Dilettante_

Maybe they do get it, but are choosing to lean more into the authenticity angle. An art form, a medium, evolves when new cultures and sub-cultures take it up and add their own stuff, both the creator and the audience.

Maybe from their perspective they're correctly doing it their way, instead of, as in your perspective, failing to do it your way.

the goal that it must never fail

That's a good way to put it

"Very experienced" might mean different things to you. The oldest repo on their GH is from 2017. As for highly skilled: Could you point closer to which parts of their portfolio we are supposed to be awestruck by?

Wow, it's so human already!

Consciousness tries to make things up, it learns that people notice this, it then begins trying to construct justifications that won't be predictably called out as false.

There's a logical "skip" between that and

Eventually it learns how its unconscious operates, and how to interrogate it, and its post-hoc justifications, at least in the common cases, become reliable.

The brain constructs a narrative that won't be called out as false, one that provides social capital, makes one feel good about oneself, is consistent with all your other justifications, etc. It's only an assumption that this process would naturally converge on Truth, and considering it's massively-multiplayer chaos where brains coordinate their stories in complex ways, my assumption is that this would converge on *stability*, not truth.

Oops, I just gormlessly assumed you meant the other one because I also had the (2006) one in the "unsuccessful/failure"-Bucket in my head. Sorry about that.

Look at this hotshot who can't relate to massive losers!

/j

You actually aren't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_(2006_video_game)

You haven't been putting in any good-faith effort into having a "productive conversation" for at least three of your responses, setting up "This is how things are" with no attempt to support this with any arguments, and have equally refused/dodged out of engaging with any of mine.

Your brain has just had your mental block up very obviously starting from your knee-jerk "what is wrong with you?" comment, isolating you from the scary prospect of being convinced by a consistent chain of logic, and now you're looking for a face-saving way of ejecting from the conversation.

What's wrong with me is I'm autistic enough to expect people to be able to follow arguments. I did not say "There are no differences between Government Bonds and Prediction Markets", what I said was "Let's find where the line between gambling and investing is, here's an example from which to pick apart the features that make gambling vs investing".

if there was any more EV to be gained, people with more money than you would have exhausted it

In a perfect market that everyone participates in and in which everyone has perfect information, but not down here in messy reality. Your logic would have you you seeing a dollar on the ground and without further investigation go "Oh that can't be real, if it were someone would have picked it up already!" Or refusing to play chess against anyone because Magnus Carlsen could beat you.

The cryptocurency was also made with work. Hardware, electricity, and time were invested into the 1 unit of crypto. It's literally called Proof-Of-Work.

But that's about juicing the maximum amount out of each bet, not about the matter of simply winning or losing(which was what I was originally responding to). If any situation one doesn't take for all its worth is a loss then I agree that it's damn near impossible to win, but this would be true everywhere.

I am intentionally flattening these trades to simple win/loss affairs(not just for the sake of this argument).

You're playing the game at a higher level and "complaining" at the increased complexity(I don't mean to say you are complaining, I just couldn't think of a better word). You're talkkng about the 80% that get you the last 20%, I'm talking about the 20% that get me the 80.

just to be clear we are discussing gambling and not investing

Where's the demarcation? The whole point of this sub-thread was "you absolutely can predict the outcome of some of these markets". If you do your due dilligence/leverage your domain knowledge to buy a thing you expect to pay dividends at a later date, how is that not investing? Are government bonds gambling in your thinking?

Your prior about people acting unwise is still sneaking in via the assertion that we are talking about gambling.

Can you help me better grasp this? My intuition is thus: Sure, if I'm going at it like a proper rationalist, I'd have to do things like calculate expected value or whatever(I fully admit my lack of foundational knowledge when it comes to statistics), but at the surface the questions I feel I'm being asked is: "Is this a winning ticket?" and then "How much would you pay for a ticket set to win $1?" The latter question being obviously meaningless except for the obvious: It does not matter in the slightest, as long as I don't pay 1$ or more.

So you could see how the face odds are irrelevant to me, only my internal yes/no intuition? Obviously this is not optimized, opportunity cost etc etc, but is there a big hole in my thinking you could point me in the direction of?

Not only did you miss the point of the conversation entirely, you're attacking a point I explicitly addressed in my comment. I well understand how the system works, ggps comment had me confused about their perspective.

Except you knew it was a lie, and they knew that you knew it was a lie, and you knew that they knew that you knew it was a lie. There was exactly zero deception. At a certain point it's marketing, advertising, copywriting, not a Lie in the sense that anyone was made to believe something untrue.

I go to the store and buy a pencil. Now I have apparently 1 pencil worth 1 fiat and someone else now has 1 fiat? What a preposterous notion!

And the prostitute really does love you and Your Call really Is Important To Us.

That's a little snarkier than strictly appropriate in this forum but you cannot seriously and in good faith say that this is the first time you've seen advertisements 'exagerrate' the truth.

You're sneaking in a prior assumption that people will act stupidly, and then make the argument "Well since they act stupidly they will have bad outcomes". That's like me claiming "Your startup is gonna fail, I can tell, because you'd need to be able to read and write to make it in business!"(sneaking in the prior assumption that the person in question is not in fact able to read or write)

Your strategic consideration is wise, though. 'Diversification' is one of the first things people will teach wrt investment literacy.

I'm confused by how you're modeling these markets.

Let's say I am quite sure that the Steam Machine will cost more than $700 dollars, and I buy a 'yes' lot for 65 cents on the payed-out dollar, those are the odds at my buy-in time.

Where exactly now do the other participants' bets on the same market influence my chance to win/lose? How am I up against them and not the question "will my prediction come true"?

Sure, before my buy-in the odds, and thus the value fluctuate on account of the market movements, but once I'm in I'm in?

You don't need Colossus-level compute or a genius-level IQ to evaluate the question "Will the steam machine cost more than $700 at release", or "Will 2026 be the hottest year on record".

Yeah, if I don't make my six-year-old drink with me every once in a while, he's never gonn learn to hold his liquour!

Each applicant took the test under unknown conditions. You don't know [...] whether they walked in cold or worked with a tutor for months, or whether they came from a perfectly stable home life or found out the night before that their dog died/parents are getting divorced/worked the night shift at a grocery store to help pay rent. Maybe they struggled with addiction and rebellion in their youth.

I'm pretty sure this is (part of) what's being filtered for quite intentionally.

"I'm the boss, you do what I tell you when I tell you. I say jump out the window, you ask which one."

But can I uninstall Meta Horizon OS and install Gentoo?

you could perhaps make an argument that, just like weight decay, an apparent "anti-contribution" moves the learning trajectory along

Was that not the joke?

Seeing Jonathan blow invoked and his response in the comments tickled me pink

Now there's a hack in the most delightful sense of the word

and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake

Except when someone hands you a magic button that just gives you knowledge?[at least in the framing of this "warning"] Then it's about peoples' livelihoods, about "culture", etc?

"Computer" used to be a job. Did science on the whole lose or gain by making these clerks obsolete?