PageSourceSearch

https://tommorris.org/posts/2026/what-has-athens-to-do-with-palo-alto/

html tommorris.org collected 2026-10-02 07:24:20 UTC 25,944 bytes, 523 lines download raw bytes

1<!DOCTYPE html>
2<html lang="en-gb">
3    
4    
5
6
7    <head>
8    <link href="https://gmpg.org/xfn/11" rel="profile">
9    
10    <link rel="canonical" href="https://tommorris.org/posts/2026/what-has-athens-to-do-with-palo-alto/">
11    
12    <meta charset="utf-8">
13<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
14<!-- Enable responsiveness on mobile devices -->
15<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, maximum-scale=1">
16<meta name="generator" content="Hugo 0.58.3" />
17
18    
19    
20    
21
22<title>What has Athens to do with Palo Alto? • tommorris.org</title>
23
24
25<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary"/>
26<meta name="twitter:title" content="What has Athens to do with Palo Alto?"/>
27<meta name="twitter:description" content="Weird AI cultists are not serious people. Laughing at them is good for the soul."/>
28
29<meta property="og:title" content="What has Athens to do with Palo Alto?" />
30<meta property="og:description" content="Weird AI cultists are not serious people. Laughing at them is good for the soul." />
31<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
32<meta property="og:url" content="https://tommorris.org/posts/2026/what-has-athens-to-do-with-palo-alto/" />
33<meta property="article:published_time" content="2026-09-16T13:12:57+01:00" />
34<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2026-09-16T13:12:57+01:00" />
35
36
37    
38
39
40<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/highlight.js/11.7.0/styles/default.min.css">
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49<link rel="stylesheet" href="/scss/hyde-hyde.0a519403c9c558a36e3feb8b46f9a46b06fb49ea43a214ec1420114bf9a43c7a.css" integrity="sha256-ClGUA8nFWKNuP&#43;uLRvmkawb7SepDohTsFCARS/mkPHo=">
50
51
52<link rel="stylesheet" href="/scss/print.2744dcbf8a0b2e74f8a50e4b34e5f441be7cf93cc7de27029121c6a09f9e77bc.css" integrity="sha256-J0Tcv4oLLnT4pQ5LNOX0Qb58&#43;TzH3icCkSHGoJ&#43;ed7w=" media="print">
53
54
55
56    <!-- HTML5 shim and Respond.js for IE8 support of HTML5 elements and media queries -->
57    <!--[if lt IE 9]>
58    
58<script src="https://oss.maxcdn.com/html5shiv/3.7.3/html5shiv.min.js"></script>
58
59    
59<script src="https://oss.maxcdn.com/respond/1.4.2/respond.min.js"></script>
59
60    <![endif]-->
61    <!-- Icons -->
62    <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="144x144" href="/apple-touch-icon-144-precomposed.png">
63    <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.png">
64    
65    
66
67</head>
68
69
70    <body class="theme-base-tm ">
71    
72<div class="sidebar">
73  <div class="container ">
74    <div class="sidebar-about">
75      <span class="site__title">
76        <a href="https://tommorris.org/">tommorris.org</a>
77      </span>
78      
79      <p class="site__description">
80        
81      </p>
82    </div>
83    <div>
84	<ul class="sidebar-nav">
85		 
86		
87	</ul>
88</div>
89
90    <p>
91      <section class="social">
92	
93	
94	
95	&nbsp;<a href="https://github.com/tommorris" rel="me"><i class="fab fa-github fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i></a>
96	
97	
98	
99	
100	<a href="https://mastodon.social/@tommorris" rel="me"><i class="fab fa-mastodon fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i></a>
101	
102	
103	<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/tommorris.org" rel="me"><i class="fa-brands fa-bluesky fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i></a>
104	
105	
106	
107	
108	
109	
110	
111	
112	
113</section>
114
115    </p>
116    <p class="copyright">
117      &copy; 2026 Tom Morris
118      
119    </p>
120  </div>
121  <div>
122  </div>
123</div>
124
125        <div class="content container">
126            
127    
128<article class="h-entry">
129  <header>
130    <h1 class="p-name">What has Athens to do with Palo Alto?</h1>
131    
132    
133<div class="post__meta">
134    
135    
136      <i class="fas fa-calendar-alt"></i>
137      <time class="dt-published" datetime="2026-09-16T13:12:57-0000">2026-09-16</time>
138    
139    
140    
141    
142    
