faceh
12hr ago
If a standard user spends time and mental energy placing a well-thought investment in a prediction market and some inside trader swoops in and capitalizes, that's going to leave a sour taste and disincentivize them from using the site.
Hopefully that teaches them to expend a bit more mental energy thinking "hmmm, how many people might possess private information that will let them beat me in this market despite all my research?"
Perhaps this is a bit far-out, but eventually these sites could become dominated by inside traders seeking to effectively launder money with minimal involvement from anyone who doesn't insider trade.
To me that's a dream outcome. I'd like to just hook up to an API that pulls prediction market odds in real time (but doesn't TRADE on them) so I have a preternaturally accurate 'Oracle' I can query about uncertain events. Make the insiders work for me, rather than trade against them.
And eventually people will probably build 'insurance' products on top of these markets, which requires them to be more accurate and liquid. "Oh you're worried that your wedding day might be rained out? We'll sell you a contract that pays out 10x if it happens to rain on that day in that location."
faceh
12hr ago
It isn't hard to look at a market and go "how much insidering could there be?" If you want to bet into it, that's fine, that's your decision.
I wonder if someone smarter than me could come up with an "insider vulnerability index" that can be affixed to certain markets to give laypeople an approximate idea of how susceptible a given market is to a small cabal of insiders shifting the odds due to private knowledge or access.
Boxing matches being obviously riggable, large weather events being unriggable (unless you're a HAARP believer), and national elections sort of being in the middle.
Does this sound insane to anyone else?
Do you want the "prediction" in "prediction market" to mean something other than "massed guessing" or do you want the price to reflect as much information as possible so users can actually rely on the market price for other things?
I can understand the urge to want everyone to be playing around with the 'same' information, for fairness' sake, and the person who can use that info to best guess the outcome wins, but there's all KINDS of private, otherwise inaccessible information out there that it would be beneficial to draw into the open by incentivizing insiders.
An Nvidia employee could make a prediction market about an upcoming chip, or an Apple employee about an upcoming iPhone.
This information can benefit people who don't even participate in the market to have, is the thing. Seeing that there's suddenly an 85% chance of a new, completely unannounced iPhone being released is potentially useful, and you're under no obligation to trade against that info.
You WANT someone who has some specific, meaningful information to trade on it ASAP so as to update the price and disseminate that info to others who may be able to utilize it in their own trades or inform their own actions.
The unfortunate fact that a lot of people DO choose to gamble against potential insiders is really the only part I find morally questionable. Pumping and dumping and wash trading and hype trains happen all the time in 'regular' markets, though. Should people have been stopped from trading GME during the short squeeze? People got a tad pissed when exchanges blocked them from trading.
A gambler made nearly half a million dollars on the capture of Venezuela's president just before it was officially announced, raising questions about whether someone profited from inside knowledge of the US operation.
The funniest thing possible would be if it was Nicholas Maduro himself, trading on his polymarket account right as his door was being kicked in.
Not really endorsing your post, but there is a REAL problem with women refusing to advertise their 'true' status in any way that might give up the game before a guy invests attention in her. Even being on a dating app isn't proof positive that she's available and serious.
Girls will have dozens of photos on Insta of just herself in various states of dress and undress, and you'll only find out she has a boyfriend after you've been texting sporadically back and forth for a month (happened to me recently).
Of course the wannabe SBs and the OF purveyors want to hide that until they think they've got you invested enough to slide down the sales funnel.
Yet even 'honest' girls will elide their current relationship status insofar as they'll neglect to mention their ongoing FWB situations or that they're still pining over a guy back home and they'd drop everything to move back there with him (also happened to me). Why not, you know, include him in some photos or at least acknowledge that he's there?
A guy might not know exactly what sort of woman he pulled until 3-6 months into the interaction. Its maddening.
When I learned that the Germans used to have a traditional method for women to advertise their availability I got kinda mad that we don't use similar systems any more.
As a result, it is utterly rational for a guy to assume there's a hidden caveat when a girl 'presents' as single but isn't really open about what that means to her. And that means withholding investment until he is reassured she's actually available and isn't about to spring the "please pay my rent this month" trap.
faceh
13hr ago
Agreed.
That was the very instant they gave up any pretense of "oh yeah we had this planned since Season 1."
I also question the logic of "the wormhole creates an instant upside-down copy of Hawkins" buttt doesn't create a similar copy of the world on the other end of the portal.
And now that I'm sitting here thinking of it, the properly executed version of this could have made for a perfect Anthology series. Just have a different portal to a different world open up in a different town/time period, and the effect on the locals will change based on the nature of the world on the other side of the portal. New cast of characters, new 'monsters' or whatever, and new time period to nostalgize.
Anyway.
