Posts
Comments
its a public externality, you don't need a government division to run bathrooms, you just need to do 1. + provide a subsidy
Yea, the Cochrane meta-study aggregates a bunch of heterogenous studies so the aggregated results are confusing to analyze. The unfortunate reality is that it is complicated to get a complete picture - one may have to look at the individual studies one by one if they truly want to come to a complete understanding of the lit.
Betting against republicans and third parties on poly is a sound strategy, pretty clear they are marketing heavily towards republicans and the site has a crypto/republican bias. For anything controversial/political, if there is enough liq on manifold I generally trust it more (which sounds insane because fake money and all).
That being said, I don't like the way Polymarket is run (posting the word r*tard over and over on Twitter, allowing racism in comments + discord, rugging one side on disputed outcomes, fake decentralization), so I would strongly consider not putting your money on PM and instead supporting other prediction markets, despite the possible high EV.
As a trust fund baby who likes to think I care about the future of humanity, I can confidently say that I would at least consider it, though I'd probably take the money.
Is anyone else shocked that no one before Daniel refused to sign?
- Someone who left on bad terms and was incredibly pissed at open ai
- Interested in AI but has low marginal utility of money (academic, trust-fun baby, otherwise already rich)
- Ethical grounds
I guess I shouldn't be coming to this conclusion in 2024 but holy cow are people greedy.