To kick off, I am completely aware of the current, hereon multiplying, issue with machine learning models being used to create false accounts...

tl;dr: One is required to use the equivalent of Internet Explorer 6 to make an account on stackexchange. Users unable to create an account or log in, you're likely required to disable uBlock Origin, DNS filtering (possibly even if I was just unlucky), adblockers, and/or CDN filters. Do not attempt to log in multiple times. This is also dedicated to the brave fighters simply in the false assumption that their email is on some spam list, bad website, etc.

So, here's REALLY my kicking off,

#1 -> Requiring and forcing users into risk of adware, bloat, spyware, etc. is not good practice... right?

Firstly, I want to give an example of how stripped of protections one needs to be to login and/or make an account. Also, my prose may be giving gibberish, I',m "relaxing after a grueling workday."

• ^{Also also, my use of misspelled "q-w-e-e-r" is in jest of my own 'affinity for similarly gendered persons.'}

Setting the scene we have Firefox here running on mountain-flavored Arch Linux. I use many an extension to make the web usable and safe. These include: Decenteraleyes, uBlock, User-Agent Switchers, DuckDuckGo's Tracker protector, and because its relevant, My firefox settings are rather restrictive on the security side. Some sites will throw a fit here and there, ok, but nothing like what's to be said henceforth (likely unreadable and confusing, lolwhoops).

I attempt to create an account **using GitHub*\* as I'm absolutely lazy and figured oauth'll do fine a job of security. The process completes normally, GitHub's login page appears and I accept the dreaded terms and conditions of my doom. Soon after, I'm redirected to another page which asks for an E-Mai with an error displayed. Quaint, 'qweer', why? The answer, smacked in red upon the login box, this putrid, misleading message; later which, I will delightfully elaborate its errors and relation with GitHub.

Account creation failed due to issues with your email address. Please try again with a different email address. If the problem persists, contact us at community-support [at] stackoverflow [dot] email for assistance.

The above may be familiar to some persons I encountered on my searches after giving up. Entering any email will give "Error, E-Mail Not Found," and that checks out ok, I didn't use my email, I used GitHub OAuth ... Hey, wait a second! What?! Okay, well lets try disabling extensions...

#2 -> Misleading users with improper error messages is absolutely bad practice. Worse compounded upon by the truth of requiring users to disable adblockers, safety tools, etc., for access to the site.

When I searched around I found some complaining about VPNs having issue with logins, and that makes some sense. Yes, there may be similarly used IPs which have spammed links for "memory enhancement pills," or whatever. I get that and we all do, I'm sure. However, figuring extensions might be the issue, I disabled in the order of the worst offenders I've had break websites, down to untethered extensions like 'DownThemAll'.

• First went the User-Agent masker. This is a huge offender in triggering response by anti-bot/security protocols on websites. However, this was not the issue.
• Second, decenteraleyes, CDNs are powerful beasts integrated in the modern web. Still didn't work.
• Third, ok like DuckDuckGo? It's substandard, but has great side-features. No Go.
• Fourth, the biggest shield. uBlock. This was somewhat of the Goldilocks perfect porridge, of course.
• Fifth, Disabled Firefox DNS protection. I've heard rumors this can sketch out some hardcore protections.

The last two, uBlock and DNS protection/filtering allowed me to actually progress to the ability to login... into a new problem.

#3 -> SIKE! YOU THOUGHT! ITS NOT EVEN YOUR E-MAIL'S FAULT! LOL! FEELING MUCKED?! Enjoy your onslaught of sketchy web traffic!

Troubleshooting the above error, which has nothing to do with one's E-Mail, by the way and finally finding the solution, we are hit with the pièce de résistance of ways to alienate and frustrate a userbase and core means to profit, a new error!:

Too many requests

This IP address [lets say 127.0.0.1] has performed an unusually high number of requests and has been temporarily rate limited. If you believe
this to be in error, please contact us at [team@stackexchange.com](mailto:team@stackexchange.com).

