Over the last month I've done an insane amount of work, and the compiler has matured enough I can safely start expanding the standard library. As of today we now have a minimal crypto library with SHA256, AES-128 (FIPS 197 compliant!), and MD5 to start.

There are plenty of working examples to try along with tests.

Note that only x86_64 is supported currently and I'm working to support more architectures, as well as provide better support for Darwin.

If anyone finds the language interesting and would like to help, I could really use testers for different operating systems and architectures so I can add ABI-specific stuff to the standard library to extend support.

tl;dr we now have basic IO (console,file,sockets) and basic cryptography. I built this language in approximately 9 months also.

Give it a shot and tell me what you think of it.

Currently in the pre-bootstrap phase, the reduced specification is almost fully implemented.

While missing some parts still, you can write Turing-complete programs, mainly because you have the ability to write inline ASM.

Added the ability to auto unredact and generate HTML from your PDF files.

I fixed all the issues in the tool.

It works now.

Just fixed it, try it again.

Added images to show the tool in action.

No, it was better when it was broken, because it serves no positive purpose. Low quality across the board.

Well what are they gonna do tell me take the tool down? Too late.

New info dropped:

The redactions by DOJ are so sloppy that you can COPY AND PASTE blocks of text to a new text editor and see the "redacted" text beneath.

Try it yourself.

They did not properly redact many documents.

It's about to get wild.

Precisely. The tool is neutral.

This just attempts to match box dimensions.

That's the point though. You cannot just write anything and put it up.

It must be accurate. Even that being said, you still shouldn't reupload your altered document anywhere.

Why not? In some cases it might amount to fraud or something, but in general, why would it be prohibited?

Generally there is nothing illegal about altering a legal document, or even a strict definition of what counts as a legal document. Under some circumstances it could be illegal to alter a document and use that for fraud, or submit an altered document to a court or government agency. If the doctoring falsely defames someone then you could also open yourself up to a civil suit.

If you can be sued for it, sounds like it's prohibited to me

Perhaps I misunderstand what "sue" includes in US jurisdictions but prohibition in this context ought to be criminalisation, i.e. something that happens in the relation between the individual and the state, and to me 'suing' is something that happens in a relation between individuals.

Nope, that's not how the US legal system works. Anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean they'll win.

You do you but I advise you don't.

Standard CYA procedure

For all we know, Epstein could have punished Trump and made him write "I'm a little bitch boy" 2,000 times and it took up 119 pages so every line got redacted. /madlibs

OK, and could you detail this "procedure"?

Because to me it seems like altering and disseminating a document would be under 1st amendment protection, unless combined with some action that e.g. causes someone else harm or tricks the state into doing something it should not do or something.

My point being if it is properly and truly unredacted, then it's the truth.

The CYA is just me saying I'm not responsible for anything anyone makes, because anyone can make a document say anything with this tool.

Did someone say that you should be responsible for what someone else does with this tool?

If so, I missed it.

I guess you mean offical legal documents or something, but your sentence doesn't say that or mention those so it comes across in a very confusing way (it implies that using Word is illegal because every time you type something you alter your document)

Thank you! The OP is being very ambiguous and cavalier with language.