It's pretty handy when tools like lazy.nvim display changes as a list of commit summaries and you have to make a fast value judgment on if you should allow the upgrade.
Outside of that, I agree that it's silly to put it in the summary and seems to be a symptom of people writing crap commit messages.
If all you ever write or look at is the summary then obviously it needs to go in there or it'll never be seen.
> “Because I am trained as a maker, I kept wanting to flip things over,” Meredith said in a statement. “When that happens, patterns appear that everyone else has literally photographed out of the frame.”
Beautifully ironic that the photo in the article shows the vessel the correct way up
Does it use internet to open up the connection? Because I vividly remember the share screen not even finding the other device (and vice versa). Could also be extremely slow internet being worse than no connection at all
Android didn't have a way to share files between them for the longest time. Initially there was Beam but it never worked. The first semi-reliable way to exchange files between two android phones, without using a third party utility, was Nearby Share dates from 2020.
So yeah, it's a low bar, but one that only Apple bothered to clear from the get go apparently.
Honestly I wouldn't worry about it. He's a wonderful writer, the problem is that he doesn't let reality get in the way of a good story. Just classify them with the rest of the fiction-non-fiction books and enjoy the journey. If you ever find yourself asking "wow is that true?" then it probably isn't.
The leaderboard has led to the same predictable discussion for as long as the AoC has existed. Recurring themes:
- The puzzles get published in the middle of the night for most of Europe, can't we have a better system like scoring on <arbitrary other metric the poster likes better>.
- It's weird that many of the pages say "just have fun, it's not a race" and then also there's a prominent leaderboard page to show who's currently ahead in the race.
- There's been people taking the whole thing way too seriously from basically year 1, trying to load their puzzle input as fast as possible by polling every 10 ms and putting too much load on the servers.
- Whether AI is allowed is always a super toxic discussion with no real outcome because you can't enforce it.
Gonna miss it. So fun to see how fast one can parse the problem, figure out how to solve it while thinking of edge cases, and then actually write and run it. I've never been high up on the leaderboard, but enjoyed waking up early in December and give it a crack. Most often rank ~1000, a few times ~100.
But I also understand the decision. Fun while it lasted, but I'll find other ways to have fun with AoC this year!
In the earlier years, maybe. Last year you’d immediately see a 3m47s time for a puzzle that for most people would take at least an hour. Unless you were actively watching the clock for a new puzzle daily, odds are it would have already been solved a thousand times over by the time you started.
It’s like excitedly arriving to a potluck with your beef bourguignon, only to find twenty michelin-starred chefs competing against each other.
Not exactly my idea of “fun” :) to me AoC was much more of a neighborhood party than an olympic event.
I was one of those people, waking up a bit before 6 in the morning, sitting ready to refresh, seeing how fast I could solve it :)
As for when it's been solved a thousand times: 2022 I did part1 and part2 and was finished after 4m36seconds, and that gave me rank 1070. So don't underestimate how many who did this competitively, heh.
Yeah, a bunch of people started going on witch hunts against the people where were obviously using AI (eg ~30 second solve times) and also anyone who had "AI" anywhere in their bio.
IMO the levels it got to was wildly out of proportion, even if these people were cheating (say what you will about AI, but if the rules say not to use it and you do: you're a cheater) but maybe I would have felt differently if the timezones meant I could take part, rather than waking up to drama.
Just to not feed the witch hunt further, note that human 30 second solve times can be entirely possible for the easiest puzzles, with enough experience, practice, and a bit of risk-taking; see e.g. https://adventofcode.com/2021/leaderboard/day/1 part 1. But the 4 second solution times we saw last year are not, no matter how you look at it.
But yes, you would have people openly share repositories for automatically ingesting the puzzle text, solving the puzzles, and submitting the results the moment the puzzles opened, leading to inhuman solution times. So, despite the rules stating that you can't do that, the result is that whenever the puzzles were easy enough for an LLM to solve them with high probability – and most of them are – the leaderboards would be overrun with such solutions.
In 2023, the LLMs would still struggle enough that the overall leaderboard (taking all 25 ⋅ 2 puzzles into account) would still be dominated by ordinary people (many of them recording their solutions), in 2024 that was no longer the case. Personally I would go from being able to top 100 regularly, to almost never being able to. I'm going to miss the thrill, and think it's a bit saddening that we can't have nice things, but also ultimately think that getting rid of it is the best option.
