They are technically no longer individual life forms. They sure used to be, but we merged quite some time ago. Of course that opens a whole other can of worms with respect to who you really are. You're trillions of microorganisms living together and quite a few of them don't even share your DNA.
More anecdotally, I knew a cat that brought in bats almost daily, which is why the owner had her vaccinated against rabies (classical rabies RABV has been extirpated here).
You may find the recently published article “A General Principle of Neuronal Evolution Reveals a Human-Accelerated Neuron Type Potentially Underlying the High Prevalence of Autism in Humans” interesting.
Some of these crawlers appear to be designed to avoid rate limiting based on IP. I regularly see millions of unique ips doing strange requests, each just one or at most a few per day. When a response contains a unique redirect I often see a geographically distinct address fetching the destination.
"I regularly see millions of unique ips doing strange requests, each just one or at most a few per day."
How would UA string help
For example, a crawler making "strange" requests can send _any_ UA string, and a crawler doing "normal" requests can also send _any_ UA string.
The "doing requests" is what I refer to as "behaviour"
A website operator might think "Crawlers making strange requests send UA string X but not Y"
Let's assume the "strange" requests cause a "website load" problem^1
Then a crawler, or any www user, makes a "normal" request and sends UA string X; the operator blocks or redirects the request, unnecessarily
Then a crawler makes "strange" request and sends UA string Y; the operator allows the request and the website "blows up"
What matters for the "blowing up websites" problem^1 is behaviour, not UA string
1. The article's title calls it the "blowing up websites" problem, but the article text calls it a problem with "website load". As always the details are missing. For example, what is the "load" at issue. Is it TCP connections or HTTP requests. What number of simultaneous connections and/or requests per second is acceptable, what number is not unacceptable. Again, behaviour is the issue, not UA string
The acceptable numbers need to be published; for example, see documentation for "web APIs"
"Some of these crawlers appear to be designed to avoid rate limiting based on IP."
Unless the rate is exceeded, the limit is not being avoided
"I regularly see millions of unique ips doing strange requests, each just one or at most a few per day."
Assuming the rate limit is more than one or a few requests every 24h this would be complying with the limit, not avoiding it
It could be that sometimes the problem website operators are concerned about is not "website load", i.e., the problem the article is discussing, it is actually something else (NB. I am not speculating about this particular operator, I am making a general observation)
If a website is able to fulfill all requests from unique IPs without affecting quality of service, then it stands to reason "website load" is not a problem the website operator is having
For example, the article's title claims Meta is amongst the "worst offenders" of creating excessive website load caused by "AI crawlers, fetchers"
Meta has been shown to have used third party proxy services wth rotating IP addresses in order to scrape other websites; it also sued one of these services because it was being used to scrape Meta's website, Facebook
Whether the problem that Meta was having with this "scraping" was "website load" is debatable; if the requests were being fulfilled without affecting QoS, then arguably "website load" was not a problem
Rate-limiting addresses the problem of website load; it allows website operators to ensure that requests from all IP addresses are adequately served as opposed to preferentially servicing some IP addresses to the detriment of others (degraded QoS)
Perhaps some website operators become concerned that many unique IP addresses may be under the control of a single entity, and that this entity may be a competitor; this could be a problem for them
But if their website is able to fulfill all the requests it receives without degrading QoS then arguably "website load" is not a problem they are having
NB. I am not suggesting that a high volume of requests from a single entity, each complying with a rate-limit is acceptable, nor am I making any comment about the practice of "scraping" for commercial gain. I am only commenting about what rate-limiting is designed to do and whether it works for that purpose
Oxygen is literally toxic to anaerobes in the clostridia class. Which means their endospores are likely to be where the bacteria is.
Like botulism or bacterial gangrene, tetani can survive for short periods (as can humans sans oxygen) but is unlikely to be found in sufficient quantities to cause concern.
