Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 270 posts

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

#121

Post by literalAardvark »

happyopossum wrote: post #63

> While it is unclear how the temperature might have been manipulated, one possibility shared on weather forums was that a battery-powered hairdryer could have been used Man I hate headline writers… We’re I contracted to (legally and ethically) red team a temperature station, a “battery powered hair dryer” would be pretty low on my list of techniques for a number of reasons. First attempts would involve mirrors - par…

Black cardboard stuck to the sensor and a transparent plastic bag around should do the trick with very little effort.

Or you could hold it until it ticks 18.9 or whatever the bet was.

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

#122

Post by IX-103 »

ortusdux wrote: post #113
mschuster91 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They don't want the appearance of tampering. They don't really care about tampering itself because they make their money either way.

So as long as you are subtle about it they won't even investigate, as a public investigation would make it seem like tampering was common.

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

#124

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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...

Small, shriveled, drought-stricken, dessicated potatoes.

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

#125

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dlenski wrote: post #42
hrimfaxi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there are plenty of negative externalities that this type of gambling brings that are much worse, but at least in this case it does appear that authorities are investigating. At the very least I would expect some law to be broken if interfering with official weather data collection at an active airport.

I agree, but the fact that authorities even have to spend time investigating is a massive negative externality. A few years years ago, there was no conceivable profit motive for interfering with weather sensors on public property. Now there is one.

> A few years years ago, there was no conceivable profit motive for interfering with weather sensors on public property. Now there is one.

Can this really be said with a straight face?

Suppose you're an oil company, or a trader with a large position, and "hottest year on record ten years in a row" is bad PR that will make bills you don't like more likely to get passed. Or for that matter a company selling carbon capture stuff who wants to make sure it goes the other way. How about tobacco companies?

This has been a huge problem for as long as public data has been used to make decisions affecting profits.

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

#126

Post by Tangurena2 »

krunck wrote: post #94

Quite literally EVERYTHING around us is now subject to possible manipulation by these idiots if they think they can profit. Even the US Government has executive and legislative officials profiting from secret information they know from doing their duties. I wonder when someone who does cloud seeding will place a bet about rain at some unlikely time and place. Or the next large forest fire.

> I wonder when someone who does cloud seeding will place a bet about rain at some unlikely time and place.

Each year, one of my state's legislators introduces a bill to outlaw chemtrails [0]. It never leaves committee. This year, he added the plot of Termination Shock [1] to his bill. This proposed legislation already includes "cloud seeding" as a crime. Penalty of $500k/day and each day is a separate crime.

0 - https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/hb60.html

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)#

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

#128

Post by dlenski »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #117
dlenski wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 befo…

(Having seen your edited and clarified comment, I think we basically agree.)

> the version where the market influences the decision is the much less effective way to do things.

Okay, so two possible scenarios: "market influences decision" and "decision influences market."

1. Polymarket offers a contract called something like: "Will the US launch any lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean on April 30, 2026?" A commander of a drone unit for the US military bets $500 on "yes". At 11:51pm on April 30, he's trying to decide whether or not to issue an order to fire on a boat, or to wait 15 minutes for better visual identification of the target. As a result of his bet on Polymarket, he's strongly incentivized to issue the order right now.

2. It's 11:51pm on April 30. A commander of a drone unit for the US military is reviewing images of a potential target boat. He idly opens a browser tab to Polymarket. Lo and behold, he sees that the odds of "Will the US launch any lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean on April 30, 2026?" are at only 0.3%. He's strongly incentivized to issue an order to strike right now and to quickly buy that Polymarket contract before news of the strike breaks.

Does it matter which of these two scenarios might actually be taking place? I don't think so.

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

#129

Post by Tangurena2 »

alaudet wrote: post #41
thimabi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that the genie is out of the bottle, even if you try to regulate it away it pops up in offshore jurisdictions and uses crypto. The ease with which polymarket can be manipulated is infinite because there are so many different random things you can bet on. It's a sign of our times and I don't think there is much that can be done about it by anyone.

We seem to be seeing the repetition of every stock/securities fraud that led to the creation of the SEC. But we're seeing people who refuse to let any reasonable regulation to happen.

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

#130

Post by k4rli »

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.

Casinos are regulated and have to be much more transparent. In Europe and Australia slot machines are required to have appx min RTP (return-to-player) of 95%. With sportsbetting, bookmakers cannot just make up results. It's a dirty business preying on weak, but it's not hiding that.

Polymarket prediction results can be swayed by whales and differ from reality. Example: they ruled Tesla unsupervised full selfdriving a real usable feature in ~Feb 2026. It still doesn't exist and won't. This decision is far from being the only such one.

Post reply on HN