> Then I see he links to his own Revolutionary Theory, and it starts to look like outright crankary.
But what an AI-generated crankery! Because I enjoy wasting my time, I chose a random point (beginning of ch2) and started reading:
> Standard field-theoretic practice selects equations using symmetry, gauge invariance, and conservation. This
chapter proposes a cognate selection principle built from three structural demands. A potential that carries
energy must appear on the right-hand side of its own equation, because the energy it carries is part of what
sources it. A potential that describes the same physics in every frame must have an equation that survives
change of observer. A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides.
I've italicized a couple of items: Cognate selection principle? Really?
A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides? As opposed to all those tensor equations with differing ranks on both sides? Not exactly the type of thing that makes someone slap their head and shout "Why didn't I think of that?!"
The technobabble is interesting in that any single sentence might make sense in the absence of sentences nearby; It that regard, it's much like an Escher painting: Locally sensible, but globally out-to-lunch.
Great. Let us hope that support for hardware without TPM is next. Creating several mountains worth of electronic waste was a terrible decision. And in the middle of the AI-induced memory shortage!
Although I have to admit: The combination of AI and required new hardware has been a nice boost for switching to Linux.
Motherboards have had TPM support (built-in/exteral) since like 2017. Are there a bunch of models that don't support a plug-in TPM? I guess the BIOS would probably be the next issue.
I think the most intriguing part of this effort: Farmers traditionally employ machines to achieve their harvest. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time that machines are employing humans to achieve their harvest.
I mean, more or less, but you see what I'm getting at.
It depends on the crop.
Corn (Maize): Harvested using combine harvesters that pick, husk, and shell the grain. Sweet Corn might be the exception.
Soybeans: Harvested using combines to cut and thresh the plants.
Wheat, Barley, and Oats: Harvested using combines to cut, thresh, and clean the grain.
Cotton: Harvested mechanically using cotton pickers or strippers.
Rice: Mechanically harvested with combines when the stalks are dry.
Potatoes and Root Vegetables: Lifted from the ground using mechanical harvesters that separate soil from the produce.
Lettuce, Spinach, and Celery: Mostly hand-harvested by crews, though automation is increasing.
Berries (Strawberries, Blueberries): Primarily hand-picked for fresh market quality, though some are machine-harvested for processing.
Tree Fruits (Apples, Cherries): Mostly hand-picked to prevent bruising, though some processing cherries use tree shakers.
Wine Grapes: Frequently harvested by hand to ensure quality, especially for high-end wines.
Peppers and Tomatoes: Processed tomatoes are machine-harvested, while fresh peppers are largely hand-picked.
Something that appears to be missing: Certain events attract "advertising" types of bets. E.g. There is value in making a candidate appear to be a leader, so dedicating dollars to swinging the market is more of a form of advertising than an intelligent bet.
So it would be interesting to measure the inefficiencies of various bets vs the total market value in that bet.
e: Although full disclosure, I did not pick apart the entire paper. Maybe it's buried in there.
super interesting, re: spending money to move the line is just another form of non-profit-seeking "consumption."
i didn't filter for manipulation specifically, but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap), suggesting the market absorbs those flows pretty well.
> but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap)
I confess I'm surprised by that result in particular. I realize your results are for Kalshi, but ISTR some reports from the presidential elections on Polymarket.
But more generally: When you say there is "only a ~1% maker/taker gap", is that weighted by the size of the bets? or is it averaged over the number of bets placed?
I think an additional table/graph of how large-bet performance vs small-bet performance would be interesting in general, as well as broken out by market type.
It kinda answers of the question: Are large bets equal to smart money? or are they equal in "smartness" to small bets?
Maybe they could add a helpful paper clip to improve sales.
Edit: Or better still, convince all of their customers to throw away perfectly good hardware and upgrade to one with a single extra chip, creating a hazardous waste epidemic for landfills as a nice side effect. It's especially important to do this in the middle of a RAM and HDD shortage.
Really, I'll just never be half the great business strategist that these guys are. <sigh>
I actually did already know that factoid but was struggling (am still) to see how it relates to a wooden trough that merely holds cables.
Another interesting factoid about the catenary: Robert Hooke proved that it takes on the shape (though inverted) of the ideal arch, in terms of supporting loads above it. La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is filled with them.
> but was struggling (am still) to see how it relates to a wooden trough that merely holds cables.
Overhead Catenary [1] is a standard term, for a system that has two wires overhead - one suspended from the posts (forming a series of catenary curve), the other suspended from that cable at regular intervals (and held level relative to the track). The wood in Boston's system seems to replace the catenary cable.
In a nutshell, the overhead power lines hang from their support points as catenary curves.
This is important to the design of trains, because you have to calculate the variance in height over the caternary length (highest at attachment point; lowest at somewhere near the middle, but depending on incline).
And efficiency of the line depends on the curvature so for a given target efficiency you can calculate how far apart the poles can be. For electrical lines I mean.
My own memory of the events (which might be very wrong) was that a new vice-president of IBM semiconductors decided to drop bulk CMOS and focus exclusively on SOI (Silicon On Insulator). That suddenly left Transmeta without chips to sell. They had to scramble to find a new supplier and design their next generation processor for it (since the Crusoe wasn't portable to any other fabs). They were able to launch their Efficeon on TSMC 130nm (with a later version on Fujitsu 90nm) but the gap in supply was far worse for a startup than it would have been for a big company.
Backwards. The incompetent Transmeta board picked a VP from NVIDIA to be the CEO and his first action was to kill the IBM contract and move to TSMC, and forced TSMC to use a new unqualified process. This left us without chips to sell for over a year and notebook venders were furious and never returned.
This is what killed Transmeta, not all the technical details.
Cisco and Cray used IBM fabs for multiple generations in the aughts but they weren't startups. Before the rise of TSMC it was a weird situation where fabless companies were kind of picking up extra capacity from IDMs.
reply