I guess I'm just saying, I could pay money to a hooker and then say "I banged an absolute 10/10 last night!" and be completely honest, pull out a photo showing her on my arm, and this might gain me some status points with the boys until it comes out that she is in fact a high-class hooker. Then all that bravado dissipates.
Buttttt, if I pull that same hooker with my own wiles and charm I can say "hey guys lol I banged a 10/10 escort last night without paying" then that might get me even more status because I just demonstrated value above and beyond being wealthy that can overcome even a working girl's cynicism.
Or so I'd expect. Thus its not the sex-having itself that is the flex, its the "girls find me attractive/interesting enough to give it up for free" part. Absolute social proof.
(for me, I'm genuinely at the point where sex doesn't mean much at all unless its with someone I have a true intimacy with, and so guys flexing their conquests leaves me mildly envious but not particularly threatened).
From what I understand of him, he might be hyper-autistic enough that HE won't feel like the conversion is genuine unless his condition is so bad that he has no choice but to actually take a leap of faith and call up on a higher power.
Or maybe I'm projecting my own faith experience on him.
Either way, he's written a bit of philosophy on this which suggests he's really tried to reconcile science and religion and is like, I dunno, 80% to being a believer.
This whole situation is very unique. Got a guy who hasn't rejected religion, isn't really an atheist, but clearly doesn't follow Christian rules, and is basically livestreaming his final days and stating his full intent to try to get into heaven, and is about as detached and neutral about the situation as a human can be.
faceh
15hr ago
I'm convinced I'm less wrong than you are, that's the extent of my claim. I'm surely still wrong in some ways.
If you have any articulate reason to believe you're right, I would view your logic and arguments with interest.
But if not, then I will continue to present my arguments in ways that will hopefully convince the other readers that you are wrong, OR inspire one of them to bring forward an insight.
If neither you nor I are going to learn anything from this, well, I'm satisfied with some third party learning from me.
Sabrina Carpenter's most popular songs are basically about exasperation and/or toying with men. The title of her latest album is at least a little ironic.
Sydney Sweeney likes to show off her boobs and wear blue jeans.
I need to read that one.
Added to my library pull list.
Funny to bring up the Jesus thing. Scott Adams (Dilbert guy) is very near death, and he has claimed the intention to convert to Christianity.
Leaving aside whether that is a true conversion under Christian doctrine, its a ridiculous approach to minmaxing to live life a certain way all up until the very last moments then hit the "I want eternal bliss" button at the end, consciously trying to stave it off rather than just, you know, doing it.
Women have a particularly stark issue here, where part of their ideal strat for maximizing happiness is to have kids, which has a fairly sharp biological cutoff, so one would think they should try to satisfy that element early on. But cultural advice is to get other goals out of the way first, then play a game of baby fever chicken in your late 20's/early 30's. The tradeoff probably seems reasonable looking at it from the perspective of a 20-year-old.
I've noticed several female friends and acquaintances who developed their professional careers and now are just sliding under the fertility wire by having a kid (twins, in one case) with some guy who... I mean he's in the picture, but they are distinctly NOT married to him.
Time will tell how that turns out for them, but its also a bit unfair to the child, you ask me. One of the issues with minmaxing is you forget that other people's interests are entangled with your own.
faceh
16hr ago
I like what you're laying down.
Minmaxing seems to be in vogue now.
Nobody really wants to do the slow, steady, 'reliable' path. And, granted, I think there are fewer of those nowadays, given the pace of change.
You're 'losing' if you only bought index funds rather than YOLOing on NVDA.
One can also compare and contrast how, for example, Billionaires like Soros, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos have spent their fortunes.
A simple illustration of your point is the fear of the "Gold-Digger" woman who only loves you for your wealth. So guys sometimes go to pains to conceal the extent of the wealth to see if they can land a girl without ostentatious displays.
and then... some guys go ALL IN on ostentatious displays, going into debt to give the appearance of wealth and hoping to fool women long enough to lock them down.
People can arguably choose which games to actively compete in, and their particular goals in it will inform strategy.
But if you're not implementing a minmax strat, playing for the 'meta,' you can feel like you're losing constantly in the short term.
It seems like women are driving themselves to literal insanity playing status games in terms of shopping, competitive travelling and social media without actually getting much in return. Machu Pichu pics and bikini pics on Instagram, fast fashion and keeping up with micro trends and expensive handbags are largely irrelevant for women's success in life.
I don't think they are actually fighting for male attention. I think this is ingroup status signalling and woman trying to be more popular among women. The prize seems less tangible.
I've seen the argument that a lot of this is women picking up their trends downstream of what GAY MEN are saying is 'in.' I.e. gay men are gatekeepers in fashion, media, travel, and dating, to some large degree. So their tastes (and attitudes!) are thus picked up by those most attentive to such things.
