Philosphical treatments have got a bad rap because it is so easy for conmen to convert them into fake hope, but when properly applied they are still amazingly effective. It's just that "properly applied" is very often not profitable because all the applicable texts and practices have been quite literally known for thousands of years and are available through well known texts in the public domain.
And Sytse if you read this: beterschap en als dat niet helpt: sterkte. Cancer sucks.
People used to call him "egohot" back in the day when he was cracking playstation games, because he was already incredibly arrogant even at a young age.
Yeah. This has strong self-selection bias. Egohot thinks about this stuff a lot so obviously everyone does!
Most people only care about money as they have no choice. Absent a cash-first system money has become a social construct. The valuation of a dollar is entirely ephemeral now.
I see that social reality becoming more realized and the existing social system around money collapsing due to generational churns attenuation of the social significance.
Tech bros are little more than disciples of a dogma being missionaries for their dogma. There are other dogmas.
How is paper money any less of a social construct? How is a gold coin that you can't actually use in any other way than trading it to another hairless monkey?
Fuck Geohot for lending his hand to Musk during the Twitter takeover. He is obviously "sorted" and successful. But his recent blog posts suggests to me that he has started to realize, despite all his success, that if/when the system collapses, he'll be queuing up in the breadlines just like the rest of us.
The sooner the other techbros get the same realization the better.
It was actively good that Elon Musk took over Twitter. Twitter itself is exactly as free a social media platform under Musk as it was under Parag Agrawal (which is to say, it was a privately-owned platform that made arbitrary moderation decisions and engaged in de-facto user lock-in both before and after the acquisition); and the political distaste that a lot of the most active users of Twitter had for Musk actually got them to move off of Twitter and onto to alternate social media platforms, typically Mastodon in the ActivityPub ecosystem or BlueSky in the ATProto ecosystem. Both of these protocols have issues with not being decentralized enough to really mitigate censorship from the system operators, but the status quo now is certainly better than it was before the Musk acquisition.
I didn't know that Geohot had anything to do with the acquisition, but insofar as he did, I'm glad it happened. There's a bunch of different and mutually-incompatible ways "the system" might collapse in a way leading to breadlines, and I have no reason to think your theory that it will be a result of Musk buying Twitter is any better than any other random person's theory about why the world is going to decline in terms of material prosperity in the near-future.
And unless enough bureaucrats complain to their boss, that law will never change. Regulations don't get handed down from the gods or something, they can be changed if enough people want it. There are plenty of countries these days where a PDF is enough.
What is wrong with things like the Zapier scheduler? (ie https://zapier.com/apps/schedule/integrations) For running locally, there's also a plethora of cronlikes for every OS under the sun.
I think the core problem is not so much that it is not "allowed", but that even the most basic types of automation involves programming. I mean "programming" here in the abstract sense of "methodically breaking up a problem into smaller steps and control flows". Many people are not interested in learning to automate things, or are only interested until they learn that it will involve having to learn new things.
There is no secret conspiracy stopping people from learning to automate things, rather I think it's quite the opposite: many forces in society are trying to push people to automate more and more, but most are simply not interested in learning to do so. See for example the bazillion different "learn to code" programs.
It's not default. People don't need courses for this, they need availability and nudges. None of the platforms people use expose such features to users, much less encourage them to try. On the contrary, they hide or remove it from base UI layer entirely, and the UI choices made clearly suggest platform vendors don't even consider the possibility of regular people being interested.
Computing isn't, and has never been, demand-driven. It's all supply-driven. People choose from what's made available by vendors, and nobody bothers listening to user feedback.
The root cause tree on page 452 gives a good overview of how complex the behavior can be.
The good news is that the grid operators have a good idea of what the problem was/is and it's well understood how to fix it. The downside is that it will require quite a bit of both time and money to reinforce the grid infrastructure.
Wisdom of the crowd has some fatal flaws that are especially important when it comes to things like IPOs.
- Most significantly, most scientific research focuses on things that are actually amenable to guesses with a normal distribution, like "amount of jellybeans in a jar" or "length of the border between country A and country B". An IPO is a binary choice where it either goes public or not. There is no correct value to converge to.
- It has been shown that as bettors gain more information about the bets of others, predictions lose accuracy and bettors converge to a consensus value instead. It seems to me that online prediction markets would be extremely prone to this as the bets of other people are all there in the market price.
- Prediction markets generally become more accurate as the diversity of the bettor pool grows. The users of polymarket and Kalshi heavily skew towards young men from certain socioeconomic groups, who may be biased towards one or the other outcome.
In the case of an OpenAI IPO, it seems likely multiple of these would converge as people start to fall prey to groupthink because "everybody knows that they'll IPO soon" in their local media bubble.
The question isn't "will they IPO" the question is "when will they IPO" which is not a binary question. The rest of your point about Polymarket users now being mostly degenerate gamblers is true though.
The relative timing, valuations (and float sizes) of the expected SpaceX, Anthropic and then OpenAI IPOs would still be highly correlated. Even allowing for moral degeneracy among most of the gamblers on this particular Polymarket market.
It’s two binary questions about whether they will IPO by specific dates. It’s not obvious to me that this maps to a more granular “when will they IPO?” question.
> It has been shown that as bettors gain more information about the bets of others, predictions lose accuracy and bettors converge to a consensus value instead.
