@doppelspooker That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Zoe Yeah, I've rewritten that section of FIRE to A) prevent pre-fetch of images (i.e. so that NSFW images are not fetched over the network, even when you the click to show option); and B) to prevent formatting inside <code>. Unfortunately, the body HTML information that SD sends to MS to store with the post record has been processed to convert all HTML entities to Unicode characters. This means that, in some cases, it's impossible to recover what the HTML from SE originally was.
[2018-10-18 16:56:28] WARNING: Last metasmoke ping with a response was over 120 seconds ago, forcing SmokeDetector restart to reset all sockets. [2018-10-18 16:56:58] WARNING: Last metasmoke ping with a response was over 120 seconds ago, forcing SmokeDetector restart to reset all sockets. 2018-10-18 17:27:1539883629
RAN: /usr/bin/git push origin master
STDOUT:
STDERR: fatal: could not read Username for 'https://github.com': No such device or address
@Henders It looks like your instance is having an issue performing git operations (see above !!/watch and errorlogs). Do you want to fix that, or should we switch to a different instance?
@SmokeDetector The Google translate of this is "Good luck tell me, I'll pay". The title is "Anyone good in python who has used huxley?" to me this sounds like an offer of a job or contract, which is considered spam.
and, given that I know ever-so-little Spanish (not Portuguese), I'd say a better translation is "Those who are good will let me know, I'll payyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy." :-P
@EriktheOutgolfer Interesting. Yours makes more sense, but I still get the text I wrote from Google Translate. Although, it shows an alternate translation is "Who is good warns me bro, I paid".
How about a review queue for posts MS has recently resolved conflicting feedback on? You could start with the past couple months and add new posts as the conflicts are resolved @ArtOfCode.
Thought about that earlier, but we kinda already have that - review should ignore invalidated feedback, so if automatic invalidation drops a post under the threshold it should go back to review.
@JF that seems like solving the wrong problem... conflict resolution isn't perfect, but it's right enough of the time from what I've seen. The remaining 605 conflicts that we have no resolution for... that's what I want to get resolved somehow.
I'm very hesitant to dump 605 tasks in review, though. Given we're not even keeping up with the current review influx, seems unlikely we'd do any of those.
