Recreating uncensored Epstein PDFs from raw encoded attachments

Heads-up: An update to this article has been posted.

There have been a lot of complaints about both the competency and the logic behind the latest Epstein archive release by the DoJ: from censoring the names of co-conspirators to censoring pictures of random women in a way that makes individuals look guiltier than they really are, forgetting to redact credentials that made it possible for all of Reddit to log into Epstein’s account and trample over all the evidence, and the complete ineptitude that resulted in most of the latest batch being corrupted thanks to incorrectly converted Quoted-Printable encoding artifacts, it’s safe to say that Pam Bondi’s DoJ did not put its best and brightest on this (admittedly gargantuan) undertaking. But the most damning evidence has all been thoroughly redacted… hasn’t it? Well, maybe not.

I was thinking of writing an article on the mangled quoted-printable encoding the day this latest dump came out in response to all the misinformed musings and conjectures that were littering social media (and my dilly-dallying cost me, as someone beat me to the punch), and spent some time searching through the latest archives looking  for some SMTP headers that I could use in the article when I came across a curious artifact: not only were the emails badly transcoded into plain text, but also some binary attachments were actually included in the dumps in their over-the-wire Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 format, and the unlucky intern that was assigned to the documents in question didn’t realize the significance of what they were looking at and didn’t see the point in censoring seemingly meaningless page after page of hex content!

Continue reading

How to (safely) swap the contents of two files opened in (neo)vim buffers

Raise your hand if you’ve been here before: you have file1 open in a vim or neovim buffer and you want to “fork” its contents over to file2, but you need to reference file1 while you do so. So you do the obvious: you open a split buffer with :sp or :vsp, run a quick :saveas file2 then hack away at the file to make the changes you want followed by :w (or whatever shortcut you have mapped to the same) and call it a day… only to realize that you were in the wrong split and that you’ve accidentally switched file1 and file2 around?

Continue reading

Namecheap takes down domain hosting video archives of Israeli war crimes

Namecheap.com, the popular domain name and webhosting platform, has disabled the Genocide.live domain name, which was home to a publicly accessible archive of over 16,000 videos documenting alleged Israeli war crimes, the vast majority of which were recorded since the onset of the war on Gaza in late 2023. The archive, formerly known as TikTokGenocide, was previously submitted as “evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza” by the South African UN delegation to the United Nations Security Council in February of 2025 and is also included in ongoing court proceedings of the International Court of Justice case South Africa (et. al.) v. Israel.

Continue reading

An unhandled exception in the English language

While no one expects a language that formed organically via iteration and evolution to be free of logical errors, over time conventions have been formed to deal with most of them such that for the most part there is a “right” way of saying something and a “wrong” way, even when there’s no obvious rule to cover the use case in mind.

The BBC has an excellent article with some examples and even past attempts at creating rules to deal with these cases.

“Adjectives in English absolutely have to be in this order: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest you’ll sound like a maniac. It’s an osadd thing that every English speaker uses that list, but almost none of us could write it out.”

My personal favorite “it’ll blow your mind” rule is with regards to ablaut reduplication:

You are utterly familiar with the rule of ablaut reduplication. You’ve been using it all your life. It’s just that you’ve never heard of it. But if somebody said the words zag-zig, or ‘cross-criss you would know, deep down in your loins, that they were breaking a sacred rule of language. You just wouldn’t know which one. All four of a horse’s feet make exactly the same sound. But we always, always say clip-clop, never clop-clip. Every second your watch (or the grandfather clock in the hall makes the same sound) but we say tick-tock, never tock-tick. You will never eat a Kat Kit bar. The bells in Frère Jaques will forever chime ‘ding dang dong’.

But what do you do when two rules or conventions clash? And what does that have to do with programming or computer science?

Continue reading

Which carry-on electronics are bigger than a cell phone?

From the “they clearly didn’t think this one through” department,1 comes news of the federal government’s new ban on “electronic devices larger than a cellphone” from eight Muslim-majority countries, ostensibly to defend against in-air terror attacks that could somehow come via a device that’s been x-rayed and powered on to ensure it works. But what’s a cell phone and how big is too big?

Continue reading


  1. The poor fellas in this department have been so overworked these past 60 days. They’ve really never put in this much overtime since, well, ever. 

Baseball’s Home Field Advantage

bbstats

Much has been made of “home field advantage” in baseball – in particular, does playing at home vs away significantly affect a team’s outcome? Just how much impact does it have on a series’ outcome? What is home field advantage made of, anyway? Our favorite statisticians over at FiveThirtyEight once compiled a post about the disappearing effects of home field advantage for soccer in England, but what about the national pastime here in the USA? Buoyed by the Cubs’ recent success and egged-on by the MLB’s questionable interesting policy of awarding home-field advantage to the winner of the All-Star Game, we decided to see just what effect playing at home vs away has.

We went back 145 years and crunched the numbers from 210,719 baseball games to find out just what impact playing at home vs away has had over the past century-and-a-half of baseball… and then took it a step further with a look at some numbers on home field advantage by both team and park.

Continue reading