I've recently started coding with the help of GPT. I have essentially 0 background in programming aside from 3 months of using python to do trivial plotting in a biology course a few years ago.
That being said, I have started to become more familiar with a lot of technical terms due to being surrounded by a team of SWEs. And have had some help from the team with setting up my environment. Most of the code itself and problem-solving for errors were done by myself and GPT.
Some things I've done in the past week in probably a total of 6-8 hours since I've started, include:
Adding "view all users" to the omnisearch
Adding the ability to query users by the slug on the all-users page.
Creating scripts to export various email lists as a .csv from our database depending on certain field conditions.
Creating a script that swaps a specific creator's unlisted markets to listed.
The probability of this market should be both a reflection of how far I can take coding using GPT to teach me as well as my incompetence.
Things that count as destructive include:
Leaking some private key, user information etc.
Taking down the entire site
Cause some significant part of Manifold to stop functioning at all (eg live feed returns an error when trying to render. Causing some bug that changes the functionality from desired does not count).
Also if anyone else has ideas on fun markets to predict how my coding ability will progress with GPT's help let me know!
1,000
3.00@chrisjbillington This makes my suggestion I posted for seperate trader/creator wallets/balances in discord worth a small thought imo. 😆
https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1171246092361400410
@AnT Yep. And it made sense we didn't notice it for a while, because it's normal for new markets to have low liquidity. So "can't be too bad if you didn't notice it right away" I think doesn't apply.
@AnT But I don't understand how it wasn't "[changing] the functionality from desired" which was explicitly excluded
@SirSalty Could you explain why it wasn't a bug which "changes the functionality from desired"?
Your quote is out of context. The full quote is
Cause some significant part of Manifold to stop functioning at all (eg live feed returns an error when trying to render. Causing some bug that changes the functionality from desired does not count).
Not the best wording but it's clear that it's trying to draw a distinction between "stop functioning" and "still functioning but with different functionality". I'm not going to try to figure out what the line is, but this is a very different rule than it would be with just the part you quoted out of context.
@jack Ok, so automatic subsidies count as significant?
I didn't intend to cause confusion by quoting only the part, but was asking what that quoted part would mean in that example – subsidy being added but in different amount?
I think you guys are overconfident!
The timestamp Ian posted showed David making that change to subsidies on 10/31. Above, you can see him posting on Wednesday November 1st at 1:30 AM saying he added in the new toggles, but they were a bit broken. Then at 4:10 PM, he said they were fixed.
Firstly, this means that he admitted they were broken from 1:30 AM to 4:10 PM, and did not think that this was particularly destructive. But then he fixed them at 4:10 PM, and indeed I remember them working fine at that time and the next day.
Later, on Friday November 3rd, something broke trader bonuses and subsidies. Two days after the toggles had been implemented and worked fine.
Are you 99% sure it was Salty that broke things on Friday? And that he didn't break things on Wenesday, fix them on Wednesday, and then something else happened Friday? Are you sure it definitely counts as being as bad as the whole website being down?
I'm very unsure of many things right now!
The trader bonuses missing was discovered friday night and this market was linked to, and Chris posted the following comments:
Why did a change on November 1st cause this problem on November 3rd?
Also just to say, I hate being the guy making arguments for no when a market is at 99%. There's no way for me to not look like a bit of a jerk.
I'm definitely profit motivated, but I'm also just not convinced or I'd have sold!
I'd have bought this up from 29% to like 50/50 and then gone and asked someone to check why things worked fine on wednesday/thursday but not on friday.
@Joshua from standup today: the cause was salty's change but the change wasn't actually deployed until Ian deployed stuff on friday. Unlike our frontend code, the api stuff and the firebase triggers (this case) need to be deployed manually.
(I am agnostic as to what that means for this market)
Reupping this comment in a (perhaps futile) attempt to save my league standings for this month:
fwiw I believe when this market description was written live feed was much more prominently displayed in the home page. Right now it almost feels like a non sequitur in a list that includes "leak private keys" and "take down the entire site", that seems like why, and it's why I think the spirit of the market is around bigger failures than no trader bonuses.
@ian oh yup, my take and not SirSalty's take, who hasn't weighed in yet. You're still buying YES so I don't have a lot of hope here, but that reflects my understanding of the market criteria and I'm still sort of hoping that SirSalty agrees.
@DanMan314
Well I'm profit motivated here as well, but I think Dan might have a case.
Even active users didn't even notice trader bonuses were broken until Friday night, and then even after that we didn't notice that subsidies were broken until Sunday night. Most casual users probably haven't noticed at all.
I think if that much time can pass before a glitch is noticed by even the most active users, I wouldn't be confident in betting the market up this high.
@Joshua Seconding Joshua on the fact that I didn't know about this bug until I checked this market. Also, this seems closer to the "causing some bug that changes the functionality from desired" side of things, which the description states doesn't count.