There is probably a bunch of subtlety about where you measure from as your antenna could be quite large.

The Part15 regulations for AM and FM are more subtle then what you present here. On FM it is based on field strength readings, the exact values of which escape me, but yielding roughly the range you describe.

For AM the rules are more interesting. You can have up to a 3m antenna length and 100mW of DC power input to the final stage of amplification. The optimal setup is a class E amplifier with ~95-99% efficiency into a properly grounded 3m base loaded vertical antenna. The antenna will be grossly undersized but you try to compensate with a huge loading coil. In ideal conditions this setup can get you about 0.5km range.

LPFM is a much more significant undertaking and it is not trivial to get an LPFM license. I know because I have one :)

https://www.kpbj.fm/

There are many more LFPMs out there too!

Imagine someone honestly interested in learning about category theory but not yet knowing where to start. Projects like this only serve to muddy the waters obscuring paths to actual learning and giving the impression that the subject is a joke.

The student is mid learning process and its entirely reasonable for them one to be relying on pattern recognition until they have fully internalized the subject. The model is fully trained and should thus have internalized their understanding of the subject.

Additionally the student can update their understanding when pattern recognition fails. The model is fully cooked and will never do more then pattern recognition.

    newtype Mealy s i o = Mealy { runMealy :: (s, i) -> (s, o) }

Then I scrambled all the names and asked with a fresh context like:

    newtype Foo z e g = Bar { blob :: (z, e) -> (z, g) }

And yes I understand that a newer model would not get confused by this.

I had the first gen framework but had to return it to my old employer so I never went through an upgrade cycle.

Also, this may be specific to the first generation but I had terrible battery life and overheating issues. If that carried over through upgrade cycles I would be pretty bummed out.

I only got good enough at programming to get a job in tech because I became obsessed with the Curry-Howard Correspondence as a backdoor into learning math.

I've always had a wide array of interests. I live on a half acre property with a giant garden and a shop that is bigger then my actual house. I've always split my free time between exploring and learning about computers, gardening, radios, and carpentry, fixing old machines, etc.

The shift in my lived work experience with AI has substantially demotivated me from programming and computers in my free time. A million times over I would rather pull weeds or clean my Bridgeport mill.

I've always wished I could go back to a 1990s experience where the computer lived in the den, the internet was only somewhat monetized, the future was utopian.

OP's plan to fallback to 1980s era technology is appealing but also somewhat depressing. Not only do I really like and enjoy learning about computers, but also making this kind of individualistic decision doesn't really get us to a better place as a society.

I wish we had heeded the warnings of researchers like Sherry Turkle who identified the impacts of technology on the individual as far back as the 1980s.

Then we could also solve BB(6), but that doesn't mean we know BB(6) now or ever will.