The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: no method found with this name at 02:28:08 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
@CodyGray It probobly isn't, just the most unexpected one I've seen. Like, most spam is obvious. Rude/abusive is pretty common, but when I checked the AU questions feed, I didn't expect to see that. I have considered responding to that type of trolling with something like this, though:
It appears you're trying promote your service. Sadly, that isn't allowed, but please see this page for advice on how to be successful and to keep your spam post up longer and how to evade our rules
Ah, that wouldn't work anyway. It's part of the raw Markdown, so it would need to be detected by something explicit in the Python code, not by one of the regexes.
@SmokeDetector fp- Not spam (no spam link was ever edited in, even after grace period); user's name of "Spammy Spammer" is disappointingly misleading. This does attempt to answer the question that was asked. Unfortunately, it's plagiarized (rephrase plagiarism, not copy-paste plagiarism) from hk.canon/en/consumer/Super-Spectra-Coating/article. But that doesn't make it a TP, or even NAA.
I mean... I suppose so, too, but... there's literally nothing in that answer that could have provided a clue to a moderator to justify deleting the account, so that really seems like a FP to me.
Simply a "oh, you again? You spammed us before, this is probably spam, too, so I'm going to blow you away" does not a TP make.
@CodyGray That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in body and Bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command if you really want to add the pattern you entered.
It was concluded that: (A) the only reason to do that would be as a performance optimization, (B) the performance benefits have not been proven and are only assumed (the regex engine may well be optimizing this matching, especially since these are compiled, and, even if it's not, we don't have any reason to believe that there is a performance problem, so this would be premature optimization at its core), and …
…(C) this shouldn't be done as a rote transformation without fully understanding the consequences, since it may actually change the nature of the matches, and I am not enough of a regex expert to understand the consequences that the other form might have, so I prefer to submit the form that I know is correct.
One of the reasons I'm using this pattern is because that's what I picked up from the regex gurus. It looks logical, seems to work, didn't really think much about it after that.
@CodyGray I keep a stack of old prepaid cards with a couple bucks on them. So far Oracle hasn’t billed me (beyond $1 for authorization or something that fell off the statement the next day)
Genuinely curious - what's the root of the resistance to credit card-based verification?
@Undo The more you give out your credit card, the more you open yourself up to fraud. And also companies shadily or erroneously starting to bill you. This kind of "get a free thing, but give us your credit card first" is a very old trick, long predating the Internet.
@Mast We use it, because it does have some value. How much actual value depends on the input text for failing cases (i.e. non-detection). Using the possessive version of the quantifier prevents backtracking. If you have a construct such as word[\W_]*+word then what is being quantified can never appear in what is after the quantifier. In such case, backtracking over every [\W_] character which is between the words can never be beneficial, because it can never produce a match.
If the input text is "wordword" then having the possessive saves nothing. If the input text is "word" followed by 10,000 non-word characters followed by "work", then the possessive saves 10 or 20k steps (depending on how you count steps). The issue for this construction, and many regex constructions, isn't about the matching cases, it's about what happens in the non-matching cases.
Yeah, there are tons of these things. Apple, Google, and other companies have them. Then there's PayPal, Venmo, etc. And banks have them... Bank of America has or owns or something "Zelle", if I remember correctly.
@Makyen Considering a regex will more often not match than match, I can understand optimizing for the non-matching cases gets important when the list gets long.
I actually don't understand what happened; my bank claimed that sometimes when you "change phones" it "sends the money the wrong place", which absolutely boggles my mind but does line up with what happened.
@CodyGray Credit cards are kind of special, because they're predatory... they can offer decent benefits and have them balanced out by the number of people who don't keep payments up and end up in CC debt interest hell.
like I grabbed a card last month that does 5% cash back on specific categories, matched again at the end of the year, so 10% cash back. Category this quarter is grocery stores... so I'm now the proud owner of a bunch of grocery store gift cards purchased at effectively 10% off
That's pretty darn good. I rarely see 5% cash back. Definitely not then doubled again. 1%, 2%, maybe 3% for certain special categories is more what I see and/or have.
0% interest on a CC as well, if you treat it like a debit card. They just hope enough people won't (or won't be able to) that they get to charge their 17.99% interest.
Yeah, I just treat my credit card like a safer debit card. I pay the statement balance each month. I wish I could automate this, but, yeah, why would they support that?
@Makyen Read once that the vast majority of those cheaper gift cards come from two sources: Scammers liquidating them after getting some elderly people to buy them, and the credit card manufactured spending people.
@Mast Yes, I do this as well, except I set those things to pay off of my credit card, rather than directly out of my bank account, because with the CC, I can get cash back.
I have, once or twice, gotten gift cards to places like grocery stores that I'm going to buy stuff at anyway when they represented a significant discount over the cash value.
About page for the link says "Natasha Baring" is one of the people... that could match the user name "tasha". Not sure where "lucy" comes from; Lucy isn't a short form of "Elizabeth".
@CodyGray When talking about reading, they answer with: "Yes of course, even when babies are very young they can see shades of black, white and grey and there are many black and white books you can buy or even make :)"
Then they link to play activities.
How's that answering the question?
But the flags are declined and I've gotten into trouble with Parenting before, so, shrug.
The only other thing that swayed me was that this was an old post (the one I found, anyway), and IIRC it had an upvote, so the community there didn't find it off-topic
Um... being able to see the pictures in a book could certainly be relevant. And the page they link to doesn't just talk about reading, it takes about other activities, too.
The mods on smaller SE sites being too credulous is not, in my opinion, a good argument for or against spam status.
Then again... if you actually readthe linked site, you'll notice that (A) several things in the answer were basically copied from it, and (B) it's nonsense.