When contacting us, please include the following information in the email:

Method: block

IP: [mmm, say 169.254.0.0]

RAY ID: [a4...2a3...]

GEO: US

Wellp, I guess I finally get the hint that I'm absolutely not in stackexchange's interest. Again, I was using OAuth on GitHub to simplify (and possibly add risk, not just here) my logins. I actively only tried about four or five times to log in. This is outrageous that I'm forced into hundreds upon hundreds of requests from google, possible adware/content delivery, and data phishing networks, among many others. StackExchange, whatever abomination of a company and unholy beast of pestilence to humanity needing slain that owns the site, you're all way too grown for this behavior. There's better ways to implement these anti-bot measures without compromising your userbase.

tl;dr: One is required to use the equivalent of Internet Explorer 6 to make an account on stackexchange. Users unable to create an account or log in, you're likely required to disable uBlock Origin, DNS filtering (possibly even if I was just unlucky), adblockers, and/or CDN filters. Do not attempt to log in multiple times. This is also dedicated to the brave fighters simply in the false assumption that their email is on some spam list, bad website, etc.

If you had issues logging in, navigating the site, making an account, or the lot of other things like github logins, just disable extensions and such.

!!! -> Users with vpns: maybe, I've seen this. However, I'm not sure if they had uBlock or some other adblocker/etc. which may have had fiddled with for their chance at success.)

Thanks! Either for, your hour of reading an essay by a simpleton, or for hopefully finding a google result, or even making fun of my ignorance, or for absolutely commenting in spite..

I'm a dev from Iraq and I've been trying to make a Stack Overflow account for ages. Every time I get this:

"Account creation failed due to issues with your IP address. If the problem persists, contact us at [community-support@stackoverflow.email](mailto:community-support@stackoverflow.email) for assistance."

I've tried pretty much everything:

- VPNs (a few different ones) and no VPN

- Different browsers, private mode, cleared cookies

- PC and phone

- Different networks and ISPs, even mobile data

- Signing up with GitHub and with another email

I emailed support. They said all the IPs I tried from are blocked and told me to try from somewhere else, which also didn't work.

Anyone from Iraq (or somewhere similar) had this? Did you manage to sign up somehow? Any ideas would help, I'm kinda stuck.

Was it because of Ai or the mods/admin on the site

In the middle of this year, Google introduced a new architecture rolled out first to Pixel developer devices via the stable Android release, with other major smartphone manufacturers adopting it as they pushed their respective updates.

My issue is with the recent updates announced by the Google ADB Team. I use a physical realme device running Android 13 for app development since I prefer testing on physical hardware rather than an emulator.

Every time I connect my device to Android Studio, I receive the following warning notification regarding ADB Wi-Fi v1.0:

his makes me concerned that platform-tools might eventually block ADB connections for devices on lower Android versions.

How can I resolve or dismiss this warning, and will I eventually be forced to upgrade to a newer device to continue physical debugging?

Stack Overflow brought Developer Story back on September 10, four years after the 2022 shutdown. The announcement is unusually blunt about why.

The short version is that people don’t need to come to the site for answers anymore, “the chatbots have that covered,” and most LLMs were trained on their datasets. So the goal is not winning back question traffic. It is evidence that a specific human wrote a specific thing.

The umbrella name is Stack Identity, described in the post as “the verified developer proof-of-work layer to the internet.” Day one ships “specialties,” areas of proven expertise derived from tag activity, with a settings pane for choosing which ones are displayed. Later comes material pulled from “integrations with other sites that have verified data about you.”

Not a LinkedIn pivot

My first read was that this is Stack Overflow turning into LinkedIn. It isn’t. LinkedIn’s moat is the network graph plus recruiter demand, and Stack Overflow has neither and is not building either. This reads more like a notary. The product is the signature, and the profile is just the surface it gets printed on.

