I think it's just slow or flaky. I eventually got points but seem to be all imports from urbex without description. Feels like a vibe coded thing tbh. Would like something like this though.
You're always going to have some sort of insider leaks, and quite frankly I don't care if they make money off of it in a betting app. This isn't like the stock market which is a vehicle for wealth for hundreds of millions. Gambling/prediction markets are 100% optional to participate in and you should go in with the expectation that you're going to lose.
> Gambling/prediction markets are 100% optional to participate in and you should go in with the expectation that you're going to lose.
The stock market is 100% optional to participate in, and every broker tells you (is legally required to tell you, in fact) that you should go in with the expectation that you're going to lose money. That didn't stop whatever forces have made them essentially required to plan for the normal life stage of retirement these days.
I don't use these platforms so I don't know how the bets are structured. If someone comes along and places a bet that looks very much like insider knowledge, can you only bet against or can you place bets with them like following the shooter in craps?
Betting against something that looks like an insider making the bet really is something willingly done. It's just a dumb bet.
> You're always going to have some sort of insider leaks, and quite frankly I don't care if they make money off of it in a betting app
Absolutely garbage take, to be quite honest with you. War profiteering is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and the last thing we need in this world is more opportunities for it. Regardless of whether the punters getting screwed consented to gambling or not, the problem is the perverse incentives it creates at the highest echelons of power. Abusing access to military intel for profit is foul behavior that will only degrade the quality of our governance and foreign policy, not to mention the literal lives that will be lost as a result.
AC is less efficient than DC at a given voltage. The advantage of AC is that voltage switching is cheap, easy and efficient. Switching DC voltage is way harder, more expensive, and less efficient. However the switching costs are O(1) and the transmission losses are O(n) so for some distance (currently somewhere around 500 km) it's worth paying the switching cost to get super high voltage DC. The big thing that's changed in the last ~30 years is a ton of research into high voltage transistors, and fast enough computers to do computer controlled mhz switching of giant high power transistors. These new super fancy switching technologies brought the switching costs down from ludicrous to annoyingly high.
To expand on this, a given power line can only take a set maximum current and voltage before it becomes a problem. DC can stay at this maximum voltage constantly, while AC spends time going to zero voltage and back, so it's delivering less power on the same line.
Maybe if by "same voltage" we mean DC voltage the same as AC peak voltage. When we talk about AC voltage we are referring to root-mean-square (RMS) voltage. It's kind of like saying the average, though for math reasons the average of an unbiased sine wave is 0. Anyhooo, 1 VRMS into a load will produce the same power as 1VDC. If AC delivered less power than DC at the same voltage then life would be very confusing.
That’s true, but my understanding is the main contributor is skin effect, since AC travels only on the surface of the wire, while DC uses the whole area, resulting in lower resistance loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect)
this iirc is the smallest of 3 problems. the other 2 are skin effect (AC wires only store power on the outside of the wire) and capacitive effects (a write running parallel to the ground is a capacitor and AC current is equivalent to constantly charging and discharging the capacitor)
The primary benefit of AC is it's really easy to change the voltage of AC up or down.
The transmission efficiency of AC comes from the fact that you can pretty trivially make a 1 megavolt AC line. The higher the voltage, the lower the current has to be to provide the same amount of power. And lower current means less power in line loss due to how electricity be.
But that really is the only advantage of AC. DC at the same voltage as AC will ultimately be more efficient, especially if it's humid or the line is underwater. Due to how electricy be, a change in the current of a line will induce a current into conductive materials. A portion of AC power is being drained simply by the fact that the current on the line is constantly alternating. DC doesn't alternate, so it doesn't ever lose power from that alternation.
Another key benefit of DC is can work to bridge grids. The thing causing a problem with grids being interconnected is entirely due to the nature of AC power. AC has a frequency and a phase. If two grids don't share a frequency (happens in the EU) or a phase (happens everywhere, particularly the grids in the US) they cannot be connected. Otherwise the power generators end up fighting each other rather than providing power to a load.
In short, AC won because it it was cheap and easy to make high voltage AC. DC is comming back because it's only somewhat recently been affordable to make similar transformations on DC from High to low and low to high voltages. DC carries further benefits that AC does not.
> I always thought AC’s primary benefit was its transmission efficiency??
There are many factors involved, and "efficiency" is only one. Cost is the real driver, as with everything.
AC is effective when you need to step down frequently. Think transformers on poles everywhere. Stepping down AC using transformers means you can use smaller, cheaper conductors to get from high voltage transmission, lower voltage distribution and, finally lower voltage consumers. Without this, you need massive conductors and/or high voltages and all the costs that go with them.
AC is less effective, for instance, when transmitting high power over long, uninterrupted distances or feeding high density DC loads. Here, the reactive[1] power penalty of AC begins to dominate. This is a far less common problem, and so "Tesla won" is the widely held mental shortcut. Physics doesn't care, however; the DC case remains and is applied when necessary to reduce cost.
Important factor is that AC at given nominal voltage V swings between 1.41V and -1.41V, so it requires let's say 40% better/thicker insulation than the equivalent V volts DC line. This is OK for overhead lines (just space the wires more) but is a pain for buried or undersea transmission lines; for that reason, they tend to use DC nowadays.
There's a vast space between premature optimization and not caring about optimization until it bites you, and both extremes make you (or someone else) miserable.
To a certain extent, yes it does! For my cases, I'm often running 3 parallel implementations that get 10 to 20 iterations deep, and then Claude has to sort out the pros and cons of the options and also take the best bits of each. Easy to hit the context window with Claude just running those on its own, so giving `/cook` to Claude, it can offload a bit more via cook and stay higher level.
reply