961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"this violates our TOS" is a classic Accountability Sink. "Polymarket has a rule against harassment, so we obviously did all we could!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unaccountability_Machine
Looks like a fantastic book at the outset. Thanks for the suggestion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would mean the people who did the death threats get their money back.
Yes. And then they won't want to kill the journalist anymore. Because otherwise they are going to lose all their money.
An additional complication is that both Iran and Israel are engaging in heavy censorship of news articles, obstensively to prevent the opposing side from getting intelligence/feedback on their missile strikes/other activities, but it is also definitely to control the narrative: https://www.972mag.com/israel-media-censorship-iran-war/ This could definitely affect key polymarket bets in the near term. I expect over the…
What censorship does Israel do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. It seems like one of these two things is true: Case 1. sam0x17 has read TFA carefully and he is proposing, without spelling it out very well, that the oracle should point at anonymous deciders instead of at vetted outlets with well-known reporters. This is the charitable case, but it seems unlikely, and it carries its own problems. or Case 2. sam0x17 goes through his life wielding a giant hammer called "privacy…
You didn't even read my message. At no point do I say the oracle target should be private, that would be ridiculous. Public oracle, private markets on both sides of the issue, until the issue is considered closed, at which point we get to decrypt and find out who betted yes and who betted no. Liquidity would still be public, so you know how much money, but you get no intelligence signal, so world events don't get sha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. It seems like one of these two things is true: Case 1. sam0x17 has read TFA carefully and he is proposing, without spelling it out very well, that the oracle should point at anonymous deciders instead of at vetted outlets with well-known reporters. This is the charitable case, but it seems unlikely, and it carries its own problems. or Case 2. sam0x17 goes through his life wielding a giant hammer called "privacy…
You didn't even read my message. At no point do I say the oracle target should be private, that would be ridiculous. Public oracle, private markets on both sides of the issue, until the issue is considered closed, at which point we get to decrypt and find out who betted yes and who betted no. Liquidity would still be public, so you know how much money, but you get no intelligence signal, so world events don't get sha…
> At no point do I say the oracle target should be private
Yeah, that's why I said that Case 1 (the one where you actually read TFA) was unlikely. I included it out of charity, because it was the only way I could eke out something remotely relevant to the article from your original comment.
Instead, your original said stuff like:
> they let people shape real-world outcomes with massive amounts of liquidity
> no one can decrypt how much liquidity is on each side
> where your ability to predict in advance is what gets rewarded and there is no ability to "copy trade"
These things are not at issue in TFA. You are talking about completely different news stories. So now, we're in Case 2, the more likely case, where your comment has nothing to do with the news story under discussion, and you're just injecting your irrelevant fixation.
In case you didn't notice, I was replying to a commenter who exposed your irrelevance:
"The gamblers threatening the journalist know how much money they individually gambled on an outcome, which means they know how much they stand to lose if they cannot pressure a source to alter reporting in their favor."
Did you read... his comment? My comment? TFA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insider trading is not about fairness, it's about theft. If you insider trade on the stock market then, in a crude simplification, you steal profits from the company you have a fiduciary duty to, or some extension of that. It has nothing to do with a level playing ground, every trading company out there is trying to find information others can't and then trade on it.
What? How do you figure that? If I happen to know that my company is about to report very bad quarterly numbers, so I sell all my stock, then it tanks, I’ve just screwed whoever bought the stock, that in the most cases, will be some random people. The company does not benefit or hurt from stock prices unless they are buying back or issuing more stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, one involves two teams of consenting players involved in a game. The other involves the brutal deaths and suffering of exponentially more innocent people than those who want to be involved.
No, that's the fundamental difference between a sports event and a war. Which is obvious and not what was asked. The question was, what if any is the fundamental difference between betting on a sports event vs a war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There exists a sensible way to handle this. It is to require at least three independent news outlet reports of an event (as defined in the bet). A related issue is that war news is heavily censored in Israel; it's difficult for news outlets to report it.
It's also hard to have 3 independent outlets report on all the thing.s This seems like a small story that only some people in Polymarket cared about I guess? It's not like 3 different news outlets were calling authorities to confirm what really happened here. It wasn't big enough to deserve more than 1 journalist going to the source and doing all this work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's the fundamental difference between a sports event and a war. Which is obvious and not what was asked. The question was, what if any is the fundamental difference between betting on a sports event vs a war?
Add “profiting from and encouraging the exacerbation of” to the start of my explanations.
Plenty of people have been murdered over sports betting. It's more than your reductive "oh it's just consenting players".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've certainly turned out different than Scott Alexander predicted, once the markets were opened up to people who are not in the wider rationalist community. Not foreseeing the amount of sports betting that would take place, is kind of a failure of rationality in the first place, and I say this as someone who absolutely respects the community in general.
You should have lost your respect for the "rationalist" "community" a long time ago. They are aggressively wrong about everything, and most of them are eugenicists.