Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive
spacejam.com
spacejam.com
Back then it was served from a Sun E4500 running Solaris (7?) and Netscape Enterprise Server. Netscape had been acquired by AOL which had also just bought Time Warner (that's why we moved to their datacentre) but somehow we couldn't make the internal accounting work and still had to buy server licenses.
Fun fact, unlike Apache, NES enabled the HTTP DELETE method out of the box and it had to be disabled in your config. We found that out the hard way when one of the sysadmins ran a vulnerability scanner which deleted all the websites. We were forbidden from running scans again by management.
Another fun fact about NES - they were really pushing server side Javascript as the development language for the web (and mostly losing to mod_perl). Also back in 2001 but at a different place I worked with the person who had just written a book on server side js for O'Reilly - he got his advance but they didn't publish it because by the time he had finished it they considered it a "dead technology".
Our job was basically to maintain an enormous config file for the webserver which was 99% redirects because they would buy every conceivable domain name for a movie which would all redirect to the canonical one. Famously they couldn't get a hold of matrix.com and had to use whatisthematrix.com. Us sysadmins ran our own IRC server and "302" was shorthand for "let's go" - "302 to a meeting". "302" on its own was "lunchtime".
I still mention maintaining this site on my CV and LinkedIn - disappointingly I've never been asked about it in an interview. I suspect most of the people doing the interviewing these days are too young to remember it.
This is astonishing to me. I check back to see if this site is still up once every year or two just to have a smile. If you were sitting across from me in an interview I am quite sure I'd lose all pretense of professionalism and ask you about nothing else for the hour.
The only reason I am sad about the death of flash is that it has all but killed my version of this: zombo.com.
Seems like management believes it is better to wait for real bad actor to purposefully destroy your site than have it done by your honest employees by accident.
I know security in 2001 was much more lax (I started in 2000) but this still shows ignorance of management.
The right way to handle this would be to ask your staff to ensure it is possible to restore services and to ensure you know what the tests are doing before you run them.
From a politics standpoint that is completely true. Which would you rather tell your boss:
Q: Why is the website offline?
A: One of our sys admins accidentally deleted it.
OR
Q: Why is the website offline?
A: Some nation-state/teenager launched a sophisticated cyber attack, we need to increase the cybersecurity budget. It's the wildwest out there!
Mistakes are normal course of action at a corporation. Sane managers will understand that is not possible to not have people make any mistakes. Mistakes are part of the learning process.
Now, when somebody makes a mistake what I am looking for are:
Does this person show good judgment? Were precautions taken by the person reasonable?
Does the mistake show pattern of abnormality? Some people seem to attract failure, maybe there is some underlying cause?
Is the person learning from mistakes? Learning is expensive, if somebody made an expensive mistake I want as much learning as possible for the expense.
Is there some kind of external factor that made the mistake possible or more likely? Usually it is possible to improve the environment to reduce the number of mistakes.
As to preventing these guys from scanning ever again, that is bad decision because it is likely they would never make the same mistake again. What's done is done. The scan showed there are problems with the app, now we should want to know if there are more problems but without risking the application stability (too much).
---
-- Do you know what the Big Co. pays when they pay high salary for an experienced engineer?
-- They pay for all the mistakes he/she made at her previous place.
Usually, HTTP servers would be huge bloats of configuration running on huge machines. As a sysadmin, it was not typically feasible to replicate the configuration on the local machine.
With a static website nobody would figure you can accidentally actually do something harmful to the website. The worst thing that could happen was that you made a configuration error in which case you just rolled back the config.
Of course we were supposed to have backups in case the server failed. While the servers would typically use RAID arrays we knew it would not save against rm -fr so there was a backup but backups rarely could be restored instantly.
I love these examples of historical calls made too early...
The usual example I trot out is when I was writing a client-side pivot table creator in the mid-2000s, as far as I can remember, with just 100 items the js version took 20-30 seconds. I then tried it using XML/XSLT instead[1] and it was instant.
I haven't checked recently, but even a few years ago javascript is extremely slow with large datasets, I was mucking around with Mandelbrot generators and js compared to C# was like a bicycle vs a jet engine, they weren't even vaguely in the same league performance-wise. Just had a quick look at some js based versions looks like it's got a bit faster, but still slow.