I think there's truth there, and no, not some large 'conspiracy'. Just a disconnect. If women keep doing things they believe men like (as taught by gay men) and yet do not get (straight) men they actually want interested in them... something something definition of insanity.
By and large, Straight men are pretty directly signalling "We like tig ol' bitties and approachable, kind personalities, with the idealized representation of femininity being Sydney Sweeney." Meanwhile Sabrina Carpenter is who gets aggressively marketed and celebrated.
All a girl needs to really appeal to even a decently high-value guy is be a 'beautiful mid' who expresses some interest in his hobbies, and isn't a pain to be around.
(You can spot this dynamic in practice with the "SEC Couples" trend).
faceh
19hr ago
Its an odd clash between our primal lizard/ape brain and our more economizing higher mammal brain that we seem to be well aware that "sex" is cheap in the abstract, you can find it with just a little effort and risk, and if you have some cash can acquire it, in varying degrees of quality.
Got specific names for it and everything. High end "sugar babies," low end "lot lizards."
So its not like some hard-to-acquire thing that has intrinsic value due to its rarity.
But... acquiring it from decent-looking women without having to pay out for it (up front, especially) usually means you're an absolute high-value stud who will literally be the envy of other men.
Status-seeking interacts with sexual politics in some odd ways here. If I have, I dunno, about 4-5k, I could spend the night with some of the most gorgeous women on the planet (so my research suggests). But I don't think that would, by itself, afford me any extra status points, and would in many contexts lower my status.
So its a commodity, but also something way, way more important.
Yep.
I once again point out how Andrew Tate 'gets away' with it by cultivating such a ridiculously outsized villain persona that this critique just rolls off him.
But it'd be really nice if you didn't have to adopt a villain persona to be taken 'seriously' rather than dismissed outright for broaching the forbidden topic.
Even couching it as genuine care for womens' wellbeing gets vilified.
Uh, do these women bragging about how much they read come out and say ‘yeah, it’s all porn’? I’m pretty sure they don’t and pointing it out is impolite due to the subject of conversation.
Ha.
Hahah.
HAahaahah.
Not only that, they're trying to normalize it by suggesting men should learn from it. Check out the likes on the subject video.
Here's at least one example of a lady showing off her reading habits. 45.2 Million views. 124k loves on twitter.
Guess the content of most of those books.
Of course, there's plenty of people roasting her for the particular choice of novel. Just far more coming to her defense.
I've also delved a tiny bit into so-called "Booktok."
Try it sometime!
I’m also not aware of pornstars getting much adulation
Bonnie Blue has gotten to go on mainstream shows for interviews now.
Her own mother is on record as tacitly approving.
Basically, she might be one of the most 'well-known' (infamy, if not actual fame) British women in the world these days.
Hard to find any 'official' condemnation of her actions, but a lot of manosphere (Tate included) commentary, and tons of people making money off her indirectly or directly. Bali did arrest her which she of course turned into more publicity.
She's fueled a mini attention-industry and every ounce of attention is just prolonging her presence in the Zeitgeist.
Look, I'll make this clear, as that is the spirit of this whole forum:
I do not care about being an edgelord, I do not care if you are offended, or if you are flattered. I care about being correct.
Edgelords end up being correct in some cases because they can speak on matters that polite people will carefully ignore.
Being correct is not a necessary condition for being an edgelord, however.
If my being (mostly) correct makes you think I'm an edgelord, whatever. I hold a ton of other opinions that are 'edgy' to some crowds but very normal in others. I'm not trying to shock or offend anyone.
If anything, its "heh heh my chance to be a high decoupler." But even that isn't really accurate. Being a decoupler is also adaptive in the legal field, though.
If you want me to shut up about this topic; or ideally, you want me to come around to your side and agree that you're correct, there's plenty you can do.
- Find data that contradicts mine, and show me my data is flawed.
I personally keep trying to find data that disagrees with me. The unfortunate truth is the more I look I keep stumbling across more data that suggests the other data is accurate and my position is correct.
-
Point out where my analysis is flawed. I'm taking good data and misinterpreting it, or missing a lot of context, or am engaging in clearly biased/motivated reasoning.
-
Point out where my premises are flawed.
-
Show me a superior theory that is still supported by good data.
If its NOT the case that women have gotten progressively less appealing to men, less mentally stable, more antisocial, more unpleasant and unhappy, and that this seems uncorrelated to male behavior...
Well, what is the competing interpretation?
-
Point out a solution that I'm missing, or explain how the problem isn't a problem, or the problem will go away on its own.
-
Point out actual counterexamples that show my position is not a sufficient explanation of the observed data/phenomenon.