This makes intuitive sense to me; is there a name for this phenomenon?
A prediction platform’s biggest value is publicising information from possible insiders, who at some point will work harder to maintain secrecy not to lose their informational advantage. So all that remains are people gambling on public info.
That said, greed from insiders looking to make a quick buck will always skew the price towards ‘truth’
> An IPO is a binary choice where it either goes public or not. There is no correct value to converge to.
Of course there is - they are betting on the "when".
> It has been shown that as bettors gain more information about the bets of others, predictions lose accuracy and bettors converge to a consensus value instead.
I dunno how to reply to this - that is exactly my point, but it appears (to me, anyway) that you are saying this in disagreement?
Let me clarify - my point is that wisdom of the crowd converges on to a value that is quite near the actual value.
> In the case of an OpenAI IPO, it seems likely multiple of these would converge as people start to fall prey to groupthink because "everybody knows that they'll IPO soon" in their local media bubble.
Sure, if everyone is in the same local media bubble, that once again, that is unlikely, because these are people who don't make money from the result, they make money from correctly predicting it, hence they are exactly the demographic that will seek out more and more information outside of any bubble they may be in.
It's one thing when proponents of $FOO spend time boosting their PoV/wishes/hopes on a forum. It's quite another when they have to put their money where their mouth is: then they are open to new information!
> I dunno how to reply to this - that is exactly my point, but it appears (to me, anyway) that you are saying this in disagreement?
Yes. The research shows that they do (almost) always converge, but that they DON'T always converge to an accurate value. In particular, there can be behavioral biases at work that warp the perception of bettors in one direction or the other. A well documented case of this is when fans of a sports team pile in and bet for their favorite team, causing the price to shift too much towards the more popular team. Exposure to the predictions by other bettors then causes the total market to converge to the biased price. Interestingly enough, people still do this even though this phenomenon is well documented and they have to put their money on the line. People just don't care enough about their $10 bet to do thorough research.
In a similar way, I would not at all be surprised if some people are such fanboys of OpenAI that they start to display cultlike behavior. You can easily find such people online even on this very site. It's not such a weird thing to consider that people at the peak of a hype cycle don't always behave in rational ways, especially when they're just betting $10 when drunk on a Saturday evening.
if you can identify where and how prediction markets are wrong, why aren't you applying that and making millions?
> - Prediction markets generally become more accurate as the diversity of the bettor pool grows. The users of polymarket and Kalshi heavily skew towards young men from certain socioeconomic groups, who may be biased towards one or the other outcome.
Citation? If your small population is high IQ, accurate predictors and you diversify to average IQ population, won't the accuracy go down not up?
You could do this whole plan without needing to do the assassination part, as long as you are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus. Conversely, even if the assassination scheme goes exactly as planned, there is no way of guaranteeing that the new Russian leader would be willing to restart gas deliveries until the war in Ukraine has wrapped up. Given that especially the eastern EU countries have absolutely no intention of allowing Ukraine to lose, this seems like a very tall order.
Finally, both Nordstream 1 AND Nordstream 2 still have a gaping holes in them from the bombings so restarting deliveries will probably take several years at least.
All in all, this plan gets only a 2 out of 10 for being impractical, too slow AND depending on factors outside our control. 1 point because it does at least sound spy-ish and proactive.
The problem for Europe is that they have nothing to trade with Russia. They can get better prices elsewhere.
Before 2022 we had the big EU auto companies in Russia, we also had nice handbags, shoes and outfits to sell to Russia. Plus we could have them hide their money in London property. Machine tools were also a brisk trade.
Nowadays Russia needs nothing from Europe. Nothing apart from peace and their 300 billion back. But we have gone past that stage. The Russians have never broken any energy contracts in this, the West has cut themselves off.
Regarding the EU not wanting the former Ukraine to lose, there is a difference between what the officials want and what the people want. From Finland to Portugal I am sure most people would want no war and cheap energy, however, their 'leaders' are just doing what Washington tells them to do.
Delusional. In Europe people want not to just see Ukraine win, but also Russia to lose. It's the leaders that are timid, the people would like to see much wider ranging support for Ukraine.
The Russian energy will not be accepted again in Europe for the foreseeable future, ending the war will not change that.
Huh? Even in the US the majority are sympathetic to Ukraine in every survey. Sure we all want no war - but we are not really in favor of no war at any price.
I agree, but also find it funny that by that standard the DRM in the original Google video streaming product was not hacked before the service was shutdown, after about 2 years :)
It was unhackable while it mattered. It was hacked 5 years after it no longer mattered. And all but the effectively beta release remain unhacked even now.
To the community it was unhackable, until very recently.
It's security measures held up so long that it appeared to be unshakable. There were no obvious flaws.
In hindsight it was hackable, but keep in mind how long it took. This console has long been obsoleted.
Well obviously? It's literally being broadcast in the news when diplomats talk to each other. What do you think they are talking about if not policy discussions?
So it seems normal that a bunch of politicians, in the current climate, got together and decided that the weakest form of age verification imaginable absolutely had to get passed everywhere?
I'm not saying there's definitely no coordination, but nobody had to get together to decide that 2026 was the year for 90s fashion to make a comeback. Human society is very prone to fads in all areas.
And Sytse if you read this: beterschap en als dat niet helpt: sterkte. Cancer sucks.
reply