domain:x.com
blooblyblobl
Battery-powered!
1hr ago
There's a speculative Twitter thread suggesting Polymarket is being distorted by a single huge better: https://x.com/Domahhhh/status/1846597997507092901
TheFooder
1hr ago
The issue isn't about how the bet resolves, speculation is about scalping price movements on the margins.
If a true-beliver wants to move the markets, they can, by buying a bunch of shares at a certain price (or prices). I one is certain Trump will win and one wants to make it look like there's some support, buying contracts at $0.55 (or thereabouts) is pretty rational because if he wins the investor more-or-less doubles their money.
For me, a person who believes the actual market is 50/50 and $0.50 is the right price for both contracts I can take advantage of these swings to scalp a few bucks with limit orders. Over time, I expect the prices to settle back toward the 'real price', which they have, so I just have to be patient and I can win a few bucks here and there based on volatility. The nice thing about markets (at least well designed and functional ones) is that they will always drift back to the correct price even if they fluctuate in strange ways.
My experience with these markets is that you have people with positions, true-believers and you have speculators. The speculators love to see market moves because they can scalp profits. The true-believers are taking out a bet.
They were all wrong, but Nate was less wrong ,so that makes him the winner in this regard. His model was more accurate.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1hr ago
and streamline the legal and narrative stuff, hopefully significantly
I for one would also be interested in your views on the legal and regulatory stuff. But then "here is what the regulations say, here is how they're interpreted, this is what the situation on the ground actually looks like, and here are the specific problem areas where the regulatory incentives result in stupid outcomes" is catnip to me.
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
1hr ago
spreads would have nerfed some of those gains too
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
1hr ago
One-off events are intractable. Kelly does not work on them.
TheFooder
2hr ago
I can't speak to Polymarket, but I was watching Predictit pretty closely. I saw a surge in market activity about a week ago with Trump moving from $0.49 to $0.56 and Harris dropping from $0.55 to as low as $0.48. I predicted this was a pump-and-dump and that the prices would inevitably settle back to $0.50-ish (there's not really enough volume to to totally wipe the pump, IMO). I missed the $0.48 shares for Harris, but she's back up to $0.51 and Trump is back down to $0.53. Had I taken the Trump short and gotten in at the Harris Lows I could have made $6 for every $100. Not huge, but basically proves my point that these market moves are opportunities for scalping and the race is strictly 50/50...at least for now.
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
2hr ago
Swing states are so lumpy it's hard to call heads or tails on this.
ThenElection
2hr ago
There's not a ton of money to be made if you believe the odds are 50/50. Prediction markets give Trump 60/40 odds, while Nate's model gives 50/50 odds. If your bankroll is $1M, then it's only rational to bet 167k, for an expected value of 40k. Not nothing, but not a ton of money either.
That also ignores other costs, like counterparty risk. Nate also has to deal with reputational risk: people might value his published models less if they thought he was making bets on markets that were influenced by his models. Since that's his main source of actual income, a bet would be substantially negative EV for him.
It's all speculation. Unless you have insider info or some way to arb it, there is nothing rational about it.
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
2hr ago
Meanwhile, I'm just trying to prepare myself for how much worse things are going to get under the inevitable eight years of Harris.
Political division will increase, as will the intensification of the news cycle, but stocks and the economy should do fine. The wealth tax she floated during early campaigning, predictably, she has discarded in favor of middle-class tax cuts. I don't think it will be as bad as feared in regard to the economy. Also, 'peak woke' was under Biden, whereas wokeness got much worse under Trump. Elon Musk is single handedly doing more to fight wokeness than even any politician now.
TheFooder
2hr ago
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
2hr ago
Same for DJT stock, which is surging based on possibly renewed hopes for Trump
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2hr ago
Misspelling of BDS (boycott, divest from, and sanction [Israel])
Because the argument wouldn't be as effective if I were the one to provide a link.
If someone is actually interested in whether Hamas uses child soldiers, they can very trivially google "Hamas Child Soldiers" and find multiple reports on the history by organizations including Amnesty International, Child Soldiers International, and the United Nations, among others. This doesn't even include self-publicized material such as from the Hamas Youth Wing. These aren't even 'new' reporting- there are easily observable reports from the early 2000s during the tail end of the Intifada years to late last decade, well before the current conflict. Any observer of the conflict with any significant experience has read any one of these over the last few decades- they are old news, not particularly controversial, and numerous.
The reminder of the existence of such reporting isn't just the function any link would provide- it is remind the reader of past reports they've heard of and can easily find again (thus appealing to their own understanding of the conflict), and thus the contrast to the OP's dogmatic dismissal of contrary evidence published over the last decades. Their own trust in their own memories and experience is the legitimizer of the position.
