121–130 of 151 posts
why can't we have a law that just caps your gambling losses? Everyone gets a federally issued gambling license tied to your ID, if you lose more than X amount the casino is no longer legally allowed to let you play. Casual gamblers can still enjoy, problem gamblers get cut off; just like with alcohol at the bar.
That effectively destroys the industry, since 90% of revenue comes from 10% of customers.
If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?
Because they're stupid. Gamblers are idiots, gambling companies prey on the dumb. Anyone who understands the very basic math behind the games understands that it's pointless to play, you'll just lose more the more you play. That's the whole point. It's not even a secret, you can find the exact odds for each game.
Poker is different as you're playing other players rather than the house but it's still a negative sum game as the house takes a cut so you have to be better than the others to play. And if you're a reasonably intelligent person you'll just bet a little and accept your losses and move on. Or not play at all. Idiots will do dumb stuff like bet way more than they can afford, then they won't have money to pay their mortgage, rent etc and so on. People call it an addiction but I'm pretty sure it's mostly just being really really stupid. Can't be addicted to gambling if you aren't dumb as a rock.
Can't wait to see how this (rather unsurprising yet important finding) is going to get abused for and with AI : "Hey, I see we haven't chat / you didn't vibe code for few days now, how about you get 1000 free tokens and we just see where that lead us?" It perfectly aligns with sycophantic interaction and then roulette outcome one gets, sure it might not work 100% of the time but it works most of the time and "I" as a…
I brought this up previously [1] and recently [2] it and I made that accurate comparison as a form of gambling and got immediately flag'd despite that being correct.
[0] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14063676-claude-march...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they would overturn that if sufficient evidence of harm were demonstrated. They've been remarkably consistent about permitting violations of constitutional rights where the government can unambiguously demonstrate a pressing need.
The 1A does not have an exception for harm.
I've always found the marketing around gambling (and most things really) completely disgusting. As a society I think we're far too tolerant of these things. A lot of the ads basically go along the lines of: 'you could win big and have a great time, awesome! (disclaimer: will probably ruin your life)'. It should be like it is with smoking - photos of lung cancer patients on the package. People will still do it of cour…
I've always found the marketing around gambling (and most things really) completely disgusting. As a society I think we're far too tolerant of these things. A lot of the ads basically go along the lines of: 'you could win big and have a great time, awesome! (disclaimer: will probably ruin your life)'. It should be like it is with smoking - photos of lung cancer patients on the package. People will still do it of cour…
Just ban it. The only defense for our lives being flooded with advertising is that it helps markets be more efficient. But the most efficient gambling provider is the one that extracts the most money from its customers. Helping gambling companies be successful is a net loss to society.
Study seems flawed– it preselects two different audiences (allow/not-allow offers mapping to something like low/high interest in gambling), then attributes the offers as the cause rather than the effect of selecting different audiences.
There wasn't a group that chose to opt out, and another group that chose not to. Everyone agreed to be in the study, and then a random half of the cohort was removed from the mailing lists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That effectively destroys the industry, since 90% of revenue comes from 10% of customers.
yeah, good. okay.