143      
144      
145          <br/>
146           <i class="fas fa-tags"></i>
147          
148          <a class="badge badge-tag p-category" href="/tags/ai">ai</a>
149           
150      
151          <a class="badge badge-tag p-category" href="/tags/self-driving-cars">self-driving cars</a>
152           
153      
154          <a class="badge badge-tag p-category" href="/tags/technology">technology</a>
155           
156      
157          <a class="badge badge-tag p-category" href="/tags/ethics">ethics</a>
158           
159      
160          <a class="badge badge-tag p-category" href="/tags/smart-contracts">smart contracts</a>
161           
162      
163          <a class="badge badge-tag p-category" href="/tags/blockchain">blockchain</a>
164          
165      
166    
167    
168    <br/>
169    <i class="fas fa-clock"></i> 15 min read
170</div>
171
172
173  </header>
174  
175  
176  <div class="post e-content">
177    <p>Imagine if we could implement an entire system of ethics in JavaScript.</p>
178
179<p>&ldquo;That’s silly&rdquo;, one might say, &ldquo;JavaScript is a terrible language. We need
180something better.&rdquo;</p>
181
182<p>Okay, fair enough. I don&rsquo;t like JavaScript either. Take your pick. It can be as
183functionally pure as Haskell, or as hackishly old-school Perl as you like.
184Maybe Rust. That&rsquo;s a neat language. It&rsquo;s got a borrow checker and everything.
185And really nice compiler errors. Booted up Emacs? Gotten all your version
186control sorted? Great! Now, go, open up <code>src/ethics.rs</code> and implement those
187ethics.</p>
188
189<p>A more sophisticated interlocutor, at this point, steps in and objects to the
190entire project. Ethics is far too complex, subjective and embodied to implement
191in any programming language. I mean, we only implement a subset of our ethical
192principles in legislation, and to do so we need to be quite specific and we
193need human oversight.</p>
194
195<p>And they&rsquo;re right. &ldquo;Thou shalt not steal&rdquo; becomes &ldquo;thou shalt not <em>dishonestly
196appropriate property belonging to another with the intent to permanently
197deprive them of it</em>&rdquo; combined with a whole set of institutional processes and
198safeguards (such as the benevolent police officer giving your 12-year-old a
199stern telling off after he nicks some sweeties from the local Co-Op rather than
200arresting him), to the public interest test we expect Crown Prosecutors to
201dutifully apply before initiating criminal proceedings. Good luck turning
202those into code. And, as already stated, of the ethical principles that we have
203condensed into rules, only a subset of them are of the sort we want to put into
204the statute books and have constables and magistrates and the like enforce on
205others.</p>
206
207<p>The smart contract people had an attempt at turning the <em>legal</em> subset into
208code, and it was as much of a failure as you&rsquo;d expect. My <a href="https://tommorris.org/posts/2020/hart-contracts-not-smart-contracts/">standard
209objection</a>
210of &ldquo;draft me an implementation of an <code>is_reasonable</code> function, because every
211question we actually bother to litigate about ultimately comes down to a
212dispute as to what being reasonable entails in a particular context&rdquo; remains
213remarkably unanswered. Anyone silly enough to still try to push smart contracts
214in 2026 will try very hard to avoid facing it, which is unfortunate because the
215conclusion that follows is: &ldquo;if you can&rsquo;t solve that, and need to fallback to
216the existing socially constructed systems of laws and the various institutions
217that enforce them, well, is there any point in the smart contract anymore?
218Obviously not. You could just have a normal contract written in a natural
219language like English, and on the very rare offchance it goes wrong, you could
220pay some court fees in your preferred jurisdiction to have a reasonably neutral
221arbiter to debug it&rdquo;.</p>
222
223<p>A concession, then. “Okay we’re going to struggle with this. Maybe you can’t
224encode the full complexity of human ethics into computer code, but we are
225building autonomous systems! And they definitely need some ethical guidelines!