While nominally the target doesn't work as well on people not as experienced in the topic, the prompt that they could easily search for it serves a second level of argument, in which if they do look they will find, and their ability to find evidence of child soldiers if they choose to look for it will be contrasted with the OP's dismissal. This, too, utilizes their agency in the search to bolster the argument.
People who refused to do the search, as a third category, in turn expose themselves to audiences one and two, and thus discredit the OP's objection even fuller when people who are aware recognize they are denying international records that aren't obscure.
None of these three layers of effect would be as effective if a link is simply provided, which can be dismissed on the basis of coming from a partisan regardless of what reference was linked to. The searcher's own agency is what legitimizes the discovery.
Additionally, there is a fourth level, which is a rhetorical trap for the less aware if someone tries to do a surface-level search. One of the easy top-searches is a past UN report that also criticizes Israel for 'child soldier' use (primarily in the context of proximity when searching tunnels / etc.). If this were to be raised in a way to try and establish moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel, not only would a choice to focus on that report validate the relevance of child soldiers as a mitigating circumstance (by acknowledging that the children are not necessarily automatically moral innocents in a combatant sense), but it would also be a demonstratation of a motive for why someone besides Israel might have shot the children (as in, rather than be shot by the Israelis, they are shot because they are associated with the Israelis).
This snare was non-central to the point on the ease of finding evidence that the OP looked to, but was on hand to use if pulled, which again would not work as well if proactively linked to and explained by myself.
charles
2hr ago
I've actually been personally pleased by many of the recent SCOTUS rulings that have many libs so worked up, but I do think there is an issue that needs to be addressed here. Not necessarily term limits; I think there should be a maximum age with forced retirement for the SCOTUS, Congress, and the President. The SCOTUS is probably the smaller problem here; the Executive and the Senate being more impactful. Personally I think 75 is probably workable, but I'd be fine with 70, or even younger. My opinion of their politics aside, people like Feinstein, Ginsberg, or Thurmond clinging lich-like to the power and status of their political office far beyond their ability to be a useful, or even coherent, public servants is sickening. Feinstein was especially bad. Biden probably would have done the same thing if he won a second term, with all the same enablers giving him the same bad-faith cover they gave Feinstein. Anyone under the cut off can run for the office and finish the term, then they retire. Presidents that pass the maximum age in their first term cannot run for a second. This would need to be in the constitution, just like the minimum ages are, which means its probably extremely unlikely as it would require the cooperation of the very people who's damage it seeks to limit. This problem will only get worse in the next 20 years; Boomers will never willingly relinquish even the smallest scrap of power and status. I apologize for the tone of this post.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2hr ago
What is anti-ABS? While I do know that being against mandatory anti-lock braking systems is a sure sign you vote R, for some reason I don’t think that’s what you mean.
Did you predict the 2022 special military exercise?
I assume you mean the Russian one? Sure. I was noting they still weren't committed until they were, but I was one of the realtively people on the forums arguing that the invasion threat was credible and shouldn't be dismissed because of visible factors. It was a relatively minority position back then due to European inclinations to reference the Iraq War intelligence failures / this was American fearmongering / a very memorable denunciation that I knew nothing of slavic brotherhood.
I wasn't sure if the intervention would be tailored to the Donbass and if the other forces were diversionary (they did appear to be too small for a full invasion, but enough for a significant impact), and I believed (and still do) that Putin might have pulled back at the time if he got some of the geopolitical concessions he was angling for at the time (like the Nord Stream pipeline completion). I even thought Ukraine would crumple.
But I was very much against 'this is just another drill.'
What were the visible actions that were not part of the historical pattern of exercises-that-were-not-starts-of-war?
Among other things fact that the Russians had left equipment near Ukraine in 2021, and then not taken it back home with them, allowing it to be proximal and staged so that when they did the 2021 exercise it was building up new force capabilities that were far beyond normal levels. This was significant because when Russia or equivalent countries do a military exercise, they generally don't actually bring enough to do a full invasion and it's visible from orbit. The fact that Russia didn't take it's equipment back home, but then brought in another small army's worth of stuff, and then kept bring more stuff in, was the visibly apparent 'they have an invasion-scale force assembled' which they didn't need if they were 'just' doing exercises.
Additionally, 2021 had multiple developments that correlated with pre-conflict shaping, including a massive pre-invasion propaganda campaigns both against Ukraine (fake nation, nazi narratives) and international legitimization by framing it against NATO (the NATO infrigement/withdrawal demands), the European energy non-refil in which they didn't go through their normal practice of filling European gas stocks during the summer per normal practices, and there was the Russian dynamic behind the Belarusian migrant crisis which was a challenge / shaping perceptions of the new German government.
