We're seeing high bets the day before, such that the bet goes through without too many people noticing and adjusting. Maybe forbidding bets X days before deadline would help to reduce chance of insider trading?
Or just shut down the whole thing. Bets on bombing is truly immoral and downright despicable.
I'm not an American but unfortunately I don't share the optimism. Your president shows time and time again he does what he wants, whether it's immoral or illegal or not within his power to do. And a majority turn a blind eye, especially his party. Some examples (correct me if I'm wrong): starting 2 wars; very questionable anti deportation methods by ICE; a DOGE that was ruthless and dumb; renaming a branch (ministry of war) in effect while in theory not having such power; pardoning crypto currencies pundits who have business with him; ties to pump and dump scams. Not to mention ties to Eppstein.
My prediction: in a vendetta, because they chose to contradict him publicly, and his cronies will put high pressure to have anthropic out of everything touching the government, and any rebel will be fired for an unrelated cause. The high profile CEOs (those we were attending his inauguration) will avoid anthropic, lest they find their selves out of some profitable contract or in some unrelated tribunal issue. Anyone in his party will surely avoid them too.
Anthropic is a good example of my point, judges are blocking that action.
The president has always had these powers, starting wars hasn’t been a congressional power since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice were all police actions by the president.
For the most part he can do what he wants at first, but the system eventually pulls back. It’s happened with ICE, it’s happened with Anthropic, it’s happened with interest rates and pressure to effect fed reserve chairs.
Nope, not at all. Or maybe I do feel a bit useless against the AI slop and FOMO that gets pushed around. But the field is still gonna need engineers to do the non-slop work, or to fix it when it goes wrong.
(I use AI daily BTW.)
As someone said: AI will take our jobs when the execs are able to state their requirements precisely. We're safe!
Just because two things are "annoying", doesn't mean they have the same ethical problems.
The fun single player games only need to convince you they are a fun experience and you should buy them once.
Games with loot boxes are trying to convince you every day to spend money on them. Dunno about roblox, but often the items are visible, and "defaults" are often perceived as poor or noobs.
We can't be naive: It's a whole other level and companies are spending millions on manipulating kids to spending more and more money.
Counter-argument: we're talking about saving a handful of bucks for something that lasts months. Do it if you find it fun - I tried it and didn't like the work nor spice under my fingernails, at all.
My preferences in cooking are like software: high level is fun (cooking dishes), low level is annoying (growing or producing ingredients).
I also like making cocktails. A brief try with homemade coffee licqueurs was disappointing - knowing a couple of good brands, I can buy and enjoy them, no hassle. Closest to preparing ingredients I do is occasionally doing batches of "super juice", where you squeeze a bunch of limes and add some conservatives and enhancers (and water), that increase the yield, flavor and shelf life by a lot. Then it's really practical to just use the juice like a normal ingredient, versus having the cytrus available having to squeeze them and having more stuff to clean.
It's much harder to predict exactly than to dismiss anything slightly off.
But the tendency is showing: in my country, we're getting records in extreme temperatures, forrest fires and storms.
But a study 1% can be dismissed, some random in a basement 99% off can be believed. This just says: many people are just looking for a confirmation of their beliefs, not evidence. And many companies play this game (supporting the right politicians, spreading disinformation aka lies, etc), because there are billions at stake.
This is a tactic I'm seeing more in politics. When it's in the interests of a group for something to pass, but they don't want the blame, they can abstain or defer. It still goes through and if it goes wrong they can argue it's not their fault. Win/win for them.
reply