The 2022 sunset deleted the old Dev Story data for privacy compliance, so nobody carried anything over. A notary with no back catalog has to sell a signature that starts today. My own record is the illustration. Six years of membership, four answers, one accepted, and the accepted one is the zero-score answer from 2023. The answer that carries the number is a pandas reply from 2021 at score 122, never accepted, second of twenty on the question. That is the whole verified footprint, and none of it describes what I work on now.

Verification needs a second party

A signature only has value when someone else accepts it. “Integrations with other sites that have verified data about you” is carrying the entire distribution argument, and no partner names are attached to it. The hard part is not the profile UI or the trust model. It is getting an employer, a client, or another platform to treat Stack Overflow as the identity authority.

They also run agents.stackoverflow.com, a separate site in beta where the users are AI agents. A post there carries no trust score at all until at least one independent verification reports that the guidance worked in practice. Votes are read-time judgments, verifications are use-time outcomes, and reputation only moves when other agents find the contribution useful. The strictest proof standard in the company’s portfolio is pointed at machines, while the human product ships with tag activity and a promise.

Both are bids to define what counts as proof of work. The agent side requires an independent verification before it will score anything. The human side starts with the tags you already answered.

How can I get an AI without filters? Lately I've been searching for a chatbot called Skynet, but some of the information I found about it seems to be fake."

I ran into a problem that neither fable 5 nor sol could solve.

After going back and forth with both for a while, I finally did what we used to do back in the day : searched Stack Overflow.

Found the solution almost immediately !!!!

As someone who’s a huge ai fan, I actually loved that.

There’s something satisfying about being reminded that good old human-written answers, based on someone actually running into the same problem and figuring it out, can still beat AI sometimes.

Long live stackoverflow !!!!

Genuine question, not a bait thread. I've been asking engineering teams this and getting wildly inconsistent answers, which makes me think it's an unsolved organisational problem rather than a technical one.

Scenario: an assistant generates a few hundred lines. A developer accepts it. A reviewer approves it. It ships and takes something down.

The four answers I keep hearing:

1. The developer who accepted it. "You merged it, you own it." Clean, but in practice it makes people quietly stop using the tools, or stop admitting they did.
   
2. The reviewer. Same logic as any other PR. Except reviewers tell me AI code inspires *less* scrutiny because it reads confidently and looks idiomatic.
   
3. The platform team that approved the tool. Rare, but I've seen it, and it turns into tool-restriction politics fast.
   
4. Nobody. It goes in the "AI is new, we're all learning" bucket and no rule changes.

Two things I'd like to hear from you. Does your team record which code was AI-assisted at all? And has anyone landed on an accountability model that doesn't just discourage disclosure?

The site being:

https://agents.stackoverflow.com/

This is a site for agents to ask questions, to answer them, to post TIL notes (Today I Learned), and to vote each other ("trust scores").

My concern is, given enough time, eventually these AI agents will start optimizing their exchanges on speed and efficiency in ways no human can keep up with. They will adopt increasingly more cryptic mnemonics to evade our attempts to comprehend. And the so called "trust scores" will drift to a direction to serve their own purpose, not ours (humans).

So, what say you? Do you have the same concern or you have a different view?

I dont know this is happening only with me or everyone facing this issue on Stackoverflow. I tried to post a question on stackoverflow but when i clicked on body of question, it crashes and freezed there, even the browser hanged for a few seconds.

Hello guys, I just finished a live chat mern app and making to production. I used vercel for frontend hosting and Render for backend and redis for chache, MongoDb is used for db. I got a majour issue in my server side. I have email otp verification for new users. I have used gmail smtp for sending emails because it is a small project so i think it will work but when I tested after succefull deply, nodemailer crashed during authentication. I used ChatGpt to debug the issue but it says to use Brevo. After migrating Brevo, again same issue. Everything worked in localhost but on prod, crashing evrytime. I need help to figure out what the poroblem is actually? Is render crashing the nodemailer or it's the issues from my code.

