'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#111

Post by jandrewrogers » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

ambicapter wrote: post #9

> There are no indications so far that the successful punters have had to return their winnings. However, the data source for Paris’s hottest temperature has since moved to a sensor at the smaller Paris-Le Bourget airport. Here's the negative externality that no one will care about. There's no reason gamblers won't repeat this stunt, until us poor schmucks who just want an accurate temperature reading have to build a…

This is an existing problem with physical world sensing. Some data models are already heavily polluted by people manipulating observations for various purposes. Most people who rely on those measurements are just collateral damage. Prediction markets provide yet another incentive. It is far more difficult to reliably get at "ground truth" than I think people imagine.

Unlike computing systems, the physical world is a shared mutable environment. It is effectively impossible to lock people out so that you can get a reliable, clean measurement even when people are not intentionally sabotaging the data model.

There are ways to robustly clean this up analytically but it is largely beyond the capabilities of current tech stacks.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#112

Post by alaudet » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #95

alaudet wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that, you said that.

They didn't say you said it. But wow what a useless way of conversing that is. They asked because it's unclear what you're implying. So could you please clarify if you think regulation would be useful? Or should be done despite being futile? Or shouldn't be done? I can only think of those three answers, is there another?

I think smart policy would be a good start. I just made a comment on the sign of our times. I could have worded my one line reply better. I do think it will be difficult to regulate as I don't see a political appetite to do so. Maybe some countries will get it right.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#113

Post by ortusdux » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #64

ortusdux wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the TOS of these betting markets prohibits tampering. IIRC, someone bet on a streaker at the super bowl, did the streaking themselves, made 6-figures on the bet, bragged about it publicly, and the market negated the bet and recovered the money.

> IRC, the TOS of these betting markets prohibits tampering. Good luck proving it. > IIRC, someone bet on a streaker at the super bowl, did the streaking themselves, made 6-figures on the bet, bragged about it publicly, and the market negated the bet and recovered the money. Yeah, exactly. Far easier to prove and to even get the idea to investigate that person in the first place.

The markets make their own TOS and define the burden of proof needed to overturn a bet. They don't want tampering to risk their cash cow, so I'd imagine they are going to be proactive.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#114

Post by jandrewrogers » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:15 PM UTC

dzdt wrote: post #107

This is small potatoes compared to the rain gauge tampering farmers were doing in Colorado. There was a recent conviction for $6.5 million dollars of fraud against the federal crop insurance program! https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/two-southeastern-colorado...

People have no idea how pervasive this is globally.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#115

Post by dlenski » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:16 PM UTC

clifdweller wrote: post #104

echelon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until they start killing people to win bets. It's going to happen. It'll happy by proxy too. When they figure 90% of Tesla's or SpaceX's valuation is tied to Elon, suddenly he becomes your mark.

That has proven not to be the case with sports betting. Otherwise every major league pitcher would be needing armed guards to stop all the people with pipes trying to disable them. Seems there is at least some morality to not harm people but no issue in harming temperature sensors so where is the split line? Some really annoying ones like trains being on time can impact thousands yet i could see someone stepping out…

> That has proven not to be the case with sports betting. Otherwise every major league pitcher would be needing armed guards to stop all the people with pipes trying to disable them.

This is a ridiculously over-broad claim.

First of all, prediction markets shift incentives in a pernicious way; they don't magically erase or override all pre-existing incentive structures.

And secondly, professional athletes of all stripes appear to be receiving a lot more threats of violence from gamblers (including "prediction market traders") than they were a few years ago.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#116

Post by e28eta » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:16 PM UTC

thimabi wrote: post #10

guyzero wrote: post #2

I don't understand who is taking the other side of all these insane Polymarket bets. Is Polymarket doing it?

I don’t understand why these bets are allowed at all. Can one just make an account there and bet in anything? The whole “prediction market” charade is increasingly proving to lend itself to abuse. I hope regulations catch up with it soon, otherwise more shenanigans will follow.

