domain:x.com
striker
3m ago
Reminded of the story about … was it Leonardo? … who said that he wrote everything down because once he wrote it down he would remember it and never need the piece of paper again.
(Aware of the irony that I have half remembered a story about memory.)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6m ago
Making alcohol illegal results in more distilled liquors and less lighter stuff, for the same reason illegal opiates results in stronger opiates being preferred.
FiveHourMarathon
Just a Wawa Stan Account
28m ago
Yes but you can't get it in volume from the local corner store, which was the qualifier I put on it. Nobody drinks 64oz of spontaneously fermented homebrew and beats his wife.
We know this because even in countries with significant illegal alcohol problems, no illicit alcoholics are drinking homemade wine or beer in a problematic way. They're going blind from moonshine or bathtub gin.
ChickenOverlord
34m ago
It was revealed to me in a dream
Dean
39m ago
Sure. No disagreement, even. Consider this an assent.
...I'm not sure how else to add 'that is a sound and valid addition' without coming off as sillier than I mean to.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
46m ago
Beer of course is not distilled. Even spontaneously fermented beer can have ABVs above 6% (which is a pretty normal beer abv), so you don't even need special yeast to hit this ABV.
Thank you for demonstrating your continued retreat from your opening positions. I look forward to seeing how much of a motte you retreat to over time.
And no, for others, 17 year olds is not the limits of what one can find regarding Hamas child soldier reports.
This is barely intelligible. If you make a surprising and significant claim, you should provide a source.
And if you wish to claim that Israelis shoot children, and then launch screeds on the jews being uniquely evil, you should provide a source that accuses the Israelis of shooting children, instead of claims that children were shot without an attribution as to by whom.
Which serves as another basis of the non-linking, since the lack of relevant sourcing to support a surprising and significant claim (like 'the Jews are deliberately one-shotting children') has been a reoccuring theme of this thread.
And yes, that was left for you specifically to walk into.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
48m ago
i suspect this advice is for people where 'variety' means that protein needs are exceeded by animal protein alone
I suspect you did not watch even fifteen seconds of the clip I posted, because this is the very first thing discussed.
a lot of plant foods are deficient in lysine, so it can occur so 5 foods in a meal are all deficient.
Unlikely, unless you never eat legumes (see advice above about eating a variety of food groups).
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
52m ago
The way you write is… interesting to say the least. Is it strategically vague, or a sort of wailing wall of text defense?
We are not speaking about “child soldiers” the legal category, which includes teens. We are specifically talking about below-teens children being used by Hamas. Especially being used in a way that would lead them to being shot approx daily. What I can find from HRW is that Hamas once used a 17yo but that they made commitments to not recruit below 18. That was back in 2004. Something similar was published by Amnesty in 2005.
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
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 is barely intelligible. If you make a surprising and significant claim, you should provide a source. That’s a combo of obligation, politeness, and efficiency. If Hamas is equipping 12yo with IEDS then obviously it’s not a big deal if they are shot by Israeli soldiers. This does not appear to be the case.
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
1hr 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 ...
1hr ago
Swing states are so lumpy it's hard to call heads or tails on this.
ThenElection
1hr 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 ...
1hr 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
1hr ago
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
1hr ago
Same for DJT stock, which is surging based on possibly renewed hopes for Trump
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr 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.
Counterpoint: legal cannabis has resulted in higher potency products. Highly concentrated cartridges and resins easily available, and higher potency flower as well. Granted, the higher potency flower has been the trend for longer than we've had legal cannabis in this country.
More options
Context Copy link