Confused here. Where were input validation checks in your implementation? How did you guard against SQL injection, etc?

Let's say you can control voltage, cross section area A.

Now, you want a constant power across a load P = V * I.

Your net resistance R is C + D * L / A where C and D are constants and L is your cable length.

I is proportional go V * A / (C * A + E) where E is also a constant.

So your load power is proportional V^2* C * A / (C * A + E) which is proportional to V^2 * A / (A + F) where F is also a constant.

With a large "enough" A, this is effectively V^2. With a small A, this is V^2 * g where g is A / F. So the smaller the area you have the more power you are wasting (roughly equal to V^2 * (1-g) which is heat in the wires).

So the smaller area you have, the less efficient your power delivery. And juicing up your source power is a lot more expensive than juicing up your source voltage.

This is if course mostly valuable if you don't squash commits on merge. Otherwise, the extra rebase work isn't that valuable.

But this is a cry wolf situation - I would be surprised if there isn't some terms or condition that allows chess.com to ban known cheaters esp from a tourney with such a big prize.

Agreed. Also tests - if the tests are catching the cases they are supposed to but have anti patterns in the way they are written - it's not always worth it to fix them so long as your new test cases can be easily covered.