A flag of mine was declined with the reason "flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer", but that's not at all what I flagged it for.
Should I re-flag or is there some issue which causes the wrong template to be used?
It was a flag for meta.stackexchange.com/questions/332229/… to add the featured tag, as it is an official response to a featured question that is getting hidden due to downvotes. Others have suggested that it get flagged for the featured flag for that reason. I'd understand if it was declined because staff want to hide it so less people are aware of what's happening, but I can't imagine why it would be declined for "pointing out inaccuracies".
Juan M said that user tracking/fingerprinting is acceptable because [insert misunderstood terms of service from ad company here]. Nick Craver, on the other hand, said that it is a major problem and that they will work to fix this, and that it tracking is not OK. They are talking about the same things.
Clearly, nick was still in the investigative mode on this topic. Now that they know what's going on, their stance on it has changed. Nothing wrong with that?
@forest TBH from my shallow understanding they do know or assume what's going on but the legal headache is probably not worth it and the latter post is a dismissal.
I usually assume my opposite is an intelligent human being. s. Human beings.
@M.A.R. I think they assume they know what's going on, but I agree that most likely, someone higher up has overridden Nick's goal of removing malvertising.
Especially since I've noticed that they've started ignoring other malicious tactics like redirect hijacking.
I just spent a few hours investigating what I thought might be a malicious Chrome extension (using developer tool to audit them, highly recommended!), an ISP/DNS injection issue, or a malware infection, but best I can tell this is occurring as a legitimate response from Quancast's pixel servers. ...
> Consuming vodka and clam chowder at 6 a.m. on a Wednesday isn’t behavior normally condoned by the general public. But tell people that you’re having an early morning bloody mary and a snack at the airport, and no one bats an eye.
I'm still bitter about being refused beer at JFK around 9am on Sunday.
@404 When I was booking my trip to India, one of the options was a 15-hour layover in London Heathrow. It was annoying that the flight to Mumbai would leave 15 minutes before the one arriving from Austin...
I ended up booking via Frankfurt instead.
But yes, I have spent 7 hours in London Heathrow. It was fine.
I need to match all of these opening tags:
<p>
<a href="foo">
But not these:
<br />
<hr class="foo" />
I came up with this and wanted to make sure I've got it right. I am only capturing the a-z.
<([a-z]+) *[^/]*?>
I believe it says:
Find a less-than, then
Find (and capture) a-z one or ...
> This post is locked to prevent inappropriate edits to its content. The post looks exactly as it is supposed to look - there are no problems with its content. Please do not flag it for our attention.
I need to match all of these opening tags:
<p>
<a href="foo">
But not these:
<br />
<hr class="foo" />
I came up with this and wanted to make sure I've got it right. I am only capturing the a-z.
<([a-z]+) *[^/]*?>
I believe it says:
Find a less-than, then
Find (and capture) a-z one or ...