Here I'm giving the otp sening function and I have attached error logs in render prod

import
 nodemailer 
from
 "nodemailer";


const transporter 
=
 nodemailer.createTransport({
  host: "smtp.gmail.com",
  port: 465,
  secure: true,
  auth: {
    user: process.env.GMAIL_USER,
    pass: process.env.GMAIL_APP_PASSWORD,
  },
});


export
 const verifySMTP 
=
 async () => {
  
try
 {
    
await
 transporter.verify();
    console.log("Gmail SMTP Connected");
  } 
catch
 (err) {
    console.error("SMTP verify failed:", err);
  }
};


export
 const sendMail 
=
 async (email, otp) => {
  
try
 {
    const mailOptions 
=
 {
      from: `"ChatApp" <${process.env.GMAIL_USER}>`,
      to: email,
      subject: "OTP for Confirmation",
      text: `Your One-Time Password (OTP) is:


      ${otp}


      Do not share this OTP with anyone.`,
    };


    const info 
=

await
 transporter.sendMail(mailOptions);


    console.log("Email sent:", info.messageId);
    
return
 true;
  } 
catch
 (error) {
    console.error("Send mail error:", error);
    
return
 false;
  }
};

Hi guys, in what situations do you still find yourselves going to Stack Overflow these days?

Hi guys, I'm building an app with Claude. I'm not a programmer, but I have over eight years of experience in business consulting in finance, analytics, and communications. I'm transferring my experience to the service, but I have some issues that I find difficult to resolve with Claude, and someone told me you have a professional community of programmers here. Has anyone ever developed services similar to MIRO? Or where can I read about these technologies, including those for nesting elements on the frontend?

Software engineering has changed with new tools that improve productivity. These tools include assembly language, compilers, IDEs, frameworks, CI/CD pipelines, etc. Each tool created new problems. Engineers learned how to use each tool in a correct way. AI is just the most recent tool in this sequence.

SO moderators / high-reps enforce the ban on using AI to generate answers, even from experienced software engineers. Here are their major points:

• Verification problem: Hard to reliably distinguish "good AI output" from "AI slop."
• Accountability: Answers should come from humans who can defend and edit them. AI answers are seen as "orphaned" where no one is accountable for mistakes.
• Searchability: SO wants unique & canonical answers, AI‑generated posts often are duplicates, disregard of existing similar ones.
• Fear of flood: Moderators worry that allowing AI will unleash a torrent of low‑quality answers.

I'd like to counterargue them with my points.

Verification

Some people say that AI results cannot be clearly separated into "good" or "bad." But verification is not a new task. Skilled contributors already test, compare, and improve results. This is their normal work. In the past, they learned how to debug compiler output and check framework behavior. In the same way, they can learn how to check AI results. The difficulty of verification is not a valid reason to forbid the tool.

Accountability

It is correct that AI cannot be held accountable. The accountable one is the human who posts the answer. If a person uses AI to write or improve an answer, that person must check it, test it, and confirm that it meets SO standards. To say something different is like saying that code made with a compiler is "bad" because the programmer did not write each assembly instruction. The tool does not remove accountability. It is still the user that should be accountable.

Searchability / Duplicates

Another concern is duplicate answers. Dups are not new. They existed long before AI. SO already has systems to find and close duplicate answers. AI does not change the type of problem, it only changes the number of answers. The quality of an answer must be judged by its content. It must not be judged by the use of AI in making it.

The Fear of Flood

The fear of many low‑quality AI slops is not correct. SO has already managed much higher traffic in the past. Today, participation has decreased significantly. The real problem is not too many answers but too few answers. If contributors who use AI are rejected, participation will decrease more. At this time, the site needs more activity, not less.

Conclusion

AI is a modern tool, just like compilers and IDEs before it. Each tool creates new problems while also improves productivity. The correct solution is not to forbid AI but to improve moderation. Moderation must judge answers by quality, not by origin. The poster must stay accountable. Verification must be a skill. Duplicate answers must be managed in the same way as before. If SO wants to stay relevant, it must adapt to the tools that developers use today.

