I have no interest in anything crypto, but they are making a proposal about NFTs tied to AI (LLMs and verifiable machine learning) so they can make ownership decisions.
So it'd be alive in the making decisions sense, not in a "the technology is thriving" sense.
"Polymarket condemns the harassment and threats directed at Emanuel Fabian, or anyone else for that matter. This behavior violates our terms of service and has no place on our platform or anywhere else. Prediction markets depend on the integrity of independent reporting. Attempts to pressure journalists to alter their reporting undermine that integrity and undermine the markets themselves."
It's a little light on rigor. There's a lot of "X happened before Y therefore X caused Y" but I think it's a really good articulation of some of the problems it tackles.
Yes in sports. NCAA is trying to specifically get player prop bets banned in part because they are more likely not just to be corrupt, but also they specifically mention player safety.
I linked this elsewhere, but I found Nate Silver's take interesting here. He specifically takes on the problem of player prop bets and says they produce abusive behavior toward players.
I think it's reasonable to research if there's some equivalent to player prop bets in other contexts, like anything that might hinge on what a reporter writes. There's the safety angle and there's also just the "more likely to be corrupted" angle. Like I said in my original comment, I'd just like them to evaluate this.
Related to your comment, see Nate Silver's take on the NBA gambling scandal.
"Player props are inherently more subject to manipulation because only one player needs to be involved in rigging the outcome. [...] Even as someone more sympathetic to gambling than most people you’re probably reading on this story, I’m not sure I’d really care if player prop bets were banned entirely. They produce abusive behavior toward players. They also often put team and individual performance into tension with one another..."
I hate untangling wires. The noise cancellation (including passive for the pros) is great. Easier to switch between devices. I can use them with the Apple TV when my wife goes to sleep (she's an early riser).
The downsides you list don't apply to me personally. I don't have to "worry" about charging them; I just charge them. I have never lost them, I keep them in the same spot. I also personally think they look better than wired, but that's a fashion thing.
I think it's fine to have a different preference, but I find it odd people can't even understand the appeal of them. I don't like wired, but I can understand why people have different preferences.
I thought this HN discussion was worth revisiting in the context of vibe coding. I don't think any of it fits a pro-AI or anti-AI view, that's not what this is. I just think a lot of the same themes show up and it's interesting to see how folks were thinking about it a few years ago.
It also interested me that really only one person brought up AI.
I don't think you deserve downvotes; I think it's totally plausible that some people would steal this data just to feel special.
But:
1) That's why we have traditionally had the safeguards that we have had, to protect against this sort of crime, and
2) The allegation in this case is that he later approached coworkers to do something with this data, even if they ultimately didn't help him do it. So it doesn't appear to be hoarding just for the sake of it here.
Speaking of things that have changed from my 20s, I also take internet points way less seriously than when I was sitting in a computer lab at 3am.
Now, I just double-check to make sure I didn't say anything I didn't want to and take it as a signal for how to be more clearly understood in the future; in this case a lot of people seemed to take what I wrote as a hypothesis about the motivation of the accused or a call for leniency, which wasn't what I was going for, but eh, live and learn.
The way I'm different from in my 20s is I'm more likely to assume charitable interpretations. I kinda guessed you meant it like you just stated, but wanted to add more context.
Unexpectedly is because it's a big miss from the projected job numbers. If you felt like the expected numbers were obviously wrong for this month, you should have traded on that information.
I'm not against the pricing, just seems uncommon to frame it in the way they did, as opposed to the usual 'assume the customer expects more performance will cost more'
I guess they have to sell to investors that the price to operate is going down, while still needing more from the user to be sustainable
So it'd be alive in the making decisions sense, not in a "the technology is thriving" sense.
reply