While it doesn’t say anything about IIV specifically, they sure got creative enough to sometimes subtract more than one of the smaller units from a larger one.

In my experience, it is good at simple to medium complexity regex. For the harder ones it starts being quite useless though, at best providing a decent starting point to begin debugging from.

Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

• not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
• str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
• min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
• ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
• range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
• sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
• chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))

Good intentions alone don’t guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.

Source

I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.

Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.

Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.

Without knowing any specifics of the TOS or the exact setup beyond what I could gather in this thread: generally speaking they could still send you a bill through email or otherwise.

After that, if you’re not paying up, they might be able to successfully get the money out of you through court regardless, depending on a few factors. What’s more likely for smaller sums is that they’ll just drop it and ban you though.

IANAL of course.

I think the humor is meant to be in the juxtaposition between “reference” in media contexts (e.g. “I am your father”) and “reference” in programming contexts and applying the latter context to the former one.

What does “I’m your father” mean if the movie is jaws?

I think the absurdity of that question is part of said humor. That being said, I didn’t find it funny either.

I think it would be fine as an official extension. Shipping it built-in feels weird to me.