226After all, they could kill someone.”</p>
227
228<p>Such is the purported goal of projects such as <a href="https://www.moralmachine.net/">Moral
229Machine</a>
229, a website hosted by MIT inviting
230people to contemplate the ethical rules that might bind autonomous vehicles. To
231anyone with a philosophical education, it owes as much to Reddit trolley
232problem memes as it does to serious philosophy, but it&rsquo;s a fun game.</p>
233
234<p>In said experiment, you are supposed to decide whether the ethical code of a
235driverless car ought to, <em>ceteris paribus</em>, run over a child or an adult. How
236about a child vs two adults? Or maybe a rich adult vs a poor adult? A mother vs
237a childless adult? A <em>Telegraph</em> reader vs a <em>Daily Mirror</em> reader? A disabled
238benefits scrounger vs an upstanding job creator? Five homeless criminals vs
239three doctors? What if the baby in the pram was actually going to grow up to be
240Hitler? What if it&rsquo;s one giant duck or a hundred small horses? You know the
241drill.</p>
242
243<p>Why, yes, when you put it like that, trying to come up with a prioritised list
244of who the computer should prefer killing does give off some major eugenics
245vibes. But maybe we need to hold our woke snowflake noses over such
246objections—we desperately <em>need</em> such principles codified in order to write the
247ethics submodule for the Waymos and Teslas, and we need to face these kinds of
248unpleasant tradeoffs head on in order to make the world a better place. You
249can’t bake a cake without telling the computer which eggs are most morally
250deserving of being broken.</p>
251
252<p>But I have a much simpler objection: it’s completely pointless.</p>
253
254<p>We aren’t going to get a democratic vote or a citizen&rsquo;s assembly or a public
255consultation on whether we get killed by an out-of-control robotaxi. If a group
256of psychologists put together enough checkbox studies and empirically settle a
257few centuries of philosophical argumentation about ethics, and finally come up
258with a one, true objective set of ethical criteria to code into driverless
259vehicles, the manufacturers simply <strong>won’t care</strong>. They’ll decide the emergency
260response behaviour of autonomous vehicles based on whether it maximises profit
261and minimises legal liabilities, both their own and that of major insurance
262companies. They aren’t weighing up Kant and Hume. Do you think Spotify
263executives are sitting there carefully meditating on whether the miniscule
264compensation musicians get is fair based on Rawlsian principles? The only
265philosophers they care about are the ones determining far more prosaic matters
266like tort liability and insurance premiums. I don&rsquo;t think Lloyd’s of London
267spend a lot of time consulting any of the books on the ‘intro to ethics’
268reading list when setting premiums or compiling actuarial tables. It is those,
269along with the <em>Judicial College Guidelines in Personal Injury Claims</em> (and
270equivalents elsewhere), that are the binding authority here, not Scanlon or
271Parfit or some other learned moral philosopher.</p>
272
273<p>To believe there will be an outbreak of ethical consideration from tech company
274CEOs upon the completion of a worked out, implementable moral calculus is
275utterly delusional. The flight logs and email correspondence of the late
276Jeffrey Epstein doesn&rsquo;t exactly demonstrate that the political or business
277leaders of the world are overburdened by moral conscience.</p>
278
279<p>Is anyone going to force them to do otherwise? The Americans? The European
280Union? <em>Andy Burnham?</em> Please. Let&rsquo;s be serious. Governments don&rsquo;t want to wade
281into some moral philosophy debate unless there are some culture war votes to be
282had in it. When Parliament first legislated in 2018 to allow autonomous
283vehicles on British roads, they did not require manufacturers to have installed
284a properly functioning morality chip, with the design of it audited by a panel
285of eminent ethicists. They merely said &ldquo;if insurers are willing to take on the
286risk of civil liability, well, off you go&rdquo;. That&rsquo;s not in the same category of
287conscience-driven issue as abortion or assisted dying where party whips would
288grant MPs a free vote, but it is a fairly pragmatic answer to the rather more
289real questions of liability and insurance. You know, a thing that actually
290matters when vehicles smash into one another and/or hurt people.</p>
291