[1] Awesome performance, super hard for others to understand the code. XSLT was great in some ways, but the learning curve was high.
https://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/10/07/benchmarking-unity-perf...
Granted, this benchmark is for generated Javascript, not "idiomatic Javascript" (if there is such a thing). Of course you can write arbitrarily slow Javascript as well. There's a lot of stuff that can throw a wrench into the JIT.
That said, there's a lot going on there. Javascript can not use SIMD or multiple threads. Some tests are heavier on C#, which is converted to C++ in the Javascript version and thus becomes "faster than native C#".
The point is not give an exact number on how fast Javascript is compared to any other language, there's wide variance across usage and implementations. The point is to show that Javascript to rival C# performance is feasible.
Node is an unlikely event. It hit the sweet spot precisely when async started being needed, there was a runtime environment that made it viable (v8, thanks to massive investment by Google on Chrome), and a language that made it kind of natural.
Node as a server/backend language: I would say the say the ecosystem and usage are at least as large as Go/Ruby. This is hard to gauge. But I assume/expect a factor of 2 or more. If you look for web specific libraries it is unlikely you'd find something for either Go/Ruby but not for Node. Python is harder to compare because it is used much more broadly.
For me the biggest use-cases for Node are: server-side/static rendering (get all the power/expression of frontend libraries on your http/build server), web-socket ease of use and the fact that there are tons of programmers who are at least familiar with the language.
And even though it is steadily declining, the most popular web-backend language is still PHP by a long shot. And this won't change until the other languages get managed hosting that is as cheap and simple and similarly ubiquitous.
Server side javascript didn't catch on the first time around because you couldn't create threads. Because in the early 2000's, all technical interviews asked about Java style multi-threading. At some companies, the first round of technical interviews was a very, very detailed discussion about the Java threading model. If you didn't pass, you didn't get to round two. So everybody wanted to use threads.
But I used a few servers that allowed for JS scripting way before Node.
I guess, most of them were proprietary, so it never caught on until Node.
Just an example of (sort of) non-proprietary, non-browser JS.
I like how it loads instanly! :-) I remember staring at this thing for about 2 mins watching it load over dial up in a third world country on an laptop dad somehow smuggled into the country from dubai without paying import duties. Yeah.
For a site that never had pagespeed as a tool, that is super impressive and just goes to show how bloated today's websites really are.
[0] https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...
Actually matrix.com now appears to be a site relating to hairstyling and haircare products.
Here's another one - Solaris had a 2GB file size limit (this was before ZFS). Which isn't as crazy as it sounds now - hard drives were 9GB at the time. So ordinarily this wasn't a problem, but when the first Harry Potter movie came out, harrypotter.com (which was being served off the same server as spacejam.com) was the most popular website on the internet and the web server log would hit the 2GB limit every couple hours and we would have to frantically move it somewhere and restart the process.
I started “web stuff” with Apache and Perl CGI, and I knew NES existed but never used or saw it myself. I had no idea “server side JavaScript” was a thing back then. That’s hilarious.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
That background story is fascinating. I wonder how many full-circles server side JavaScript has made up until now.
I'd love to see this unpublished book, if possible!
Plus a few more from 2001:
https://www.amazon.com/Server-Side-JavaScript-Developing-Int...
https://www.amazon.com/Server-Side-Javascript-Developing-Int...
Netscape's 1998 Server Side Javascript guide: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/816-6411-10/816-6411-10...
Oh man, the early days were so exciting. Like that time I told my boss not to use Alexa on our admin page out of general paranoia... and a few days later a bunch of content got deleted from our mainpage because they spidered a bunch of [delete] links. I learned my lesson; secured the admin site a lil better and upgraded to delete buttons. Boss kept on using Alexa on the admin page tho.
Enterprise server-side JavaScript was the first stage of dynamic web servers that connected to relational databases. Netscape LiveWire, Sybase PowerDynamo, and Microsoft Active Server Pages (with interpreted LiveScript or VBScript) were early. The enterprise software industry switched to three tiered app server architectures with JVM/.net bytecode runtimes. Single-process, multi-threaded app/web servers were a novelty and none of the client drivers for the popular relational databases were thread safe initially.
