vcf

Not 100% in the first year (where I live). By the time it’s depreciated, it’s time to replace. Subscriptions are 100% deductible in the year you pay them.

Prohibitively expensive is all relative. Pre-Fable, I was getting fine on the 5x plan for 1-2 concurrent long-running tasks plus interactive work (I do a lot of coding for work, but it is not my full work day). I don’t think a cache miss every hour on Opus hurts that much, even at 500-600k context. It would be nice if they got /clear working on remote-control.

It launches these tasks in the background. It became really good at it a couple of months ago, now it sets monitors on timer (not something I instructed, so I assumed it’s part of the system prompt for this kind of tasks) and then just wait for the next prompt, for the background process to be done, or for a monitor to trigger a checkup.

I used to have some hooks for local notification, but lately I find that claude is pretty good at notifying through the app with remote control (but definitely not perfect)

I run a lot of data science-type analyses that can take up to hours at a time to run, so Claude is « monitoring » tasks most of the time. I have it on remote-control so I get notified when a task is done or need clarification, but most importantly whenever I have a new idea, I can just ask Claude to queue it up. Most of the time my hardware is the bottleneck, not the subscription quotas.

I almost never went back to read the history, but now I often have Claude go through the history when I wonder how we got to a certain point. It can point me to the relevant issues as well. Squashing is fine, up to a point.

Similar for me, I don’t want to babysit agents . I’m sticking with Python for the libraries (data science ecosystem), but I find that imposing ty and a few reasonable ruff rules (imposed with pre-commit so the agent can fix things automatically) improves agent-generated code a lot.

I agree that the style is somewhat generic, but for things like new release announcements, I find that the common structure allows me to skim through much faster. I value that and am happy with that tradeoff.

Me too, I rarely hit limits anymore on the $100 Max, except for the brief period with Fable

At my university, students with verified disabilities are allowed to use a university-provided laptop (properly locked-down, with allowed tools such as screen readers). But these are special cases. Computers for everyone would be costly and impractical given exams are punctual but all roughly over the same week or so.

It's simpler when looking at prediction markets because of bounded payoffs and the zero-sum nature, so these are pure trading gains.

In equity markets, you have both the trading and investment components to account for. Market makers like Citadel don't invest; they aim to exit positions as quickly as possible to minimize risk and capital requirements. Long-term investors commit capital to risky assets and are compensated with a risk premium (expected to be positive, but it can turn out to be negative). Usually, the "cost" of liquidity paid by long-term investors is tiny related to the overall expected returns. In prediction markets, you don't have that.

Yes. It's not only that, as we also find very successful traders who take directional bets on elections and sports. But among the most successful traders, a large fraction are acting as market makers. Note that acting like one is not enough. We also find many traders acting as market makers among the least successful, yet they don't lose as much as the top winners do.

Thanks! No, we haven't looked at the capital "locked" in these markets (which is important considering there is no margin trading, at least not yet). Most markets have a short horizon, but some have very long ones. It gets very complicated very quickly because it's not always the case that you open a position and then close it (you get partial fills, users closing partial positions, etc.). Taking that into consideration would make liquidity providers look even better than they do in our study. Not having their capital locked allows liquidity providers to trade more and earn more per trade on average. Trading on margin would allow liquidity takers to lose more money more quickly (this is an educated guess; you never know what the outcome of a new policy would be until you implement it).

That's true, but you can invest in your infrastructure and data sources to be faster than most traders, which allows you to provide liquidity with a smaller spread (and snipe the slower traders that try to provide liquidity)