There wasn't some big propaganda push afaik,
You misremember. The propaganda campaigns were in 2021 mostly, but they were very consistent with pre-war justificaiton narratives, on three grounds- trying to prep the target population (we are you liberators / brothers freeing you from despotic rule), the home population (Russia is standing up for itself for historical Russian brotherhood and territory), and internationally (are war is historically justified and also it's NATO's fault).
and neither was there a withdrawal of the hundreds of billions in economic funds that subsequently got trapped in western banks.
The Russian funds were frozen, but the anamolous economic behavior pre-invasion was the effort to increase European dependence on Russian imports through supply chain artificial shortages of gas.
Notably, in turn, the Russian funds not being immediately moved was a reflection of how the Russians thought the conflict would go (a quick fait accompli the Europeans would ascede to), which has generally been understood to be a mistake for a long-war (which a Taiwan blockade would likely be).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2hr ago
I’ve always figured that weed is a drug that imposes a heavy underclock on your brain and allows direct access for parts of your consciousness that aren’t meant to talk directly to each other.
Alcohol, by contrast, just removes some impulse control and makes motor functions more difficult, but those things turn off “silently” by comparison (and re-enable themselves quickly by comparison, whereas weed has a day of latency).
You don’t think slower on alcohol, you just have a harder time executing. Stoners, by comparison, are very apparently down-clocked.
FiveHourMarathon
Just a Wawa Stan Account
2hr ago
Why don't more Americans change their names? It's very easy to do so, procedures are simple, and unless you have a felony there's few restrictions.
And there's a lot of people out there saddled with TERRIBLE given names.
So why is it so rare?
it_is_so_weird_to_be
2hr ago
Do you think you're on reddit or something?
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2hr ago
Polls are destructive tests: once you conduct one and announce the results, the value changes.
GaBeRockKing
2hr ago
Most violence happens within the ingroup. 54.3 percent or people murdered were killed by someone they knew. The same doesn't exactly hold for assassinations, but there's a trend of assassins having more in common with their targets than their targets' political enemies. Charles J. Guiteau was definitely on Garfield's "side." Lee Harvey Oswald was closer politically to Kennedy than Nixon. John Hinckley Jr was nonpolitical, but at the same time had been attempting to become an entertainer.
And given how the US presidency works-- with the designated survivor being the vice president-- this really makes perfect sense. If you hate the president, replacing him with a vice president you also hate that meanwhile becomes much more radically against you is a terrible idea. But showing "your side" that they shouldn't risk betraying your cause/better go even further in your direction makes more sense.
With all that being said, I wouldn't blame specifically trump for the assassination attempts since it's not like his rhetoric exists in a vacuum. But it's not like we're not seeing equivalent forms of radicalism in the democratic base. See: BLM, pro-palestine protestors sabotaging their own side. Trump's base just happens to be more male, more armed, and therefore more violent.
Folamh3
2hr ago
Last year, a former moderator @ymeskhout wrote a two-parter describing how he used the current conflict as an opportunity to educate himself about Israel-Palestine, a topic about which he'd been fairly ignorant prior (despite being a Moroccan who was raised Muslim), and came away far more sympathetic to the Israeli side than he expected to. I was also fairly ignorant about the conflict when I first read these posts, and found them very persuasive with little to disagree with:
- https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/the-jewish-conspiracy-to-change-my
- https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/follow-up-on-that-jewish-conspiracy
On the pro-Palestine side of the debate, Sam Kriss is a Jewish writer based in London who is firmly anti-Zionist and believes that Israel does not have a right to exist. I found this post of his very affecting even if I didn't necessarily agree with all of it:
Does anyone else feel weirded out by their past? I recently opened my older Instagram account and all the people that I was super close with at one point just drifted apart, I spoke with this girl who once told me how she wanted kids with adhd, her way of flirting with me and I lectured her for 20 minutes about why that is bad, she does not remember anything about me, hell my high school best friend who I would talk to for hours after we would get back home is now this software dev in the US who by the looks of it still sucks at dating.
All the guys I hung out with morphed into generic stereotypes in many ways, happy but just very bland. All the girls I wanted to talk to at the time just to feel good about myself dont seem that attractive anymore.
The worst experience was opening up my half a decade old accounts feed and scrolling through it super fast and getting a feeling of dissociation from it. Like are these photos even real, does anyone even care, why bother. I now remember why I nuked it in the first place. Also I am still sad but 19 year old me would not have seen 24 year old me as a failure, I have not done as much as I should have but still pretty nuts to see how different the world I frankly I was.
More options
Context Copy link