CTF stands for Capture the Flag. So with that definition you have exactly zero more information about the article then without it. So I assume next you want a short description of what it actually means, like "CTF (Capture the Flag) are security competitions where the objective is to break...", which is completely ridiculous to include in an article aimed specifically at the CTF crowd.
It is easier to search for keywords (Capture the Flag) vs acronyms (CTF) which likely resolve to other terms as well. Child trust fund is the first result when I put CTF into Google. Admittedly searching CTF security solves that issue. A quick link to an article on CTF to make the post digestible by outsiders seems reasonable enough.
Why should the author care to make it digestible to the crowd who is clueless on the matter? Their goal is to capture attention and start discussion within the community.
To me it doesn't seem reasonable at all. It's just entitled at best.
I read it as a suggestion vs a demand but I can see why you felt it was entitled. The author doesn't need to care and can take or leave the advice. In many ways it is a shame we don't have the concept of the Semantic Web as an extension to simple Hyperlinks.
It's a confusing way to do do things to me, like, why not select ordered by task date limit 1? Still using for update and skip locked etc... hold the transaction, and update to 'complete' or delete/move the row when done? What's the advantage of the inner select like that?
And I'm still totally confused by:
const [{ usr_id } = { usr_id: null }] = await sql`
with usr_ as (
insert into usr (email, password)
values (${email}, crypt(${password}, gen_salt('bf')))
returning *
), task_ as (
insert into task (task_type, params)
values ('SEND_EMAIL_WELCOME', ${sql({ usr_id })})
)
select * from usr_
`;
This looks to me like usr_id would always be null?
I think the idea is great, I think I'm just struggling a bit with the code style, it seems to be "clever" in a way that increases cognitive load without a real benefit that I can see, but I suppose that's pretty subjective.
Fun fact: A query like this will, once in a blue moon, return more than limit (here 1) row, since the inner query is executed multiple times and returns different ids, which is surprising for a lot of people. If your code does not expect that, it may cause problems. (The article seems to, since it uses a list and iteration to handle the result.)
delete from task
where task_id in
( select task_id
from task
order by random() -- use tablesample for better performance
for update
skip locked
limit 1
)
returning task_id, task_type, params::jsonb as params
Also, if your tasks take a long time, it will create long-running transactions, which may cause dead tuple problems. If you need to avoid that, you can mark the task as "running" in a short-lived transaction and delete it in another. It becomes more complicated then, since you need to handle the case that your application dies while it has taken a task.
"For this initial test I’ll be comparing the free version of ChatGPT to the free version of Google Gemini, that is GPT-3.5 to Gemini Pro 1.0."
The free version of ChatGPT is 4o now, isn't it? So maybe Gemini has not gotten worse, but the free alternatives are now better? When I compare ChatGPT-4o with Gemini-Advanced (wich is 1.5 Pro, I believe) the latter is just so much worse.
Seems like the OP may have accidentally made it private.
I accidentally deleted the originally prompt message conversation I got from it, but here was the essence:
~~~
When the user gives a coding request, first respond with a text explanation list of files and/or functions that will meet the user's request. Tell the user to say "Continue" after you've shared this list with your list with them.
Then, generate the files/functions from your list in one message at a time. Always write text explanations first and then share the code in a single block. Ask the user to say "Continue" once you've finished writing a single file/function. Do this until you have completed your list.
~~~
I get pretty similar results from this prompt as I was getting from OP’s.
