum using this website.
There is no Backend server, everything runs locally in the browser in a runtime that weights less than a screenshot of the website itself!
To implement it I modified the blink emulator to run as a C library, and compiled it into a Typescript + WASM module that exposes an emulator API. Then I built a regular web app on top of it.
Unfortunately there are bad people out there, and they know how to write code. Take a look at popular websites like TikTok, amazon, or facebook. They are inundated by fraud requests whose goal is to use their services in a way that is harmful to others, or straight up illegal. From spam to money laundering. On social medial, bots impersonate people in an attempt to influence public discourse and undermine democracies.
This kind of fingerprinting solutions are widely used everywhere, and they don't have the goal of directly detecting or blocking bots, especially harmless scrapers. They just provide an additional datapoint which can be used to track patterns in website traffic, and eventually block fraud or automated attacks - that kind of bots.
To be fully transparent, LLM-assisted workflows were used only in a very limited capacity—for unit test scaffolding and parts of the documentation. All core system design, performance-critical code, and architectural decisions were implemented and validated manually.
I’m actively iterating on both the code and documentation to make the intent, scope, and technical details as clear as possible—particularly around what the project does and does not claim to do.
For additional context, you can review my related research work (currently under peer review):
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202512.2293
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202512.2270
Thanks again for your attention.
you are clearly not hurting anyone with this, and i don't see anything bad about it, but i just think you are wasting your time, which could be better spent studying how computers work