pull down to refresh
@denlillaapan
1,440,379 sats stacked
stacking since: #724606longest cowboy streak: 269npub1y0gaj...zdlsf5jxa0
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 9h \ parent \ on: Insider Trading on Kalshi and Polymarket (Bloomberg, Matt Levine) econ
Beautiful đ
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan 9h \ parent \ on: Emirates Cup Survivor Pool Finale Stacker_Sports
No clue, bro. All I know is American football = trash
Terrifying and kind of tragic... But also inevitable when cost of production fell to ~zero.
They will watch the Lord of the Rings movies, but never pick up the books. As a result, they are likely to have less scientific and analytic objectivity, and they will embody some of the worst and most volatile aspects of TikTok culture.
hm... I see.
But then... why does anybody trade anything? On stock markets, but even more so betting sites? Are we all just all in a perpetual Lake Wobegon?
If the market unravels to only the agent with the most private information, there won't be anyone to take the opposite side of a trade, leading to no price.
not sure I follow this. Explain? (having info is not the same as interpreting it, knowing therefore what it means... that's what Levine gets at in the piece. Obvs for binary bets, then sure, I see).
Isn't the point, then, that nobody knows that a particular trader knows...?
true, it's hard to know exactly how much home-school abuse there is.
...but COMPARED TO THE VERY KNOWN, VERY OBVIOUS ABUSE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL?!
Get a grip.
blow wind into a pile of sand, what?!
Pretty ridiculous to cherish solar, which is growing (but from ~zero), and dunk on coal and nuclear, which are not. Eeeem, natural gas anyone?!
anyway, I'll take this summary line. Wonderful
The US consumes about 100 quadrillion BTUs of energy per year. Of this, about 80 start life as coal, oil or gas, and roughly a third of the energy mix serves the electrical grid. Less than 1% is food, reflecting our enormous energy wealth in comparison to our pre-industrial forebears.
Definitely not a case-by-case basis (which is a stupid way of saying "everything goes... sometimes") but of course we can conjure up edge cases where the main, default assessment don't hold.
The important takeaway there isn't that edge cases exist, but that they don't undermine the main rule.
Well no, you're well within ethical bounds to go after your son's bully, in your absolutely horrid and rare(!) example, but not for violence.
And it's not that dictionaries dictate our lives or courts have worked out what is and isn't illegal, it's that we can't coexist or communicate if people pretend words mean things they don't.
More importantly: not everything that's bad and horrible is therefore "violence."
Another nuance: SimpleStacker steps in fron of you and pulls out a sharp knife. Give me your money (well, you know, đ˝). You hand them over and Stacker is on his way. Violence?
Sure. While no punches or stabs delivered, the credible threat of stabs is definitely violence.
Is there an analogy to woke college students feeling unsafe when exposed to "dangerous ideas"? Nope. Is your example of child suicide closer? Sure.