Were the typos in the readme intentional?

As said… I had to take a train so I rushed typed the top lines and pushed it.

As explained by GPT:

> The comment seems to be expressing the idea that developers are similar to horseshoe makers in that their work, like the work of horseshoe makers, is becoming increasingly obsolete or irrelevant.

Replicated with ChatGPT: "The statement "we developers are now modern-day horseshoe makers" is a metaphor. It suggests that just as horseshoe makers were once important and in high demand but are now largely obsolete due to technological advancements, developers may eventually become obsolete as well due to advances in technology. In other words, the statement is expressing the idea that the role of developers may become less important or necessary in the future."

My feeling is that people won't be writing code as it is written now. Those that do will likely be the same as horseshoe makers. Instead, you will have new tools and be solving different problems. As mechanics now have taken the role of those in charge of maintaining our primary transportation tool.

Instead of optimizing the original prompt, if it spits out something wrong, try and point out the mistake, it is pretty quick to fix it in most cases.

The problem I had was that I didn't see where the mistake was... once I know the mistake pointing it out is pointless.

Feeding back the error you're getting, or the way in which expected behavior is different from observed, can get you pretty far. The bot is fairly graceful at taking feedback. (Your mileage may vary - it works sometimes, but not always. I've also had the bot say "Ah your error was actually <something different than my error>, here is the solution".)

I had an interesting interaction where it said something wrong - I corrected it, and it accepted the correction. I was then curious to what extent it was a pushover - and took back my correction and said that what it originally said was right. It then responded along the lines of "I'm sorry for causing confusion - but <correct statement> is right, and my initial statement was wrong". Pretty impressive!

https://overemployed.com/ Not parent, but i think they are talking about this blog

> In the latest version, the company tweaked the genetic code of the nematodes so that they would swim away from pancreatic cancer samples. Hirotsu Bio started with pancreatic cancer due to its difficulty in diagnosis and speed of progression.

I'm kinda amazed that we are able to change the genetic code of the organisms to make them do something

Yeah this is definitely one of the coolest developments I've read about.

My daughter is studying biotech at university. While I was on the cutting edge for proliferation of computing, she's there on biotech. What an exciting future of discoveries and invention she has ahead of her. We're all now stuck on reinventing shitty web frameworks in nodejs for the 11th time.

what is the problem with letting a website know how many times I have visited the page? How is it better for a website to only know if I have visited earlier or not?

Many clients may have visited only one time, but when you reach higher numbers they may be used together with other data to help identify users.

Maybe only one user will have over 100 visits, and then you can uniquely identify them.

Makes sense. I’m not very experienced in privacy but could you explain why uniquely identifying the user is a problem? As in you can tell that there’s one user who visited 100 times but how can you use that information to correlate with an identity?

This is also my question that all the people wearing their smart lawyer hats seem to be claiming but not explaining.

Mainly for targeting ads, I guess.

It's mainly for text classification, which explains why it's not really giving comparable outputs to GPT3

I believe they have a manager now, like the vanced mananger. https://github.com/revanced/revanced-manager

It averages around 0.0005$ per request according to the footer. Could this end up costing the author quite a bit due to HN traffic? Also, whats stopping bad actors from writing a script to continuously fetch the page?

I wonder if some sort of caching might help lower costs.

It's part of the bit.

There's intentionally no caching, every batch is warm from the AI oven.

HN usually drives around 10k visits, so organically it's going to be well within my Saturday night budget. If someone decides to hammer it, well, the OpenAI account has a hard limit of $20/month. It will live until it's killed I guess.

> HN usually drives around 10k visits

You have to account for this not being a regular visit, but rather (I guess) 5-50 "visits" per visit, as people mash F5 to get more titles.

> OpenAI account has a hard limit of $20/month

That makes me feel better about the couple refreshes I did myself :).

Nothing. And in fact that’s exactly what happened to me. Some fella from HN spawned like 45 simultaneous wget’s in a loop to cause maximum financial damage. All of a sudden we see Firebase’s cost graph go vertical.

It happened after I mentioned “just be kind, please! Theoretically this could cost a lot of money.”

So there’s at least one person who will do exactly this just for fun.

Firebase customer support was super cool about it, but it still knocked us off the paid tier.

>All of a sudden we see Firebase’s cost graph go vertical.

think of all the money you have saved by not having to hire a hundred engineers to maintain your website's infrastructure!

Some saves: `Rational(d,86400)` -> `d/86400r`

Get rid of the variable `a` since it is used in only one place.

`DateTime.new(0,1,1,0,0,0)` -> `DateTime.new(0,1,1)`

also in newer ruby versions you can use numbered parameters to replace d with _1 and remove `|d|`

Pretty sure there might be some more which i do not see immediately :)

ruby -e 'require"date";(0..4e9).each{b=DateTime.new(0,1,1)+_1/86400r;c=b.strftime("%y%m%d%H%M%S");puts b.strftime("%y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")if c==c.reverse}'

151 bytes (including the ruby -e, down from 174.) Thanks!

`ruby -e 'require"date";0.upto(4e9){b=DateTime.new(0,1,1)+_1/86400r;c=b.strftime"%y%m%d%H%M%S";p b.strftime"%y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"if c==c.reverse}'`

142? Sorry if I broke anything, on phone.

You need to use puts to avoid quotes being added around the output - so I'll give you 145! I'm on my phone too, I'm impressed I even got something working, you've done brilliantly.

Edit: DateTime.new(0) seems to work. 141.

~~`b=DateTime.new(0,1,1)+_1/86400r;`-> `b=_1/86400r+DateTime.new 0`~~ oops

ruby -rdate -e'b=DateTime.new 0;loop{b+=1/86400r;c=b.strftime"%y%m%d%H%M%S";puts b.strftime"%y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"if c==c.reverse}'

127. Script never terminates, but it does display all possibilities, so I think it still passes!

Edit: 126. ruby -rdate -e'b=DateTime.new 0;loop{b+=1/86400r;puts b.strftime"%y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"if(c=b.strftime"%y%m%d%H%M%S")==c.reverse}'

I think I'm done for the moment, will revisit tomorrow if you can find any further savings!

That doesn't work unfortunately, you need the brackets - DateTime has to be on the left.

ah, my bad.

This should work for 134:

`ruby -r date -e '0.upto(4e9){b=DateTime.new(0)+_1/86400r;puts b.strftime"%y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"if(c=b.strftime"%y%m%d%H%M%S")==c.reverse}'`