292<p>(The British government then realised it was a bit more complicated than that
293and had to pass another piece of legislation in 2024, but, again, the Secretary
294of State for Transport was not sitting with competing moral philosophers on
295each shoulder whispering in their ear. They&rsquo;re far more concerned about whether
296building some fast charging stations on the M1 will create more jobs, or how on
297earth to get HS2 to actually happen sometime before the heat death of the
298universe.)</p>
299
300<p>If the conclusion of this kind of intellectual self-indulgence is never going
301to be meaningfully implemented (either voluntarily, through self-regulation, or
302through legislation/regulation), why bother arguing about it? I mean, like all
303of philosophy, it’s a moderately interesting thing to discuss, and closing
304metaphysical loopholes can scratch the same kind of itch as crosswords or
305sudoku puzzles. And if you are a teenager and have a life ahead of you filled
306with Zoom calls, back pain and having to change energy supplier every six
307months, a few years of contemplating the nature of consciousness, reality,
308truth, knowledge, beauty and the good life is a pretty fun way to get yourself
309into lots of student debt, and maybe learn some cool and interesting things
310that might bring some value to your life. (But good luck convincing your boss
311that you shouldn’t implement dark patterns in your sales funnel because it
312offends against Kantian principles.)</p>
313
314<p>Pure intellectual interest can&rsquo;t justify why we have researchers pursuing the
315application of trolleyology to autonomous vehicles—reading academic philosophy
316journals is a rather niche and nerdy hobby, after all. No, the ultimate purpose
317of driverless car theorising is to convince people that there is <em>some</em> type of
318ethical consideration going into the development of this technology. It is
319rather reassuring to think that there are people diligently working away to
320make technology follow <em>some</em> kind of moral principles (even if we&rsquo;re still a
321bit unclear as to the exact principles), and it also comforting to think that
322once this piece of ethical algebra has been solved, it&rsquo;ll be handed off to
323beneficent technologists to dutifully translate into code to be installed into
324self-driving vehicles in the near future. Please focus on this and try to
325ignore the fact that the person ultimately overseeing all of this is more
326likely to be someone who is so high on ketamine that he does not give a single
327damn about whether your (or anybody else&rsquo;s) gran gets killed on a zebra
328crossing. He is far more concerned with building Mecha-Hitler.</p>
329
330<p>One of the early papers from the MIT Moral Machine creators was titled
331&ldquo;<a href="http://rdcu.be/vKrb">Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving
332vehicles</a>&rdquo;. The thesis is roughly that consumers want a
333wholly self-protective set of rules which manufacturers won&rsquo;t put in because
334it&rsquo;d be bad for their PR to be seen as uncaring and sociopathic, but if they
335implemented a purely utilitarian ethic that&rsquo;s as willing to sacrifice the
336passengers as innocent bystanders, consumers would probably seek to try a
337different type of car because it&rsquo;s not very nice to die in a car accident. It&rsquo;s
338also not very nice to be scapegoated for a crime you didn&rsquo;t do in order to
339bring about societal calm (feel free to substitute in any of the other standard
340objections to crude utilitarianism, there are many to choose from). Vibes-wise,
341all of the options aren&rsquo;t ones people are particularly keen on. (As does
342&ldquo;they&rsquo;ll do whatever is in the best interests of the manufacturer and the
343insurance company&rdquo;, but we are duty bound to not mention that particular
344elephant.)</p>
345
346<p>The answer, then, is to try and make the general public <em>think differently
347about the ethics of self-driving cars</em>. They are not inviting you to help
348co-design a nice algorithmic compromise between Kant and Bentham on the
349important subject of &ldquo;shall the car kill your gran?&rdquo;, they are producing an
350interactive marketing exhibit selling the benefits of self-driving cars to a
351public who have conflicted and inconsistent moral views, because they&rsquo;re humans
352and humans have conflicted and inconsistent moral views. It&rsquo;s an industry
353marketing campaign dressed up as an exercise in applied moral philosophy.
