I remember this working really well on google. Recently (several months?) it didn't as I would expect. Fictional example: when searching for "asdf123" google would show results just containing 'asdf'. One particular thing I noticed was that google seems to omit underscores from verbatim strings. So for example when searching for "asdf_qwertz" it would show results that contained asdf and qwertz without the underscore.

It's really neither a bug nor a problem. It is very reasonable default behavior to enable piping to or parsing by other commands because space is the default separator for arguments.

Add-on: you really don't need to get rid of the quotes. It's a very reasonable behavior. You just need to learn/understand what they mean.

The backslash escapes the space because it would otherwise denote a seperator to the next argument of the command. ls a b c means invoke ls with the three arguments a,b, and c. ls 'a b c' or ls a\ b\ c means invoke ls with one argument "a b c". That behavior is universal for pretty much all unix/linux shells (ie bash).

I'd wager a guess, that all file/folder paths that are surrounded by quotes contain at least one space!? And you're talking about the output of ls? It's rather unlikely, that installing any software has changed that behavior. It's just a display feature, to denote that "two" parts separated by a space are actually one.

As someone who has used linux for >25 years and has experienced the madness of SysV init scripts for decades (well, only two, but the plural is still technically correct; the best kind of correct), I have a very hard time to take people who make posts like these serious.

In Ermangelung von Robotern übernahm ich selbst die Pflicht:

I love me some shorks; especially dorky ones like in the picture. I still think blahaj is defederating overzealously.

Blahaj isn't exactly frugal with defederation either. Or is an echochamber better if you call it "safe space"?

anon is probably vim user.

Like any sane person.

This comment was sent by typing

␛:wq⏎

Why is this so hard?

HP

There's your problem. Buy a Brother, brother.

I've seen people, lead and principal engineers, who refuse to learn modern JS, insisting that since it was bad in 2006 its bad today.

It's still bad, though. That's not the reason why, but it still is. All the frameworks and things like TypeScript try to work around and hide the uglyness and stupidity of JavaScript, but they neither remove nor fix it. The way HTML was initially designed is the exact opposite of how it is used. It was intended to present data in a standardized way and leave the rendering and styling to the client application. People tried to create pixel-perfect designs with it. The entire resulting technology stack was created by idiots for idiots. And JavaScript is consistent in the misguidedness of the endeavor. All the marketing talk about platform independence is bullshit. It is easier to write platform independent GUI applications in C than in HTML + CSS + JavaScript. All the frameworks and languages transpiling to JavaScript trying to belie that just lead to a breeding ground of incompetent GUI developers doing esotheric coding ("doing it the way it is done" while understanding zilch about the fundament). The resulting developers are useless outside of their steaming pile of web GUI shit. The least worse of them are the ones promoting and perpetuating this failed technology stack by adding further layers of abstraction to try and hide that it is build on and from shit, creating even more esoteric developers in the process - by idiots, for idiots. Web GUI developers are paid less than any other branch of developers and it is completely justified.