• 0 Posts
  • 93 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle



  • You’re getting downvoted, but you’re right. This knife cuts both ways, and it far predates llms.

    Any non trivial algorithm intended to rank is gameable.

    This is the foundation of SEO. It’s how the Donald invaded reddit. It’s the fucking central pillar of modern propaganda dissemination.

    They’re going to spend a ton of money to lock themselves into an ongoing arms race.

    And if one is morality opposed to this type of pricing practice, I think one becomes morality obligated to do exactly what you described.

    And honestly, I think you don’t even have to come out ahead for it to be worth it. If your LLM assessed price would be 1000, spending a full $200 on compute to game and $800 ticket is a wash. You SHOULD spend $300 to get an $800 ticket if that’s where the floor is. Because fuck em.



  • I understand what is happening.

    I think that breaking a constant evaluated value into an expression that is still a constant comprised entirely of literals is bad.

    Extract the constants (100 and 1) to NAMED constants if you wanna do this.

    Edit: You also mentioned it might just be a side effect of a minifier. Maybe it is. I’ve got tons of grace if that’s the case, since the dev has little if any control. Be like if I was roasting someone for what a compiler did.

    You’re obviously the js expert, so I’ll defer to you on expected minifier behavior, but there are 3 specific reasons that id be surprised (based on what I think a minifier should do)

    • there is a defined variable that already exists “random”, i would any minifier worth it’s salt to make the variable name smaller

    • since the expression (100 + 1 - 1) is a constant expression, I similarly would expect a minifier to reduce constant expressions to thier evaluated value (especially if the evaluated value is fewer characters than the expression) aka, just collapse to “100”

    • there is still a ton of extraneous whitespace






  • This is where I’m really fuzzy on the mechanics.

    Any authentication is to establish an identity. At what point does that involve getting a unique id associated with an OS installation instance?

    My original question is how the hardware id and ngrok get associated at all.

    So, after getting frustrated and just going to sign up for an account myself, it looks like ngrok has options to sign is as a Google account, or sign in as a github account.

    I’m guessing they picked github, and that’s why Microsoft had any visibility at all on the fact that they accessed a site that isn’t owned by Microsoft.

    It still doesn’t answer the question of how the browser knows this id which is set at the os level. It still begs the question of what github authentication looks like differently between operating systems. Obviously a osx or Linux machine wouldn’t have that id at all. Is it part of the initial authentication request? Is there some kind of challenge and response?




  • I think there are a lot of things at play here. Ultimately I don’t think you should, though.

    The fact that you still want to tell them is suspicious. I think you’re not being honest with yourself. Your ulterior end game is a hope of some type of reciprocation. You haven’t moved on.

    Just because (assuming it’s even true) a statistical model of a gender says “they probably would like it” is irrelevant. Would this individual like to hear it? It sounds like you don’t know. If you don’t know them well enough to anticipate how they would react, then I think it’s pretty safe to say they don’t know you well enough to receive the message “I used to love you” in a way that could ever come out as a net benefit to them.

    I empathize immensely regarding your position. But as a 3rd party observer, don’t do it.



  • Counterpoint:

    They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that “smart people with spreadsheets won’t let them lose money” is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.

    They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.

    Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you’re right. You’re just right for the wrong reason.

    Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.

    The more people actively using these tools, even if they’re just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the “active users” metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies “make thier money”.