354Please, let&rsquo;s drop the pretense and just be honest about it.</p>
355
356<p>This kind of philosophical marketing exercise is the exact same thing we are
357now seeing with &ldquo;AI safety&rdquo; and &ldquo;alignment research&rdquo;. We have some people who
358sit in the corner of the various AI labs and get paid good money to produce
359some extremely earnest blog posts imagining all sorts of scary doomsday
360scenarios and pretending that if they just ask the chatbot to not do bad
361things, it might not. But the companies keep building the technology they think
362might create the doomsday scenario. This makes great copy for journalists. &ldquo;We
363have people here who think they might accidentally create a murderbot, but
364they&rsquo;re also deeply committed to building the murderbot because the Chinese
365government might also build the murderbot first and wouldn&rsquo;t it be awful if, in
366the twelve minutes before every nuclear weapon wipes out all humans, we were
367forced to use an AI that would not generate any pictures of Tianneman Square,
368so we must build the murderbot first to stand up for freedom and the American
369way&rdquo;
369 is a pretty wild story. And if that kind of patriotic American
370flag-waving mythology isn&rsquo;t to your particular taste, other options will
371presumably be along soon.</p>
372
373<p>It&rsquo;s bullshit. It&rsquo;s marketing fluff. That&rsquo;s all it is. Again, let&rsquo;s not dignify
374this with any suggestion of being real. It is Scientology but for people who
375know how to write Python. You don&rsquo;t need an article in a peer-reviewed academic
376journal to know that Lord Xenu isn&rsquo;t real, or that Jesus doesn&rsquo;t actually want
377you to don black Nikes and commit ritual suicide with $5.75 in your pocket to
378transport yourself on to a spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet.</p>
379
380<p>None of this is serious thinking. It is a distracting form of secular
381apologetics for the business interests of some of the worst human beings on the
382planet. The people around them believe it because being paid a six figure sum
383by OpenAI or Anthropic to fret about bullshit &ldquo;x-risks&rdquo; is probably a <em>really</em>
384great gig—way better than churning out yet another Java CRUD app. But, it comes
385with a downside. You are the house ethicist of AI bros. So, if it is in the
386financial interest of Sam Altman to torture a thousand orphans, well, your job
387is to produce some plausible-sounding sophistry roughly along the lines of
388“yes, torturing a thousand orphans is incredibly unpleasant but we <em>really</em>
389need the self-improving magical genius computer to cure cancer and make us all
390live for eternity, and thus everything is justified by this massive upside in
391utility” backed up with some made-up numbers (sorry, <em>Bayesian priors</em>) and,
392congrats, that&rsquo;
392s all the sign off needed for completely ethical baby
393torture.<sup class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:0"><a href="#fn:0">1</a></sup> Turns out if you put &ldquo;infinite wealth and God-mode cheatcodes for
394all of reality&rdquo; in to a cost-benefits calculation, it tends to skew the
395figures. Who could have guessed? When applied to philanthropy, this is the
396exact same kind of utilitarian self-dealing that justifies televangelist
397preachers buying private jets to minister to the poor and needy.</p>
398
399<p>A desperate reality check is needed here. You have technology companies that
400are run by some deeply unpleasant people, and they&rsquo;re getting rich (at least on
401paper) by creating products that cause a whole succession of frankly <em>terrible</em>
402problems for society. That takes many forms: algorithmic discrimination and
403bias, the replacement of important public services by shitty chatbots, people
404getting into delusional relationships with chatbots (some of which escalate to
405self-harm and suicide) or completely frazzling their brains by delegating every
406single decision and piece of thinking in their life to an AI assistant. Most
407concerning for me is the epistemic annhiliation that&rsquo;s been caused by a
408never-ending torrent of slop and bullshit overwhelming institutions and
409professions that have a vital social role of helping sort truth from falsity
410(including education, law, government and the media). I really miss the time
411when photos and videos could generally be assumed to be real, and text was
412usually written by a human being who knows something. These are problems
413happening <em>now</em>, causing real world harm <em>now</em>, to <em>actual living human
414beings</em>. Not sci-fi harms to made-up hypothetical humans we are saving 10,000
415years in the future according to some longtermist utilitarian calculus.</p>
416
417<p>These very real problems aren&rsquo;t solved by chinstroking philosophical debates
418about the status of AI agents in one&rsquo;s moral cosmology, or whether we can come
419up with the optimal vehicular homicide algorithm. The burning question is: &ldquo;how
420the hell do we stop them from screwing up society?&rdquo; This isn&rsquo;t a question of
421deep armchair ethical theorising, it is a political and regulatory problem of
422the sort economists, lawyers, politicians and a whole variety of other policy
423people deal with every day. This isn&rsquo;t to downplay the difficulty of
424formulating good policy, and certainly not a justification for <em>bad</em>
425policy.<sup class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">2</a></sup> But it is policy we need, not industry propaganda wearing the robes
426of moral theology. It is all a form of Potemkin intellectualism, giant
427distractions from far more urgent and practical matters. Tech theory is there
428to create a facade of some serious ethical and intellectual consideration going
429on to cover over the reality, namely that the industry is run by Delboy-like
430chancers desperately flogging mostly the latest shiny thing. It is valuable for
431them to project the impression that they are doing serious moral philosophy
432that might decide <em>The Future of Humanity</em>, rather than high-stakes gambling on
433the future value of data centres filled with GPUs badly summarising emails.