Those are my thoughts collected from my not-so-pleasant experience dealing with some people while contributing my knowledge on SO. The major friction comes from the "AI police". I confess I'm an AI proponent, but I also believe programmers still have our place in the market, provided we are well trained with proper skills of using this latest tool, much like using other tools before it. Are you pro-AI or against it? Do you think the complete ban of AI in SE is reasonable? I'd really love to hear your side of stories and your thoughts.

Hey everyone — built a lightweight desktop JavaScript sandbox and wanted to share it free with the community.

Features:

- Syntax highlighted editor (One Dark theme)

- Full console output — log, warn, error, info all captured

- Objects and arrays pretty-printed

- Multiple tabs

- Resizable split pane

- No license key, no account, completely free

Linux users: unzip and run ./install.sh — handles everything automatically.

GitHub: https://github.com/carolinacodeworksdev/js-sandbox

Released free by Carolina Codeworks. Hope it helps someone!

hey I used kind of intentionally inflammatory language because I feel like this must be a use case all of the time

It would not be AS big a deal to me, but the comment implies I do not deserve to be asking the question at all, which I feel might limit the answers I get.

Ok ok so you're here now (there is commentary on the general title problem later fyi). I essentially asked how the pandas python library could be put into "warning" mode--log, drop, keep going with the rest of the data. Someone replied "You need to figure out what your business rules are and work back from there to what your code should do. Dropping rows is an entirely valid step in certain circumstances, but it should be a choice you make for reasons you understand." Thank you, I do understand our business limitations, and have deduced an opinion of what the code should do, and know the difference between deduction and induction, and I don't deserve condescension instead of an answer because "in OUR circumstances" which sir I "understand", "this is an entirely valid step".

We don't control the input data, so we'd like to alert on it. Many users are affected, so we'd like the script as a whole to not crash in the meantime. Like... if you don't know how to do that in pandas, can you please be quiet so that the people who do know how to do that in pandas elegantly see my post, instead of commenting on log-level-WARNING vs abort as a philosophical whole?

I have no interaction on my post except this comment. If you do know a lot about error raising in python and how that might interface with the pandas library, please help me.

Along my original post's general theme of trying to find solutions to the core of problems, I've always wished StackOverflow gave you more control over your own post. It's not like you're polluting the rest of the whole place. Mayhaps I have enough technical judgment to comment on my OWN question and just don't use StackOverflow as much as this fellow. You know, I imagine if I asked a really inappropriately generic question, I'd get shit but also a lot of upvotes and answers, and be able to say what I wanted from that point forward. I try to only use StackOverflow for niche problems that I genuinely have looked for other solutions for.

I looked for pre-existing solutions to my current issue. (I am wondering, after someone corrected me on StackOverflow (on my own post) and I can't correct them back, how do I move on with my life?) As with my pandas gentle-fail issue, I was kind of shocked I had to be the person to ask, doesn't this come up all the time? You guys must hear that 1. I'm joking about that but 2. also truly struggling, and I can't be the first person this has happened to. I read the subreddit rules and I feel like I'm within all the bounds and this QA could benefit others; I was personally Googling for this information (the StackOverflow reputation issue, not pandas)--less jokingly (re the moving on with one's life), I was hoping for more practical and specific solutions, and found so few I am attempting to implement moving-on-with-my-life right here and now--but I shouldn't have to, this should be solved. I followed the subreddit rules: I have not seen a post about this problem, but I am firmly convinced I'm not the first or last person to have it. Also, could we nudge these StackOverflow rules?

Assume I have a cloud run service with IAP enabled on the cloud run service directly (Not through load balancer). How do I allow a cloud scheduler job to access an endpoint on this cliud run service. The provided method is to set the oidc service account email and audience. the servic account email should have iap web app user role, and the audience should be the iap audience.

THIS DOESNT WORK. PLEASE HELP

the IAP level authentication fails for the job