If this weren't on HN I wouldn't have given this more than a few seconds of reading before switching away. Some examples of phrasing that triggers me:

> attributing hits was a grep, not a guess > values below are copied from the probe’s log file, not paraphrased > a User-agent: Claude-User disallow is the live control > Only Claude-User is the user-initiated retrieval signal

I could go on and on but I won't. Phrasing aside, the text is too structured with many sections and subsections when the intent was clearly more narrative. "I was curious about X and did Y and I am going to tell you about it."

Signals that suggest a human who cares would be: use of the first-person; demonstrated curiosity, humility, and uncertainty; inline hyperlinks; and any kind of personality or opinion.

"Idiolect" is both subtle and distinct: the choice of vocabulary, grammar, phrasing and colloquial metaphors will vary in kind and frequency for everyone like an intellectual signature. You can sometimes tell if someone has been reading too much of a particular author recently just because of the way the author's choice of vocabulary bleeds into their own speech patterns. Sometimes it's a permanent influence.

I wonder if reading so much LLM stuff lately has affected my idiolect and that I write (or worse, think) more machine-like than before...

Do not worry, or reply, to those horrible people putting you down

Arrogant pricks

Sometimes when we point the moon to people they prefer to discuss at length about the finger.

Don't worry.