434People like Sam Altman may have the power to end the world, and the money to
435buy presidents and prime ministers. But us ordinary non-billionaire
436non-tech-founders have the power to point out that the entire philosophical
437structure of their weird AI doomsday cult was formulated by a bunch of
438skull-measuring racist dorks on a message board that&rsquo;s devoted to a crap
439600,000 word Harry Potter fanfiction written by a <em>fully grown adult</em>, and this
440will never stop being funny. All of this is a deeply ridiculous and absurd
441circus and ought to be treated as such.</p>
442<div class="footnotes">
443
444<hr />
445
446<ol>
447<li id="fn:0"><p>Sam Bankman-Fried ran very similar arguments to justify the kind of fraud
448that landed him in federal prison. Despite apparently being very clever,
449his bad ideas hurt a fair number of rich people&rsquo;s bank accounts, and he
450seemed remarkably unaware of how they <em>really</em> go after you for that kind
451of thing.  Same for Elizabeth Holmes. She would have been fine if the only
452people Theranos had screwed over were Walgreens customers in Arizona who
453wanted to know whether or not they had diabetes, HIV or various types of
454cancer&hellip; but Theranos also screwed over investors like Rupert Murdoch and
455Betsy DeVos and, in America, that&rsquo;s a <em>real</em> crime for which you do real
456time.</p>
457 <a class="footnote-return" href="#fnref:0"><sup>[return]</sup></a></li>
458
459<li id="fn:1"><p>Meta and TikTok and various other social media platforms are awful. But,
460also, the Online Safety Act is an abysmally bad piece of legislation that
461simultaneously fails to solve the problems with big social platforms, and
462creates a massive regulatory moat that makes it much <em>harder</em> for small,
463independent websites to compete with them. Facebook can afford a few
464lawyers to fill in a few forms every year to send to Ofcom. Random forums
465about cycling or basketweaving or whatever, not so much. Also, the age
466verification providers are poorly regulated. Literally no guarantee they
467won&rsquo;t lose all the scans of everyone&rsquo;s passport or whatever they submitted
468to send DMs on Bluesky.</p>
469 <a class="footnote-return" href="#fnref:1"><sup>[return]</sup></a></li>
470</ol>
471</div>
472
473  </div>
474  
475
476<div class="navigation navigation-single">
477    
478    <a href="/posts/2026/the-invisible-dragon-discovered-magical-security-vulnerabilities-but-they-go-to-another-school/" class="navigation-prev">
479      <i aria-hidden="true" class="fa fa-chevron-left"></i>
480      <span class="navigation-tittle">The invisible dragon discovered magical security vulnerabilities but they go to another school</span>
481    </a>
482    
483    
484</div>
485
486
487  
488
489  
490    
491
492
493</article>
494
495
496        </div>
497        
498    
499
500<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/font-awesome/6.7.2/js/all.min.js" integrity="sha512-b+nQTCdtTBIRIbraqNEwsjB6UvL3UEMkXnhzd8awtCYh0Kcsjl9uEgwVFVbhoj3uu1DO1ZMacNvLoyJJiNfcvg==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
500
501
502
503    
504    
505        
505<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/highlight.js/11.4.0/highlight.min.js"></script>
505
506        
507    
508    
508<script type="text/javascript">
509        
510        hljs.initHighlightingOnLoad();
511    </script>
511
512    
513
514
515<script data-goatcounter="https://tommorris.goatcounter.com/count"
516        async src="//gc.zgo.at/count.js"></script>
516
517
518    
519
520
521
522    </body>
523</html>

Line numbers count LF bytes from the start of the resource, as the search results do. Vendor segments are library code the classifier recognised; they are stored but not indexed. Bytes are shown as Latin1 characters, one per byte.