I can’t even read this on my phone, the text is too small and the contrast is terrible

I wish it knows that I absolutely hate dark modes with such low contrast.

None of the information identified for me was surprising using an up-to-date Firefox on Mac w/ a mostly default configuration. I had to unblock Javascript in NoScript for the page to work.

I get the point, but I think the EFF Panopticon page is a better representation of browser fingerprinting and how it works, because most of the things shared are really basic elements of data that aren't personally identifiable. You can absolutely fingerprint Firefox with a default config, so obviously this was vibe-coded and just doesn't do much. Cool, you did a GeoIP lookup, read the user-agent, the referrer header, and the accessibility data, exactly zero of that should be surprising to anyone that knows how you access a website.

"Your screen is 320 by 568 pixels, rendered at 2x density — which means it is almost certainly a recent, high-end display."

Not quite, I'm on a 2016 iPhone SE

Another vibe-sloped false-integrity derivative. Cmon, OP..

> You have been on this page for 92 seconds. You scrolled 0% of the way down. You never left this tab.

Uhm... how did I get to the bottom if I scrolled 0%?

Wow! A significant amount of that information is wrong. I guess my corporate security is doing their job pretty well.

Unreadable and useless vibe coded shit. Submissions like this are why I've all but stopped using HN

Jokes on them, they got the wrong IP address, dummies!!! My IP address is 127.0.0.1!

This is a great exercise, it's generally accurate on location but it's hard to express how granular they can be Identifying users through browser information. fonts? display size? processor? how unique is that really in laymans terms?