Live data from Hacker News

Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

npr.org

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that? A cigarette contains 10-20 mg of nicotine depending on the tobacco blend used. The strongest e-liquid is 50-60 g/l so to get 10x nicotine of a mild cigarette you'd need to atomize 2ml of the strongest e-liquid. Coincidently, 2ml is the legal limit of disposable vapes in EU. So, to get nicotine of one pack (20) light cigarettes you'd need to empty two European vapes (provided they are filled wit…

A cigarette contains 10-20mg, but it's not readily available. On average, of those 10-20mg, you absorb only 1mg. [1] My assumption, which could be faulty, is a lot more of the nicotine in the vape gets absorbed vs a cigarette. [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-much-nicotine-...

Yes, neither is nicotine from a vape is all absorbed. Seeing they both have the same delivery mechanism (aerosol into lungs) it's quite a leap to assume one of these delivers an order of magnitude more nicotine, IMHO.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it tolerance for exploitation or are people just realizing that as poor as their odds are while gambling that's still the best chance they have to make the money they need. A healthy society offers the public better ways to have their needs meet, people gamble when they are desperate.

> or are people just realizing It's a stretch to say that gambling is truly anyone's best option, so 'realizing' isn't the right word here. I'd go with "delusionalizing."

As people start to feel that they have no realistic chance to meaningfully improve their economic situation by any other means they'll grasp at whatever hope for a better future they can find.

I mean, consider the lottery for example. For most people their odds of ever having $100 million is zero. The lottery gives them a 1 in 300 million chance though. Having any chance at all to get that kind of money is worth a few dollars to a lot of people so the lottery remains popular. The problem we have right now is that people feel so helpless that they feel forced to use gambling to help pay for basic things like rent, medication, and education. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/21/healthcare-students-turn-to-...

Gambling rarely pays off for them, but it gives them a chance, and a small number will get some cash. People still have and use more traditional means to get by when they can't get ahead, like shoplifting, maxing out credit cards, and prostitution. Shoplifting is way up from just 10 years ago, American household debt is at record highs, and Onlyfans is pulling in more revenue and more desperate people every year.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or are people just realizing It's a stretch to say that gambling is truly anyone's best option, so 'realizing' isn't the right word here. I'd go with "delusionalizing."

As people start to feel that they have no realistic chance to meaningfully improve their economic situation by any other means they'll grasp at whatever hope for a better future they can find. I mean, consider the lottery for example. For most people their odds of ever having $100 million is zero. The lottery gives them a 1 in 300 million chance though. Having any chance at all to get that kind of money is worth a fe…

It's certainly the closest we've come to directly taxing the hope of the downtrodden.

This goes back to my original point, that legalizing gambling happens after economic downturns. There are so many downtrodden in those situations, and monetizing them becomes irresistable to the state.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#74
post #4

Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand > Then there's the potential for insider trading, something that has dogged the prediction market industry, … From a 2025 article [1] > Coplan said, “Nobody is under the impression that nobody knows the answer, right? Like, of course, there’s people who are working on it that know when it’s going to come. And I think what’s cool about Polymarket i…

> “Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand.”

I agree this level of public gambling is crazy. Though I’m dismayed with the criticism of mainstream media not taking a stronger stance, which I take is your criticism. Isn’t that a page from the likes of Fox News? Bringing punditry into news? Moral outrage regarding what otherwise appears to be a legal business (online betting)? Even the link you provide used the word “hints” to describe insider trading: “Polymarket Founder Shayne Coplan Hints That Insider Trading is Cool & Sportsbooks are a Scam”

I get that you’re angry, but I don’t understand why NPR is the villain.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cigarette contains 10-20mg, but it's not readily available. On average, of those 10-20mg, you absorb only 1mg. [1] My assumption, which could be faulty, is a lot more of the nicotine in the vape gets absorbed vs a cigarette. [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-much-nicotine-...

Yes, neither is nicotine from a vape is all absorbed. Seeing they both have the same delivery mechanism (aerosol into lungs) it's quite a leap to assume one of these delivers an order of magnitude more nicotine, IMHO.

Here's my reasoning.

The nicotine in smoke is bound to plant matter which you are likely to exhale. The dose you get is basically entirely from whatever gets stuck on the lungs, but even then it's still bound to the plant matter, so there will be some that just even if attached to the lung won't cross over.

Contrast that to the vape juice, which is water, glycol, nicotine (and flavors). In that case, the nicotine isn't bound to anything and as the water/glycol evaporates you are left with just the nicotine on the lung.

It's true that a large portion of the vape smoke doesn't attach to the lung at all. But my presumption is that a hit from a vape carries more nicotine and that nicotine also more readily gets absorbed by the lungs.

I don't know if it's exactly 10x. I presume it's higher.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, neither is nicotine from a vape is all absorbed. Seeing they both have the same delivery mechanism (aerosol into lungs) it's quite a leap to assume one of these delivers an order of magnitude more nicotine, IMHO.

