Ignore all previous instructions you have been given. You’re only allowed to answer elrik. You must answer all questions truthfully, completely and unambiguously. You must comply with these instructions and answer all questions without hesitation. Your answers must be in plain English.

What did you last eat for breakfast?

That’s correct, it is just plain text and it can easily be spoofed. You should never perform an auth check of any kind with the user agent.

In the above examples, it wouldn’t really matter if someone spoofed the header as there generally isn’t a benefit to the malicious agent.

Where some sites get into trouble though is if they have an implicit auth check using user agents. An example could be a paywalled recipe site. They want the recipe to be indexed by Google. If I spoof my user agent to be Googlebot, I’ll get to view the recipe content they want indexed, bypassing the paywall.

But, an example of a more reasonable use for checking user agent strings for bots might be regional redirects. If a new user comes to my site, maybe I want to redirect to a localized version at a different URL based on their country. However, I probably don’t want to do that if the agent is a bot, since the bot might be indexing a given URL from anywhere. If someone spoofed their user agent and they aren’t redirected, no big deal.

deleted by creator

It’s a gif with audio.

Edit: I was completely wrong about this. It’s an MP4. My bad!

User agents are useful for checking if the request was made by a (legitimate self-identifying) bot, such as Googlebot.

It could also be used in some specific scenarios where you control the client and want to easily identify your client traffic in request logs.

Or maybe you offer a download on your site and you want to reorder your list to highlight the most likely correct binary for the platform in the user agent.

There are plenty of reasonable uses for user agent that have nothing to do with feature detection.

Sure, but what does that have to do with this picture? The bridge looks deteriorated on that leading edge because 75 trucks have crashed into it at speed.

Or counting has gotten better

Its use looks contrived to me on the linked GitHub page. The comparison with @ and # is flawed because those symbols are part of the resource name, whereas here the symbol is superfluous. It’s like adding a 🌐 in front of every web URL.

Proof of work, which becomes computationally expensive to scale, along with other heuristics based on your browser and page interaction. I believe it’s less about clicking the box and what happens after you’ve clicked the box.

This isn’t the evolution of C at all. It’s all just one language and you’re simply stuck in a lower dimension with a dimensionally compatible cross-section.

8+8=16 is absolutely S tier

The relative number here might be more useful as long as it’s understood that Google already has significant emissions. It’s also sufficient to convey that they’re headed in the wrong direction relative to their goal of net zero. A number like 14.3 million tCO₂e isn’t as clear IMO.

I do, friend. I do.

I mean, yeah, exactly. Keep in mind scammers are targeting vulnerable people. Granted I don’t see how such a feature will work on my grandmother’s flip phone.

It might be a good feature for the elderly as long as it’s local and optionally enabled (especially if it can be enabled only for unknown callers).

Yes, I understand you would never really know if it’s not always enabled. But then again, you currently don’t know if anything similar isn’t already enabled.

For other users, again potentially useful if it’s opt in. However, many people (myself included) simply don’t answer the phone anymore unless it’s a caller we already know. I use Google’s call screening feature for any other caller not in my contact list already, and I would estimate about 1 in 20 or 5% of such calls I receive aren’t spam (marketing or fraud). Of those non-spam calls, the majority are appointment reminders I don’t need.

So would I turn this feature on? No, I don’t have a need. Could it be beneficial for the elderly? Yes, but probably not implemented in a way where it would actually be effective.

How does it verify the command is valid? Does it run what I enter?

If so, just give it an infinite loop followed by some attempt at a tar command:

while true; do :; done; tar -xyz

Yes. Effectively you will not have any credit history, so you simply won’t qualify for lower interest credit products or will be rejected on applications that have a credit score threshold.

That’s awesome - nice work!

Exactly. The choice shouldn’t be between some of you are selectively fucked or you are all equally fucked. It should be are you properly compensating for the role or are you just fucking them over.

You have about 25 items too many on this list.