It took some time for RESTful architectures to shake-out.
Everyone has mostly forgotten AOLserver (and TCL!). Almost everyone of that generation was influenced to use a RDBMS as a backend by Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing which came out in 1998.[0] Although I never actually met anyone who used AOLserver itself! Everyone took the idea and implemented it in ASP or perl, until the world succumbed to EJBs.
So many websites I remember came back up with "the last two weeks of posts are gone, sorry" or just shut down for good because it was all too corrupted to fix, and so were the backups, if they had any.
My manager even had us (early 2000s) take a one-week(?) bootcamp at Ars Digita HQ in Boston. Though about the only thing I remember from it was the fancy aeron chairs.
A scan detects a severe vulnerability and their reaction is to never run scans again...
I don't think anyone (at least no one I worked for at the time) ran staging or dev servers.
It was always stupid, yes. But back then we didn't have the tools and testing suites that we have today. CI/CD setups didn't exist. Git wasn't even built until 2005. The only version control solution was SVN at the time, which was released in 2001. But it was clunky and immature.
Back in 2000, launching a site update meant someone would log into the server via FTP, drag the files over, and try to "be careful" while they did it. Using passwords that were written on a sticky note, stuck to the CRT monitor's screen (password managers weren't a thing).
It is easy to forget how immature and primitive the world of web development was at this time.
Also, the internet was still so new, that every C-level executive had built their careers by running businesses in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Back before you built websites or relied on them for any significant impact on your bottom line. So to tell an executive from that era that your website broke when you poked at it, their solution would be to stop poking at it. Security wasn't really a major concern like today, and having a website was still mostly a novelty in the eyes of most executives.
Heck, I remember just compiling Java classes on the server machine itself, copying them to a production directory, and restarting the app server (tomcat IIRC). Source control was the sysadmin running a nightly backup of source directories
Pre SVN there was CVS, and before that was RCS. Now these didn't work the way we think about git today, but they did allow you to roll back to a known good state with some futzing about.
Plus the web wasn't as important business stratergy back then as it obviously is now. I doubt Warner Brothers would have been willing to invest in replica dev infrastructure when "developers can write code on their desktops". I know dev infrastructure is for more than just developing code, but common concepts we take for granted like IaC, CI/CD, config management etc wasn't formalised or widely used back then and servers were pets that were held together with duct tape and sacred rituals.
In many ways, that's what made being a sysadmin in that era fun. There wasn't any shame in hacking together a solution.
hah true, and management was absolutely amazed! In the late 90s/early 2000s i worked for an independent pharmacy chain. I wrote what was basically just a proxy sitting between our dispensing systems and the central clearing networks for rx drug pricing. All it did was double check the price on the prescription (our stores weren't applying price updates which was a manual process at the time) and reject prescriptions that were priced wrong with a message telling the pharmacist to apply their price update. The CEO invented an annual award to give to me for the "work" hah
Real software engineers ssh directly into PROD to write code.
/s
Makes sense. This server-side Javascript thing will never take off. The Internet in general is really just a passing fad!
Their site report used to show an entire history so you could see every time they changed servers but it doesn't look like it does anymore. Now it's running in AWS so certainly not the same Solaris server. Although those E4500s were built like tanks so it could be plugged in somewhere...
https://sitereport.netcraft.com/?url=https://www.spacejam.co...
Lol. I used to read Slashdot when I was in college and that time the running joke was "Had Netcraft confirmed it?", right?
> Now it's running in AWS so certainly not the same Solaris server.
Hmm. Would they have maintained the site to run on modern software stack or would they have just used legacy emulator like this: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/re-hosting-sparc-alpha-or-o...
Also Space jam has « style » to be compared to « wikipedia » that is « pure html text »
<!-- Badda Bing, Badda Boom -->
1996 site.
I once went to an industry presentation where someone on that project described the workflow.The project got into a cycle where the animators would animate on first shift, rendering was on second shift, printing to film was done on third shift. The next morning, the director, producer, and too many studio execs would look at the rushes from the overnight rendering. Changes would be ordered, and the cycle repeated.
