I was curious if LLMs are good for this problem. ChatGPT-5.1-Thinking one-shotted a correct Python script without any library use (https://pastecode.io/s/jg6ggxpm).
Claude Opus failed to solve after trying for a while.
First of all, don't do this. No one cares. Secondly obviously every Euler solution is going to appear in the training data many times over. It's no surprise at all that an LLM can regurgitate data that was given to it.
I do care. I appreciate /u/webo's comment. If you're a hater, don't generalize to others. There are still people out there embracing new technologies and change, and with an intact engineering spirit driven by sheer curiosity.
I thought it was interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if Euler solutions weren't in the training data, especially for the later problems like this one.
I used to do these in college to procrastinate my homework. I always had the most difficulty with the problems that required data structures I wasn't exposed to previously and ended up making really complicated solutions that were inefficient as hell, but fun nonetheless.
I might give them a try with golang now that it's my preferred language. I used to do them in python as that was our intro language.
In my experience, isolated (repeated) data storage paradigm is even more common at large organizations. They share data via services, ETLs, event buses, etc.
On one hand, the market seems to react to these appropriately. On another hand, the market has a short-term memory and prices go back up.
It's unfortunate Auth0 was acquired by them. Have used it from the beginning and it used to be a great product before the Okta acq. Now it's just constant sales emails, expensive pricing, not much new feature launches, most features are very enterprise focused, bunch of bugs, frequent outages.
Stock 41% up in the last 12 months is not appropriate.. it basically signals, "buy at a huge discount after each incident, we'll keep it rising regardless".
At this point, one could speculate they are not worth almost at all given they fail to deliver on their primary value proposition. They are not and have not been profitable either, only getting worse: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/OKTA/financials?p=OKTA
This sort of business doesn’t have to immediately realize a profit they just have to expand their base of customer and dig their claws deeper into their customers core infrastructure. Once they do that they can exploit their customers for years before they’l be able to escape. Since they are frequently going to be competing in “lowest bidder wins” competitions they’re be foolhardy to try and make a profit up front honestly, counter-intuitively it would be lighting money on fire. This is also a product with pretty substantial benefits from scale, as Okta gets bigger more things integrate with them so they’re easy to integrate with so they get bigger…
I’m just wondering who in the industry is still stupid enough to stick their neck out for Okta? Why are they getting new customers? Why not go with the other devil you know your cloud provider to offer mostly the same services? What is Okta offering when they seem relatively incompetent compared to the competition that often offers their products for cheaper up front?
Looking for an experienced software engineer to join our strong engineering team. Series B B2B growing startup with about ~100 employees & 30 engineers. We build software products to help some of the largest brands with their supply chains.
- Slack is so easy and fun to use that we use it for things we shouldn't be (fun channels, fun integrations). It creates too much noise and hard to extract signal. It ends up being distracting past 100+ people company.
- Teams is so bad that people try not to use it. It forces you to use it minimally because everything is terrible. It actually ends up being more productive than Slack.
Here's my problem with Teams: the search is terrible. I know I had a conversation with someone (but maybe I don't remember if it was just them, them and a few others, or a meeting chat, or a team chat), I know what it was about, I know a few words from it...and I can't reliably search for it. Useless.
And now they have just flipped the interface so you scroll up for new and not down. With no warning and no notification so for the first day no one could find any current conversations.
And the terrible "Teams documents" so we can lock away documents behind a specific chat. If anyone should be having layoffs, it is their UX folks.
It's cheaper yah, but each time I lose ten minutes it costs me more than that.
That was part of the pitch at work - "oh, over 3 years our total savings is $200k" or something. Great, but if each dev loses 10 minutes a month, or is frustrated and less efficient for an hour, that costs us 5x that.
Teams creates knowledge siloes which is worse than Slack. Every company I have used ends up with people creating various "Teams" and channels under them, then everyone just creates group chats all the time because it's easier.
US doesn’t give out a permanent residency based on how long you lived in the country. There’s only a few common paths to immigration: employment sponsored (2-20 years), marriage based (1-3 years), other family based (2-20 years), investor based (1-3 years). Student or tourist years don’t matter.
lol. I've read someone saying that if chatgpt can do computer interview questions… maybe the questions are trash. Seems we aren't the only ones with the issue.
This seems obvious to the younger generation but “my friends who live in X” works just fine on Facebook. I know the older (my) generation is used to more filters but google/fb/ig/tt handle context-free queries fine by default.
>Consumers, meanwhile, split down the middle between cynics who’re certain it’s worthless and true-believers who think it sets the standard for how security should work.
There are many dependencies in the software supply chain that are maintained by a single person (open source or not),so it seems silly to default assume malicious intent for employees of a software vendor with a good reputation.
There are bad actors that no SOC2 control would catch, and there are good actors (the default) where no SOC2 control affect their behavior.
SOC2 is never part of my decision making, rather, I carefully study the company and product offerings to decide if right fit.
(This is coming from someone who goes thru an annual SOC2 audit)
It's frustrating because the supercilious "what, you don't do code review!" comments the post attracted put me in the position of having to explain that we do in fact do code review, like every other mature dev shop, but that cuts against the point the post is making, which is that SOC2's understanding of code review is black-and-white and complicated dev projects have occasionally complicated dev processes --- and, importantly, your dev process can and should win the argument with the SOC2 auditor.
The third party dependency point is the best rebuttal I think you could come up with. It's exactly right: in the SOC2 view of how code works, you can't commit a 3rd party dependency without every line of its code being reviewed and approved. Nobody does that. It was my job for 15 years to do that for other people, and nobody came close to 100% coverage. Or 50%. SOC2 demands that you pretend you're achieving that. That's stupid. We're not doing stupid stuff for SOC2.
I reserve the right to be unproductive and standoffish with people going out of their way to misconstrue what this post is saying. I'm grateful that other people can contribute the productivity instead. Thank you!
Claude Opus failed to solve after trying for a while.