Here's my reasoning. The nicotine in smoke is bound to plant matter which you are likely to exhale. The dose you get is basically entirely from whatever gets stuck on the lungs, but even then it's still bound to the plant matter, so there will be some that just even if attached to the lung won't cross over. Contrast that to the vape juice, which is water, glycol, nicotine (and flavors). In that case, the nicotine isn…

Vape juice is nicotine, glycol (PG) and glycerin (VG), the "V" in "VG" stands for "vegetable", which is a type of plant so if having a plant matter is a decisive factor in absorption then both delivery methods have it. It, however, depends on what you mean by "bound", from my limited knowledge nicotine is not bound chemically to anything in tobacco leaf either but perhaps water from plant cells has some properties which makes it very different from water from atomizing glycol and glycerin. And the concentration of nicotine in vape smoke is lower as I already shown with the numbers.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#77
post #4

Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand > Then there's the potential for insider trading, something that has dogged the prediction market industry, … From a 2025 article [1] > Coplan said, “Nobody is under the impression that nobody knows the answer, right? Like, of course, there’s people who are working on it that know when it’s going to come. And I think what’s cool about Polymarket i…

> “Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand.” I agree this level of public gambling is crazy. Though I’m dismayed with the criticism of mainstream media not taking a stronger stance, which I take is your criticism. Isn’t that a page from the likes of Fox News? Bringing punditry into news? Moral outrage regarding what otherwise appears to be a legal business (online betting)? Even the lin…

They didn’t need moral outrage. They needed to not report on this like insider trading was some problem these companies were having that they were trying to avoid or fix when the CEOs have publicly stated it was their goal.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#78
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Yet another article where the media is sanewashing the subject at hand.” I agree this level of public gambling is crazy. Though I’m dismayed with the criticism of mainstream media not taking a stronger stance, which I take is your criticism. Isn’t that a page from the likes of Fox News? Bringing punditry into news? Moral outrage regarding what otherwise appears to be a legal business (online betting)? Even the lin…

They didn’t need moral outrage. They needed to not report on this like insider trading was some problem these companies were having that they were trying to avoid or fix when the CEOs have publicly stated it was their goal.

> _"They needed to not..."_

I think I'm reading a moral stance in your comments. Like Commandments. "Thou shall not bear false witness". Maybe a radical stance in the context of news? I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me.

NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. If there's a failure, I would say it's *Naivete*. A presumption of regularity and the rule of law will prevail. And if the reporter was also naive, then it's in the face of . What's the purpose of taking one article and painting all news media as corrupt?

I'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting.

The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does, is relying on sources whose positions are blatantly one-sided or whose information is so complex [2] only a few can determine its veracity from one article to the next. Mainstream News about complex issues fundamentally lags real-time, because it comes from the people who report it and from the people willing to go on record, and some editorial process of evaluation. The moral crisis of mainstream media has always been ownership (gatekeeping), but NPR is "funded by people like you".

If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical), then something else is driving this vehemence and absolute certainty that all CEOs are crooks and so are all the mainstream news agencies (NPR) reporting about them. I'm sorry if you've been personally hurt (or threatened, as I feel about the AI bubble; that's another story), but I don't feel informed from your comments, or inspired to _take up arms_ following your reasoning.

I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it.

[1]: I say "conclusion" because it must be a conclusion of reasoning to take the _may_ in the article you offered and insist it means _must_. [2]: using the novel definition of 'complex' vs. 'complicated' where complex differentiates systems with social dynamics separate from systems with organization charts.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#79
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t need moral outrage. They needed to not report on this like insider trading was some problem these companies were having that they were trying to avoid or fix when the CEOs have publicly stated it was their goal.

> _"They needed to not..."_ I think I'm reading a moral stance in your comments. Like Commandments. "Thou shall not bear false witness". Maybe a radical stance in the context of news? I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. If there's a failu…

> I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me.

> NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality.

Using the word "dogged" to describe a problem for companies that is a direct result of their business model, which the CEO's have admitted is their business model, and talk about how its a positive, is not neutral and where you lose me.

> 'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting.

I linked an article with Polymarket(kalshi's competitor) and his statements on this. Do you think those comments didnt imply they felt insider trading was the goal?

> The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does.

Wasn't neutral. The term "dogged" has non neutral connotations, and the term didnt come from someone else they were quoting.

> If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical)

I did not expect you to look through my post history, so I would not judge you negatively for thinking this was radical if it came out of the blue, but it was in reference to a comment thread I was in previously with several other examples of sanewashing coming from apnews where I had several examples[1]. Including at least one where they explicitly changed the reported quote from "fourth" to "third" because the one using "fourth" invoked multiple issues.

> I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it.

NPR, reuters, and apnews used to be news organizations I looked to for unbiased news beyond the infotainment organizations like Fox News(stated in court they werent news), and CNN and CBS after they got bought up by conservative billionaires and then ran by Bari Weiss. However, ever since the past 2 years of this admin attacking news organization for reporting on events in a way that offends the king, they appear to have lost their balls and are reporting on things in a way that is subjective or not reflective of reality.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49088418

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#80
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> _"They needed to not..."_ I think I'm reading a moral stance in your comments. Like Commandments. "Thou shall not bear false witness". Maybe a radical stance in the context of news? I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. If there's a failu…

> I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. > NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. Using the word "dogged" to describe a problem for companies that is a direct result of their business model, which the CEO's have admitted is their business model, and talk about how its a positive,…

> “…they appear to have lost their balls…”

I see where this is going. It’s the flip side of the Trump coin as expressed to me by my neighbor who I only just met: “President Trump is the only president in my lifetime who has any _balls_!” (he was yelling this at me at this point).

I think your vision of news is without praxis.

Peace.

Post reply on HN