John Oliver just did a segment on prediction markets. https://youtu.be/ZN4njIQcSR4

Turns out the US federal regulator is not doing their job, and is actively trying to prevent US states from imposing regulations.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#117

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:17 PM UTC

dlenski wrote: post #103

Dylan16807 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why almost certainly? It's much more effective to make the decision first and the bet second.

> It's much more effective to make the decision first and the bet second. What did I say that contradicts this? > Why almost certainly? Because I haven't seen any clear reporting with evidence documented down to the level of individual decision-making.

> What did I say that contradicts this?

I'm pointing out that the version where the market causes the decision is the much less effective way to do things. So I don't think it's so certain to have happened.

When the decision comes first it's still a problem but it's a very different problem.

I should make this explicit, I guess: If you make the decisions before betting, you don't really care what the market says beforehand, you'll make plenty of money either way.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#118

Post by palmotea » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:18 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #101

palmotea wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a sign of our times and I don't think there is much that can be done about it by anyone. Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable? If you make it too hard and risky for most people to participate in, you'll limit the negative effects. You could probably quite effectively discourage it by sanctioning any transactions with one of these markets, you've got some opportunity because at some point the…

> Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable Mostly no. If you're connected it to a banking account, or other KYC platform, maybe, but the folks capable of doing that are part of the same administration supposedly doing the manipulation, so they would not investigate themselves. Indeed, they are actually fighting against those trying to regulate it [0] Indeed , the president's son works for Polymarket ,…

>> Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable

> Mostly no. If you're connected it to a banking account, or other KYC platform, maybe,

But if you're (say) and American betting on it, the money almost certainly flows through one of those entities. And if you're using bitcoin the ledger is totally public, so you could track it from Coinbase (KYC) to whatever wallet the prediction market is using to accept payment (or vice versa).

> Indeed, they are actually fighting against those trying to regulate it [0]

Choosing to "do something about it" or not is a different question than can something be done at all. I was addressing the latter.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#119

Post by belorn » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:20 PM UTC

j-bos wrote: post #86

ambicapter wrote: post #9

> There are no indications so far that the successful punters have had to return their winnings. However, the data source for Paris’s hottest temperature has since moved to a sensor at the smaller Paris-Le Bourget airport. Here's the negative externality that no one will care about. There's no reason gamblers won't repeat this stunt, until us poor schmucks who just want an accurate temperature reading have to build a…

But why are they only using one sensor?

I am a bit surprised by that for a scientific application where you want high accuracy reading. Temperature sensors has a error margin, and I think they can also drift a bit.

In a bit of expensive equipment I own it happens to have 4 temperature and pressure sensors, located in two different locations on the unit. All of them generally disagree with each other on the exact temperature by around 0.1 C, which is fine for my use of it.

Re: 'Hairdryer used to trick weather sensor' to win Polymarket bet

#120

Post by jerf » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 6:21 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #23

ctime wrote: post #7

Between this and crypto cryptocurrencies (which obviously can be used to make bets) I don’t know which is more destructive to society

How is it even remotely as destructive as casinos, where the odds are always against you? From a probability perspective Polymarket is much more fair, as you actually have positive expected value if you have an information advantage.

I will make this argument in favor of casinos, which is that at least we have coevolved with them. They've been around for centuries. We collectively recognize the dangers. We are not collectively blindsided by them.

Individually, yeah, by all means they can prey on people. But they're on the list of things that have been preying on people for centuries, like alcohol, and all kinds of other things. Ring-fencing casinos has a track record of some success at containing them.

I mean, sure, I'd love to wake up tomorrow and for all of the human race to have advanced to the point that to every last individual we are no longer gambling and that industry vanishes in a puff of smoke. I am as far into the belief that they are immoral as it is practically possible to be. But they are at least a known and knowable risk.

These prediction markets are blindsiding us. We could put up with them for another few decades until we coevolve further with them, or we could just, you know, not. Just end them now. Plus, prediction markets have a certain meta-ness to them that casinos largely lack that will keep them fresh and coevolving their own new ways to predate on us. Casinos have basically reached their final form, prediction markets could take yet more decades to get there and it's possible there isn't a stable endgame with them. Or, again, we could just end them here and now.