Yes, and also it’s weird to get a negative shipping cost (-5) for US and code SUMMER2024. Typically you would only apply the discount code once and not both to shipping and the total order value.
So next, they realize they need a different calculation for shipping, and now their beautiful abstraction has a big if isShipping() {...} else {...} block. So much for reducing complexity.
Sometimes it's best to let two identical blocks of code remain intact if there's a reasonable chance that their logic may diverge in the future. If they don't diverge, and you find yourself constantly updating both, then you can factor it out into shared code. It's usually much easier to create a new layer of abstraction in the future, than to remove an unneeded one after a ton of code has grown up around it.
I'm a big fan of WET - write everything twice (stolen from HackerNews), then maybe the third time think about refactoring into shared code, especially in new apps where you don't know how things are going to involve.
If you are concerned with lockout and want offline, interoperable backups of your 2auth codes I strongly recommend Raivo. It can’t import from google authenticator directly, but it’s possible to extract the secrets with some docker script, and then enter them manually into Raivo.
A lot of people compete to try to get on the global leader boards, which I find quite fun, also makes me wake up at 05:30 am every day!
But yeah, this probably mostly helps for easier problems, and is quite useless when either the problem needs a cleaver construction or some trick to make the time complexity good enough.
In the blogpost it actually comes up with a linear stack based solution (one of the intended solutions) to a problem where the naive solution is quadratic.
I mean, that GPT solves problem 1,3,4 of AoC this year does not translate into it solving all problems, not even close.
For example, try giving ChatGPT the problem statement of https://adventofcode.com/2021/day/19. What comes out is basically gibberish. It seems to completely miss that the scanners report their coordinates in their own coordinate system.
But if nothing changes in the rules/community the leaderboards of early and more straight forward problems will probably be filled with GPT solutions.
I could see it be pretty demotivating not standing a chance against AIs for the first couple of days though (and since you don't know beforehand which day they'll break down you still have to put in the work everyday).
Yeah, definately. I would like the leaderboard to be for only humans. But it seems futile to try to ban it and enforce it in any meaningful way, without changing the concept. An honorsystem just stating "if you wish to use a languagemodel like gpt, then please wait before the leaderboard is filled" might work, but I'm not sure.
I mean, it didn't really do well on day2, right? At least no fully automatic solution, since first star was after 1:49. Possibly not as many people tried doing it then though. But the statement was also more complicated (and a bit strange - giving you points both for winning and for the move you did).
