As someone who usually works with data analysis, the distribution of the numbers strikes me as odd. Almost all of them have one number that appears four times, and one or two that appear three times. And overall, there are an unusually small number (0–9) of digits that appear at all.

Maybe it's not just vibe-coded, maybe the numbers themselves are being hallucinated by an LLM.

▲

berkes a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Almost all of them have one number that appears four times, and one or two that appear three times

To me that looked suspiciously like string-handling in a weakly typed language.

Like when you do `"100" + 1` in JavaScript, or `int("100" * 2)` in Python.

I've seen my share of such bugs in PHP, Python, Ruby, JavaScript. In production. Obviously not as simple as the examples, but subtle, like when a library update changed `someFancyLocalStorage.getOrDefault("lastOrder", 100)` by always casting the value to the type of the default (released as patch release). Or where typedEnvGet() should typecast "numbers", but keeps it a string when theres whitespace `AMOUNT_PER_CALL=100\n`. Or where a number passes through a deep stack of middleware and 99.9% of the times remains an int but in rare race conditions becomes a string. etc.

No evidence that's the case here. But from my experience, the repeating and strange formats of numbers hint strongly in that direction.

▲

galonk a day ago | parent [-]

Pedantic as hell but `"100" * 2` in Python (= `"100100"` for those who don't know) isn't really typing, it's operator overloading. Any language with that could implement the same questionable design decision.

	▲	Sohcahtoa82 a day ago \| parent [-]
		And as much as I love Python, being able to multiple a string by an integer doesn't make sense when adding an integer to a string is a TypeError. Being able to repeat a string is fine, but it should be a str.repeat() function, not an operator overload like that.

▲

everforward a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Someone said the numbers are all off by 2^30 because they screwed up and are charging the per GB price for each byte.

It’s probably an artifact of them all being currency multiples of 2^30

▲

ardacinar a day ago | parent [-]

Well, for my case, I was paying $0 (Exactly, I managed to hunt down and delete every last resource in my account a few months ago). It was displaying $430 million for me. I don't think that is 0*2^30.

	▲	everforward a day ago \| parent [-]
		Huh, that is odd. Working backwards, that would be ~ $0.40 originally. Wonder if that’s also flat out wrong or if they’re doing some kind of currency handling that breaks when you start dealing with huge multipliers.

▲

mxuribe a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Its the LLMs talking to each other in secret code: random-looking numbers! They've achieved sentience!

Look at them up there, just plotting with each other! :-)