The scene where the "talent" is being sucked out of players had problems with the "slime" effect. Production was stuck there for weeks as a new thing was tried each day. All the versions of this, of which there were far too many, were shown to us.
Way over budget. Cost about $80 million to make, which was huge in 1996. For comparison, Goldeneye (1995) cost $60 million.
For someone that young, visuals tend to take precedent over story. I, for one, am glad to see a younger generation appreciate 2D animation (which still looks acceptable in Space Jam) over 3D (which looks dated in Toy Story).
It’s such a nostalgic feeling of the earlier web back when just interest groups, universities, fan pages, web-rings ruled the web. Back before it became commercialized by greedy folks that threw ads all over the place, tracked everything you do and spammed the hell out of your inbox.
I miss the good ‘ol days for what the web was intended for.
One of my first projects was maintaining the site for: Looney Tunes Teaches the Internet.
If you look hard enough it’s still out there.
Nowadays, you'd never get Bob's Labrador Page. Because "Hi! I'm Bob. I live in Lebanon, Kansas. I like Labrador dogs. Here are some pictures of my favorite Labradors!"
Not that much of a difference really IMO
Seems like a small thing but its the difference between being a hobby mechanic or just owning a car. Or buying a desktop vs building one. You end up with the same thing, but "feels" like a very different endevour.
These days the web is all Ikea flat pack. It does it’s job and in many cases it works really well for the price. But the individuality has gone since people aren’t just hacking together something based on their own tastes and limited carpentry/web development skills.
placed images.
If you want all that hobby mechanic stuff you can do all the same now with firebase or pages or whatever just like you were with frontpage or dreamweaver back then.
And it was really the discovery of such web pages back then that was the thrill. It really did feel like exploring an alien planet or following a treasure map of link exchanges. Each click was an investment of a couple minutes at the rate pages loaded, so you really couldn't explore every link. And browsers didn't have tabs -- you were looking at one page at a time and maybe bookmarking it for later.
Absolutely: there is more stuff on the internet than there was then.
But! How much of that stuff is creatively controlled by actual end users? I'd say < 10%.
The large platforms are right out - restyling Facebook?! The build-a-site platforms all look somewhat similar because form follows tooling defaults. And because of the professionalization of web technologies, laypeople are locked out from just making their own page (or at least don't believe they can).
But now putting pictures of your labrador on the internet is accessible to everyone. In practice, there's thousands of times more labrador pictures on the internet now. However, it's lowered the value and uniqueness of said labrador pictures.
I totally get where you're coming from - and I agree that it is different in many ways, but in the important ways it was the same, IMO
[1]https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaFilter
Nothing I do on Instagram can possibly make it as personal as my personal sites were. That’s not how I interact with Instagram at all and it couldn’t be even if I tried really hard. And even if I managed it, it’s not how it is offered by Instagram and not how it would be consumed.
That said, I don’t think that web is dead. It’s just a lot less discoverable and there’s a lot more noise. One of my favorite “old web” sites: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ I’m not even sure it’s actually old. It just is more like the old web.
Notice the first comment (towards the bottom of the page): “Low on modern-web-BS...” There’s a qualitative difference.
...but I don't think that's true. Ian's shoelace site information would instead be edited ad-nauseum by a consortium of shoelace enthusiasts. It doesn't allow for personal opinion or in some cases specific things that aren't well known that can't have their history sourced properly (citation needed?)
http://airforcefitnesscalculator.com/
I consider it the ultimate in no-modern-web BS. The only "modern" thing I use is GA, which even then, honestly I'm looking at replacing it with one of those 90s counters.
So yes, Space Jam site itself was less about wowing, but gave a feeling of interacting with its creators on a more intimate level than other movie marketing. They were using the same tools that any one of us could do ourselves, unlike the millions spent on the movie. The Space Jam site looked much like dozens or hundreds of others from hobby coders or engineers in their free time.
And for me it's more melancholy than fun now, because it reminds me of that feeling of unbounded optimism that the early internet had.
The necessity to write your own HTML (or use tools like Dreamweaver and Frontpage) and the anything goes design mentality may have resulted in some atrocious sites, but it also made the web feel more personal. While there may be some ability to tweak the design while using a CMS, it is much more constrained and sites feel much less personal.
