> @ekzyis it passed 10 mins.

And I immediately found a mistake. 2024-01-09 is linking back to this post (self-referential) and not to [Zap to Zero Day 13](https://stacker.news/items/383365)

haha, @Undisciplined would love the SSL, waiting 🥁 

@ekzyis it passed 10 mins.

Natalia

I like seeing more people being petty about being better stackers than @ekzyis.

Undisciplined

Oh, could also be related to what @k00b mentioned [here](https://stacker.news/items/381186):

> It'd be interesting to see what your results would be like if we didn't handicap your zapping rewards. We give ourselves 1/5th the rewards of the lowest reward tier. Your zapping rewards would be ~10x higher otherwise.

I didn't check the code yet but this makes sense. I also usually play games on hard difficulty. I like challenges :)

/cc @Undisciplined

which leads me to think the trust must have a lot of weight there, like what users you are interacting with - who zap you. 🤔

> also I got bigger reward than yours 4778, but with 0 post

lol, guess your comments must have been better than my posts

_I hope there is no bug but this code worked well for basically ages now — [except that one time when it didn't](https://stacker.news/items/217122)._

Zap to Zero Day 15 | Secret Sauce Live

I would love to learn more SSL!

also I got bigger reward than yours 4778, but with 0 post, which made me want to verify my stacking theory with your decoding. 👀

>I am also not sure if I am actually going to do this. But sounds like a good idea. I guess it depends on how much interest there is for something like this? :)

I guess it depends on how much fun there is, if with practical tips and tricks, who doesn't like it? 