I looked it up, and apparently utility companies already use the lines for comms, so you would be stomping on those potentially (depending on frequency).

As for radiating... Possibly... But the tuning seems ridiculously hard/out of your control.

The conductors are huge, and I can't imagine getting a stable RF standing wave across grid scale infra like that.

I'm sure it's possible... Those lines are actually too long and changing electrical length for most useful RF.

I'm going to have to dig a bit deeper though.

Coupling into my power upstairs is a bit of a problem sometimes though.

Pirating power is something I've heard that happens, but I looked it up, and couldn't find an actual cited example of someone doing it via induction.

Plenty of people doing it via extension cords and device tampering though.

If we live in a false vacuum, for example, that could allow them to decay.

My 7 Mhz antenna (HF, 40m band) is 67 feet long, and goes across by whole house.

The smallest antenna you could get away with for LF would be hundreds to thousands of feet long.

You might be able to go smaller if you enjoy suffering. Though, there are some pretty creative antenna designs that defy logic.

You can do it easily if you use in fast mode.

I bet you could hit the limits of the $200/month using fast mode if you were using multiple sessions at the same time all day on fast mode.

The OpenAI tiers seem pretty well tuned.

I used to use the plus ($20/month), and that was good for a few sessions every once in a while.

But now that I'm using it to configure my network, monitoring, maintenance, I'm using it every day and I'm on the $100 plan. And I do pretty consistently hit the limits, but it's easy to pace myself.

I'mam thinking about upgrading to $200/month though. It would be nice not to have to ration it.

Is it meant to be facetious?

For the uninformed. "Fair and Balanced" was their literal slogan for 20 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/15/fox-news-drops...

Maybe I'm just not on the math departments enough.

And my comment ended up being pretty long, so I will TL;DR it:

1. The social critique doesn’t match my experience and seems under-supported?

2. The technical critique is interesting, looks like a mix of good points, and some that need more work put into it. I think GA is legitimately cool in my opinion, but if there are better abstractions, we should find/define them and use them.

Longer version:

I hear people bring up the conspiracy/crackpot side of GA a lot, but I learned about Geometric Algebra a few years ago and am currently learning it alongside standard linear algebra.

I think GA is pretty cool. The author seems to have some decent points about its limitations and some ontological smells (like, maybe there is a cleaner representation hiding somewhere). But a lot of the criticism is aimed at the social side of the movement, and maybe I am just blind to it, but I have not really run into that much.

The author says things like:

    Basically, GA is considered a kooky, crackpotty sideshow. And because it is so dubious and un-self-aware, the movement ends up alienating most people, except for a particular type of… zealous individual… who write about it with a sort of pseudoreligious zeal, and are prone to conspiracy, as if the only reason GA is not mainstream is that they are being oppressed by close-minded traditionalism.

   In practice GA always refers to the particular platform and social movement which descends from the work of David Hestenes from the 1960s. It specifically does not refer to the underlying material of Clifford Algebras

Trying to build a unifying framework seems pretty normal to me. Lots of math is trying to expose common structure across different domains. Category theory, abstract algebra, topology, and, to a much bigger extent, the Langlands program all have that flavor. Obviously some unifications are more successful than others, but “this gives a unified language for a bunch of things” does not seem like a red flag by itself.

Some of the actual technical criticisms of GA are interesting, e.g. the proliferation of operations, but at this point I'm more interested in a formal accounting of the complexity of both theories rather than opinions or vibes. It would be nice to have description-length / complexity-accounting comparison of the formalisms.

Disclaimer: I have not read Hestenes’s original work, so maybe I am missing some of the historical baggage. But the modern resources I have seen seem mostly grounded in their claims.

I'm also learning both GA and linear algebra at the same time, GA has definitely helped me understand the linear algebra more deeply. In my opinion, alternative representations like GA gives your brain more structure to grab onto, even if they aren't perfect.

Also... math pedagogy does have a lot of inertia that hurts students. Doesn't Lockhart's Lament famously resonate with anyone who fell in love with math?

[PDF Warning] https://worrydream.com/refs/Lockhart_2002_-_A_Mathematician%...

I thought it was named Ghostel because of Ghostty and EL (emacs lisp).

If I could have daily full 3d body scans, and time lapse healing, track injury progress, visualize and correlate food and exercise.

And all I have to do is chill out about known benign cysts and tumors.

Yes I think it will help. I would take that trade off.

I already can feel a few cysts that have been with me for a long time, docs said I was fine, so I've already been through the stressful initiation of benign lumps.

I understand there are many benign tumors that doctors prefer to ignore in people, but eventually when scanning becomes portable and safe enough having regular access to scans could really help a lot of conditions.

The queries kinda sucked at first, but it was pretty awesome to get to spend more time with my kids while Codex would manage the incident response for me.

The only reason they'd go deeper is for a bisect, or some other analytical method.

At least one day I hope they level up to be able to do that.

It's a golden rule thing for me.

I like more information because it's easier to filter too much data, than to reconstruct destroyed information.

Vim and Emacs barely overlap in functionality.

Probably a pipe dream though.

But for sure I don't want to force it on people.

Don't use the feature if you don't want to, I'm all about freedom of choice.

Just saying the upside to it.