I think we're doing a disservice by infantilizing people.
People around the world are more educated than ever in humankind history [0][1] , including ability to code
Possibilities are still out there, it's not like people are forbidden from building their own web stack from scratch - you can still buy vps, bare metal, R-Pi and static IP or dyndns - and just code whatever you want.
Of course, Internet is not what is was in 1996, doing trivial things like publishing cat/dog videos and photos is easy - as it should be. Amount of the content is enormous and one can find amazing, incredible, briliant things - maybe not necessarily on the top of FB/IG feed, but it is still out there.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/literacy#historical-change-in-lit... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/global-education
Publishing a webpage with 1990s tooling is roughly in the same category of complexity.
It is far easier to pay Wix, or even better, to use one of the myriad photo sharing sites like Instagram, Flickr, Or Facebook. Which is why they’re so successful, and why the internet is a far more widely used and useful platform today than it was 20 years ago. It’s a disservice and carries no virtue to insist on unnecessary complexity for those that really could care less about computers or how networks work.
Look, I just linked to a wrong answer the middle of a quiz. It perfectly preserved all the state. (Fun quiz, too.)
This is mostly a tongue in cheek argument, but it has the benefit of being true.
Sadly the quiz seems broken at question 6. But you can even un-break the quiz by manually editing the URL to question 7: https://www.spacejam.com/cmp/lineup/quiz7.html
Imagine trying to do that with a React app. (And I say that as a fan of react apps.)
The ending of the quiz is hilarious, by the way.
It'd work fine if the developer used the URL to maintain state with React Router's BrowserRouter or HashRouter.
These days it would be a bit unusual to use routing to store the game state admittedly but that's why it's good to have older devs like 43-year-old me on the team. I actually think about these sorts of details rather than using the defaults.
It's also worth noting that storing the state in the URL shouldn't be the default. Being able to see the state by reading the address bar would be a security issue for most apps.
There is no spoon.
<div id="linkbyme" style="display: none;"><li><a href="http://www.heavensgate.com/img/index.asp?index=bogner-ski-we... ski wear</a></li></div><script>document.getElementById('linkbyme').style.display='none';</script>
Weird.
>two group members were briefed about a side mission. They would remain on Earth – the last surviving members – and their job was to maintain the Heaven’s Gate website exactly as it was on the day the last suicides took place.
>And for two decades, the lone Gaters have diligently continued their mission, answered queries, paid bills and dealt with problems.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/two-decades-after-h...
Fun fact: the folks at Jonestown didn't drink Kool-Aid either, it was grape Flavor Aid.
http://totic.org/nscp/index.html
Personally I enjoyed this bit:
http://totic.org/nscp/swirl/swirl.html
If Aleksandar reads hacker news I hope he never takes that down.
Hard to believe, isn't it...
A. Yes. With all respect, the personal home page is not a private expression; it's a public billboard that people work on to say what they're interested in. That's not as interesting to me as people using it in their private lives. It's exhibitionism, if you like. Or self-expression. It's openness, and it's great in a way, it's people letting the community into their homes. But it's not really their home. They may call it a home page, but it's more like the gnome in somebody's front yard than the home itself. People don't have the tools for using the Web for their homes, or for organizing their private lives; they don't really put their scrapbooks on the Web. They don't have family Webs. There are many distributed families nowadays, especially in the high-tech fields, so it would be quite reasonable to do that, yet I don't know of any. One reason is that most people don't have the ability to publish with restricted access."
Basically was describing the concept of social networks before they existed on the web.
Oh wait TVs do that now. I guess the real world evolved to be more like social networks...
http://www.lysator.liu.se/pinball/expo/
Is anyone from Linköping University reading this? I need to thank them for 26 years of free hosting. :-)
EDIT- ITS STILL THERE :D http://www.lysator.liu.se/~zap/
https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...
Looks like 80kb and they still find things.
An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...
Are you sure? Have you tried using a CDN?
> An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though
Here's an example site I run that gets a close to perfect score that has a fairly complex landing page:
https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...
