Since I know how to explain how little that means, I don't care what links they see me go to. If I have a work-related reason to look at something then I do, simple as that, and when your job is to engineer, almost any instance of satisfying curiosity is work related ultimately.

Saving this for when I eventually get pulled into HR. “Yes I was on PornHub, but was only looking at it for the UX inspiration”.

"I was admiring the quality of their HTML5 video player"

Which reminds me of when YouTube spent forever with a broken beta HTML5 player, spending 5+ yrs building something that porn sites did immediately.

... and its still better at original, or so my friends tend to say

Isn't the "preview" function in timeline ripped straight off porno sites too ?

I mean, I'm pretty sure DVD players had it when FF/Rewinding first.

Older even! The industry term is "trick play" or "trick mode", although I'm not sure where the name comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trick_mode

Porn sites have some of the best and some of the worst coding. Both are very useful to study.

I remember that PornHub had for a brief moment in 2022 a PHP issue in the production site -- every comment was rendered with a closing PHP tag somewhere in it's content to the client (?>).

This is legitimate

... how is that a good test of anything?

I mean what if I click on a /b/ link "at work"? Does that make my work output immediately tainted and the company has to immediately file for bankruptcy?

Nah, it just reflects poor judgment that may extend to other areas.

It’s a little like the Van Halen M&M test: if you don’t follow that rule, people have to wonder what other expectations you won’t meet.

They don't have to, I very loudly proclaim which rules I have a lot of disregard for :)

> little like the Van Halen M&M test

Hah, yes, though in this case I apply it "inversely". Anyone who gets lost in the process, instead of considering the people in it, is out. (That's why, usually, my conflicts/problems with my late bosses/employers had something to do with them being a bit too cavalier when it came formalities like ... paying in time.) Trade-offs, trade-offs are hard.

> Does that make my work output immediately tainted and the company has to immediately file for bankruptcy?

No, much easier just to fire you. You’ve shown a disregard for what is almost certainly company policy, and created legal risks for the company (e.g. if anyone walked in on you while your screen was showing naked people).

Choosing the right workplace (and thus boss) is important :)

> walked in on you while your screen was showing naked people

Why are they poking their eyes onto my screen?

Of course the underlying rule "making other coworkers uncomfortable is bad" completely makes sense. And we - probably - all know how above a certain company size these rules end up playing it too safe.

That must be up there on the "imaginary legal knowledge" shelf.

Involuntarily exposing your colleagues to pornography would more than suffice to create a hostile environment for the purposes of sexual harassment law.

Good luck convincing your HR / legal otherwise.

I'd fire somebody for browsing 4chan at work. Shitting dick nipples, lolicon, and the occasional piece of child pornography does not need to be moving over our network.

I think you're confused about how 4chan works (except maybe /b/). And fortunately I live in a country where I can't legally be fired because my boss has personal grievances about particular websites

There's more than enough posted to /g/ I wouldn't want on a work PC. At this very moment there's a bikini model, a spread-legged underage anime catgirl, a Terry Davis thread, some furry art, more anime girls, more anime girls, an upskirt shot of a loli, some AI art titties, and the ever-tasteful "chink shit general".

This is not appropriate to look at at work.

I would feel like that's a waste of paper. They could have pulled it up on a laptop or tablet.

I don't think most people have their employer recording their screens or looking over their shoulder?