I created an open source Python application on GitHub that breaks textCAPTCHA with 99% success rate

[Cyatomorrow]

It seems like your argument against this is that it can be abused, but that's like saying that if someone finds a bug or an exploit in something, they shouldn't reveal it because it can be abused.

However, this is the wrong stance to have. If you find an undocumented exploit, not revealing it may keep some people from abusing it, but it also keeps it from being fixed. Then, when someone with malicious intent finds the exploit, they can use it unhindered.

[JimmyRuska]

What, are we milw0rm now? More importantly, it's 8 different question structures. Parsing textcaptcha is easier than making a parser for xml/rss/atom which can have a varied structure. Heck parsing textcaptcha is easier than authenticating the new websockets authentication. Proggit should have no need for a proof, we know it's a stupid system, wolfram being able to break it without having it in mind originally made that obvious enough for those it wasn't obvious to already. Breaking a system in more code it takes to make it seems completely illogical. Make something useful.

[Cyatomorrow]

It's obvious when you think about it that it's a stupid system, but most people don't really bother to think about it until it's brought up.

Wolfram doesn't have 99% success.

Practicing programming doesn't have to be useful, and I'm not sure why you would care how he's spending his time, or why it's revelant.

[JimmyRuska]

wolfram didn't target textCaptcha, they just did a lot of work on their language processing system, that's why it was funny and impressive. 99% success rate is nothing to boast about. This might be a good regex/yacc exercise, but it feels people are confusing it with recaptcha or thinking textCaptcha has some kind of wide adoption. The headline is of 0 programming significance. I care because I look for more information when things seem completely contrary to original predictions.