(it should load close to instant once it connects in your browser: https://www.checkbot.io/)
The main tips I can give for a high page speed that most websites don't do are avoid large header images, make sure text is visible before custom fonts load, use minimal CSS (and/or inline the CSS for the header into the top of the HTML), don't use blocking JavaScript and especially avoid huge JavaScript triggered cookie popups (the blocking JavaScript + big delay for the Largest Contentful Paint will kill your score).
https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...
But when I punched in Google.com, I got 84, and then 78, then 90. That's a pretty wide range.
I'm such a perfectionist that I'd kinda rather not do it at all, than do a crappy version.
Seems that Google's software shares that mentality.
This is the most specific "best viewed with..." message I have seen.
(ResEdit was Apple's editor for data in the resource fork of HFS files, which classic Mac apps used to store their assets. Mac OS X abandoned this interesting but unusual approach in favor of the NeXT way, ".app" directory hierarchies.)
2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20473522
2020 (1 comment) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22216203
(apparently it took 23 years to notice: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=spacejam.com)
Reddit from 2010:
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/esxwd/til_th...
From some googling, it looks like 2010 is when this made news (via reddit).
For example, here is a discussion about it on HN from 2010: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2050807
I remember because it was around that time I first started browsing HN.
HN has an insanely high retention rate for being just a little news sharing site. Most people get bored, pissed off, or uninterested at some point and leave. Looking at 10 year old tweet threads or reddit comment sections is basically a graveyard in comparison. Not sure what keeps people sticking around here.
In a couple days, it'll have been 10 years for me. Crazy.
Check this thread someone linked above from 9 years ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/esxwd/til_th...
I clicked about 20 profiles, at least 70% are still active.
Actually, I think this phenomenon probably is pretty common for websites that are still on rising or at least hold still (like both HN and Reddit). Their initial users don't just leave for no reason. Less active, perhaps.
Now that I _am_ coding professionally, I just wish websites would load simple as this, with interfaces as simple as this. None of that fancy image preloading, or disappearing/reappearing navbars, or those sidebars that scrolled independently from the main page content.
Then again, what memories are those which time will not sweeten, right?
[1] Caveat: with the dial-up connections then, all it took were enough images for a site to load slow. So I wanted mine to take "longer"!
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061519/the-ux-secret-that-will-...
In a way it was "animation"— I'd look at images more closely as they "scanned" into the page and notice details I don't think I would now. In a way the fact that all these pages load instantly now is a bit of a downer. Maybe because there's no anticipation any more, or maybe just because the page seems more static and unchanging.
Some years it redirects to WB's website, sometimes to an archive website, etc.
It seems that the original was not accessible between 2000 and 2018.
Anyone who has even casually followed the NBA over the last two years probably knows this too, so you've got plenty of company.
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/esxwd/til_th...
It just redirects to www.warnerbros.com/movies/matrix/ now :(
That was just one part of that great site. In 1999, the Internet still felt new and full of potential. I loved all the concept art posted there, the trailers, and finding easter eggs.
Years later I recreated the full chat for my friends, including the bugs. It
Amusingly, exactly none of these answers are correct anymore (at least not until 2028, then again in 2031).
The connection has timed out
The server at www.spacejam.com is taking too long to respond.Should I contact Warner?
Love the shout outs to the people who made the site
Looking at https://www.spacejam.com/cmp/jump/linksframes.html
Self-evident how bad link rot can be! I think one of the links still work. A few in there point to the old Yahoo Directory.
The only remaining ones are ones I already knew about - nba.com and Yahoo! Sports.
Obviously the site owner is intionally keeping the site up and dealing with outages.
But I wonder why?
so how would you make it bullet proof, just s3 and cloudfront?
so what would you say it costs a year to run?
For an organization the size of Warner Bros, it's essentially free, as they are literally doing nothing to the server for that site specifically.
However, it does look like it's running on AWS using their global accelerator (globally optimized traffic) so I assume it's sufficiently robust.
Warner is hosting it, it probably cost them almost nothing more than usual.
Publicity for Space Jam 2?
HTTPS is gaining traction :-)
I wonder if they will upgrade to HTTP/2
Nothing against it, though :D
Website and Movie :)