And most of them are pretending to be Chrome. If Google had a good case against someone reusing their user agent, maybe they would already have sued?

Or maybe not. Got some random bot from my server logs. Yeah, it's pretending to be Chrome, but more exactly:

"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36"

I guess Google might be not eager to open this can of worms.

> scrapers can ingest them and say "nope we won't scrape there again in the future"

Do all the AI scrapers actually do that?

Not all, stuff like unstable diffusion exists.

But a good many, perhaps even most(?), certainly do!

> Hey I wonder if there is some situation where negative SEO would be a good tactic. Generally though I think if you wanted something to stay hidden it just shouldn’t be on a public web server.

At least once upon a time there was a pirate textbook library that used HTTP basic auth with a prompt that made the password really easy to guess. I suppose the main goal was to keep crawlers out even if they don't obey robots.txt, and at the same time be as easy for humans as possible.

Interesting note, thank you.

> search still can't a.) rank the alert bot that is just spamming the alerts channel as "not relevant"

I find "Exclude automations" toggle to be good enough. But we might have very different workspaces, as I usually don't see the point of "sorting by relevance" at all: for my purposes, relevance is almost always better approximated by date than whatever Slack's ML team comes up with.

Most people writing any language without a linter are holding it wrong.

When a linter warns me about such an expression, it usually means that even if it doesn't blow up, it increases the cognitive load for anyone reviewing or maintaining the code (including future me). And I'm not religious — if I can't easily rewrite the expression in an obviously safe way, I just concede that its safety is not 100% obvious and add a nolint comment with explanation.

My point was that no matter the conceptual purity or implementation elegance, if a language design decision leads to most people getting it wrong–then that's a bad decision.

But it's not about that. I don't like this decision either, but the other side of the trade-off is not just about some abstract concepts or implementation, it's about complexity of the model you need to keep in your head to know what will a piece of code do. And this has always been a priority for Python.

Interestingly, I think this is one of the cases where both the "For context…" comment and yours add important context for the parent comment that some readers may be not familiar with. Although that second one serves this purpose better, not because of the subject but because it's more directly informative.

> legal (letter but longer)

This one surprised me quite a bit. I think most people have A4/letter-sized folders. Why does anyone think that papers slightly longer than those folders are a good idea?

Legal size folders exist and are widely used by people who use ... legal size paper.

Legal folders can be great to be able to print letter-sized things on, then you have an area at the bottom to write notes and stuff.

> Legal size folders exist and are widely used by people who use ... legal size paper.

Sure. But I didn't know I use legal size paper or even what it is before I asked the apartment complex to print the lease agreement, and it didn't fit in their own folder with the other move in papers. In my rank of weirdness discovered upon moving to the US, this is at about the same level as the different ounces.

I'm just about old enough to remember (in the UK) foolscap paper, an imperial size also a bit longer than A4. You never see it any more (at least I don't) but foolscap sized box-files are still readily available. I guess a slightly bigger box than you need is not usually a problem.

Huh, this explains why some of my older teachers would call a4 pads as foolscap pads. I guess the paper size had been updated by the time I got to school, but their terminology wasn't.

Foolscap is just half an inch below legal - and I bet having a box a bit larger than what you're putting in is a selling point, not a hindrance.

Many filing cabinets in the US are also sized so you can put letter sized folders in one way, or rotate the folders 90 degrees and legal sized folders will fit correctly.

Was it like a temporary assignment to another team? Did the manager at least know what team that was? Or have any idea when the employee is going to return full-time to the tasks of their primary team?

Apple uses functional organizational structure. Every product needs a cooperation of all functions to produce results. So engineer on os team working on drivers could be working on driver for the new hw part, but other team members including their manager are not necessarily disclosed on that hw.

By the way, that's a regionally cool name. I read it at first as "shemesh", that means "Sun" in Hebrew.

Note this part:

> That said, background processes invoked from Eshell can be controlled the same way as any other background process in Emacs

I haven't used Eshell much, but this makes a simple "command &" arguably much saner than in a traditional Unix shell.

I imagine that a new feature would be accepted only if someone can make it play nice with existing features. And in case of job control, I have a bad feeling about the complexity involved.