41–50 of 227 posts
Sports gambling is a cancer, as are prediction markets. None of it should've been legalized and all of it should be banned.
[flagged]
The only thing I know is that journalism stopped being independent and unbiased a long, long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How is it unjust? A company is not owed any profits, if it gets rekt by an union then it gets rekt. It cannot say "oh its not fair you guys are fighting me, only I can fight you in a just fight!" Ridiculous logic.
GP is in favor of unions and thinks they perform beneficial public services. They don't.
addendum: people who like unions because they balance the power relationship between employee and employer (i.e. the idiots downvoting me, idiots not because they like unions, but idiots because they are downvoting me) might see that as a public service, but it's not, that is a private relationship between employer and employee. it confers no direct benefit to other parties, that's why I said it does not provide a public service. You can't analyze economic relationships without qui bono
> A partnership between The Times (for The Athletic) and Kalshi would also provide validation that their prediction market data should be taken seriously as an indicator of the future. Facts prove otherwise.
They could have objected to the partnership on any number of valid grounds, like the fact that predicting the outcome of sporting events provides no valid benefit and can only ever be gambling, or that the integration is probably going to be pretty lame and provide no benefit to the reader.
Instead, they felt compelled to make a trivially false claim, the claim that prediction markets do not accurately predict the future. It's trivial to prove that this claim is false, because if it were true, it would be very easy for anyone to make a huge amount of money on prediction markets.
It's even more telling why they made this claim, to avoid "providing validation". Not because of any harms caused by sports gambling addiction, but because it could provide a tiny piece of political ammunition to a product that has been slotted into the opposing political tribe. Reading this statement, one gets the impression that they would be completely OK with sports gambling on The Athletic, as long as it was provided by a more traditional casino-style bookie operation.
I'm guessing that anyone in the room when this statement was written who even brought up the question of the facts could be safely sidelined and ostracized by the union as being insufficiently loyal to their political position.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-l...
On another note, I had no idea the athletic was owned by NY Times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How is it unjust? A company is not owed any profits, if it gets rekt by an union then it gets rekt. It cannot say "oh its not fair you guys are fighting me, only I can fight you in a just fight!" Ridiculous logic.
The only thing I know is that journalism stopped being independent and unbiased a long, long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it unjust? A company is not owed any profits, if it gets rekt by an union then it gets rekt. It cannot say "oh its not fair you guys are fighting me, only I can fight you in a just fight!" Ridiculous logic.
whoosh GP is in favor of unions and thinks they perform beneficial public services. They don't. addendum: people who like unions because they balance the power relationship between employee and employer (i.e. the idiots downvoting me, idiots not because they like unions, but idiots because they are downvoting me) might see that as a public service, but it's not, that is a private relationship between employer and emp…
– Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, describing how he stopped using sarcasm in his essays because it provokes hostility. He goes on describe the ironic person as a "pest to society."