> entering the characters http://www.longbets.org/601 into the address bar of a web browser or command line tool (like curl)

The part of this that's most likely to fail at some point is the "http://".

▲

ludwik 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In my mind, the part that is most likely to fail is "return an HTML document that still contains the following text." Nowadays, more and more "HTML documents" do not contain any content at all, just some JavaScript that is responsible for then fetching and displaying the content.

▲

bombcar an hour ago | parent [-]

I used to be someone, man, I was a dreamer, a programmer, a man!

Now I'm a human slave copying text from web browsers to chat windows to get around JS rendering bullshit.

	▲	someguyiguess an hour ago \| parent [-]
		One of those things is true

▲

ywain 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The detailed terms of the bet include this:

> A 301 redirect from www.longbets.org/601 to a different URL containing that text would also fulfill those conditions.

I assume this would cover the HTTP->HTTPS redirect scenario.

	▲	kijin an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think the parent is referring to the possibility that one day, browsers might put up a blanket security warning for HTTP URLs instead of following redirects. Or they might try to be a little too clever with HTTPS upgrades. In particular, the automatic upgrade feature in modern browsers is based on several heuristics rather than explicit configuration like HSTS, so there's always a bit of room for breakage there. For example, they don't even check if the server returns a 301 redirect, which can be problematic if the server wants to redirect to HTTPS on a different host/port or make some changes to the path.
	▲	oofbey an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah that was a clever bit of foresight there.