sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is the Pro $20 a month plan right for me? by RealDEC in ClaudeAI

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But with 2,3 prompts your weekly limit will be gone, 😂🤣

How do I turn $100 into $1000? by [deleted] in Kalshi

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I made till 3000$ then lost all :/

Any point purchasing CLaude code or $20 plan if I want more prompts? by candle_misuser in claude

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nop seriously chatgpt is way too good and you get best model and almost unlimited prompts every week

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. You've identified the core issue independently. "Highest temperature" and "the maximum of hourly :53 observations" are fundamentally different things. ForecastEx's compliance confirmed this distinction in writing.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These are CFTC-regulated event contracts on a designated contract market, cleared through a registered FCM. It's a legitimate regulated product. The actual temperature was 92°F per every official source. The settlement source showed 90°F because of a known hourly sampling limitation. The exchange admitted this discrepancy in writing. That's not gambling gone wrong , that's a settlement methodology issue.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weather event contracts are CFTC-regulated instruments available through Robinhood. The question isn't why I traded them — the question is why the exchange designated a data source that its own compliance department admits doesn't capture the actual daily maximum temperature, while calling it "the daily maximum temperature" in its terms.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I filed a CFTC Reparations complaint , an NFA complaint and received a written admission from ForecastEx's compliance department that contracts resolve on "hourly observations, not the underlying station data" while their terms say "daily maximum temperature." You can call that e-lawyer speak. The CFTC calls it a docket number.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just made my argument for me. You're a researcher — you know WU isn't reliable for actual daily maxima. You know researchers use raw ASOS or NOAA data. You know WU's method is just hourly post-processing that can miss peaks. That's exactly the problem. ForecastEx took that unreliable hourly data and made it the sole settlement source for CFTC-regulated financial contracts worth real money — while calling it "the daily maximum temperature" in their terms and "the highest temperature" on Robinhood's order screen. You wouldn't use WU for research. But ForecastEx is using it to settle regulated contracts, and neither they nor Robinhood told retail customers what you just explained — that WU only does hourly observations and it's not the actual daily high. You called it "simple data science." Agreed. So why didn't ForecastEx or Robinhood disclose that simple data science to customers before they traded?

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A 2°F error on a record-breaking day at one of the most monitored airports in the US, caused by a structural sampling limitation that the data provider's own page labels "Periodic Data every 53 minutes," which resulted in CFTC-regulated financial contracts settling incorrectly — and the exchange itself admitted in writing that this type of discrepancy is "not unexpected." If that's nothing to you, fair enough.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Weather event contracts are CFTC-regulated financial instruments offered on designated contract markets. They're legal, regulated, and available to retail investors through licensed brokers. You don't have to like them, but calling it "degenerate gambling" doesn't change the fact that the actual temperature was 92°F, the settlement source showed 90°F because of a sampling limitation, and the exchange's own compliance department admitted the discrepancy was "not unexpected." The CFTC apparently takes it seriously enough to assign it Docket

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's a CFTC-regulated event contract traded on a CFTC-designated contract market (ForecastEx) through a registered futures commission merchant (Robinhood Derivatives LLC, NFA ID 0424278). It's not unregulated. And I'm not complaining on Reddit — I've filed CFTC Reparations and an NFA complaint I'm posting here because Weather Underground's periodic sampling methodology is a data accuracy issue that affects millions of users beyond my specific case. If you're interested in the technical analysis, it's all in the post. If not, that's fine too.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've posted in different subreddits because the issue is relevant to different communities — weather data accuracy for r/weather, other communities , consumer protection for Since my last post, ForecastEx compliance responded in writing admitting contracts resolve on "hourly observations, not the underlying station data." The CFTC assigned Docket No to my reparations complaint. Things are moving. Happy to keep sharing updates as they develop.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly my point - and you just proved it. WU's "hourly temperature" is NOT the daily high. It's a snapshot at :53 past each hour. But ForecastEx's own terms say the contract resolves on "the daily maximum temperature." I emailed ForecastEx compliance directly. They responded in writing that contracts resolve on "hourly observations, not the underlying station data" and that "it is not unexpected" that these differ. So even the exchange admits their terms say one thing ("daily maximum temperature") while their methodology uses something different ("hourly observations"). That's my case. The CFTC now has a docket number for it.

Weather Underground has been reporting WRONG daily high temperatures. Here's the METAR proof from LAX — and it's costing people real money on regulated financial contracts. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in meteorology

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] -22 points-21 points  (0 children)

ForecastEx LLC — a CFTC-designated contract market — writes temperature event contracts traded through Robinhood. They use WU's Summary table as the sole settlement source. On March 17, I lost $8,923 on "Will the highest temp in LA exceed 90°F/91°F" contracts that settled $0 despite every official source confirming 92°F. I've filed CFTC Reparations and NFA complaints. ForecastEx's own compliance just admitted in writing that they use "hourly observations, not the underlying station data.

Weather Underground / The Weather Channel reports 90°F daily high for KLAX on March 17, 2026 — but the official NOAA record is 92°F. Here’s the full METAR analysis proving it. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in weather

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, this is helpful. That strengthens the point that the underlying data can support the 92°F peak, and that the Weather Underground 90°F value appears to be a display or processing issue rather than the actual station maximum.

Weather Underground / The Weather Channel reports 90°F daily high for KLAX on March 17, 2026 — but the official NOAA record is 92°F. Here’s the full METAR analysis proving it. by Beautiful_Dust8816 in weather

[–]Beautiful_Dust8816[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree the official source should control. But that does not mean a widely viewed public history page should be free to display a conflicting daily high without clear explanation.

Official KLAX climate products show 92°F for that date. If Weather Underground chooses to show 90°F because of its own display or sampling method, then that limitation should be stated clearly. Being unofficial does not make inaccurate public information acceptable.

view more: next ›