Basically, I'm sitting here with data I think is mostly solid, all pointing in the same direction, with a general theory/interpretation of it that completely explains the data I'm seeing, and suggests particular solutions to the nature of the problem.
And EVERY TIME I ENGAGE WITH SOMEONE WHO THINKS I'M WRONG, they utterly fail to undermine or effectively attack any pillar on which I've formed this belief. Its all argument from some position of personal belief that doesn't appear to be informed by true facts in the world, and often is based on experience that is utterly outdated from a time before the problem manifested in earnest (read: older than 10 years, before dating apps arose).
I remain open to being persuaded. But I will simply no sell the social pressure and shaming attempts. I do not care if you think its 'cringe,' I do not hold your (or anyone elses') opinion of me in high enough regard for that to matter.
If you find this personally discomfiting I'm 'sorry' but this is one of the few places on the internet where social pressure is not a defining variable in how our discourse proceeds. I want you to come back with an earth-shattering insight that proves this part of my worldview incorrect. I will not respond to attempts to prove my worldview 'icky,' or 'unpopular' or 'impolite' or 'just c'mon dude really how can you say that?'
faceh
20hr ago
Yes, and I'm saying "we accept that most 13 year olds can and will make horrendous decisions, and we try to correct those decisions without making it out as a double standard where only SOME teens are culpable whereas others are not."
And its probably not good to overreact and treat teen guys as evil rapists for an action that objectively speaking involved no physical force or coercion.
Fair distillation in my book.
Its crazy how we've come around to the "porn is bad (from the feminist perspective) but women should be rewarded for producing it" (see: Bonnie Blue) point of view as a seeming cultural default.
Then add the additional wrinkle where men who are excessive porn consumers (where 'excessive' is a moving target, mind), or otherwise admit to partaking are still ostracized... even though the action of consuming porn is, I'd say, objectively less degrading and disgusting than the acts involved in producing the hardcore stuff.
There's sort of an implicit "if you're a male porn addict you're pathetic and its good that your money is going to women, even though we wish women would instead choose to not produce porn at all" subtext or something.
And on top of that women can read the most egregiously pornographic books and make them best-sellers... and we're all pretty aware that they're getting off to these things in private, but once again they can claim this makes them 'bookworms' and get a certain amount of adulation from admitting it.
There's an absolutely fair argument "real porn is produced by real people and depicts genuine suffering" vs. words on a page.
But as far as the psychological impact on the consumer I'd wager they're quite similar.
The fully cynical view is that the women are wonderful effect just dominates all cultural narratives. Human psychology is bent against criticizing attractive women, and so if women are engaging in [taboo/disgusting acvitity] maybe many humans will just contort their thought processes to find that thing really good actually, as long as its women doing it.
That's not the explanation I'd run with, I think it just frames the issue properly.
faceh
1d ago
That this is all organized by Somali gangs, with the gang leaders bringing retribution on any family that doesn't go along with it. Investigators like David also get threatened with violence.
Dang.
I might have to retract my this isn't a violent mafia statement.
The feds need to come purge the entire state government of Minnesota on charges of racketeering and voter fraud.
I'm genuinely wondering if its possible for that particular electorate, even if all elections are fair and accurately done, to muster up the anger that would be necessary to impose accountability, remove the bad actors (in government, I'm not even talking about the Somalis), and reshape things to mitigate fraud issues going forward.
My model of the modal Minnesotan would say they're not quite capable of that sort of drastic actions, they'd rather keep the stiff upper lip and make moderate adjustments and hope things get better.
Can "The Minnesotan begin to hate?" Seems unlikely.
faceh
3d ago
Funny enough I believe that would sort of be a start.
But if she decides she wants to physically leave and, e.g. shack up with the first dude who will take her in, or convince someone to purchase her a new phone (maybe in exchange for favors, maybe not), or (most likely) just relegate her activities to solely when she's in school, what are your real options?
Is there ever a point where physically restraining/detaining her is appropriate?
faceh
3d ago
Well you specifically said it there. "Legal" consequences.
What other sorts of consequences might have regulated this particular aspect of the economy?
There's presumably some middle ground between "try to stamp it out entirely via force of law" and "suggesting that prostitution is a bad career choice for almost all women is a bannable offense."
faceh
3d ago
I mean, I can run you through the entire philosophical underpinnings of the Anglo Legal Tradition that explains the "harms" that, e.g. physically damaging a person's body, or removing funds they 'earned' without their permission, or demolishing objects that belong to them entail.
I did go to school for that after all.
But somehow I think you'd be nonplussed.
faceh
3d ago
Intent. If you mean to pay your electricity bill but by mistake send $200 to Mr. Random, do you expect Mr. Random to send you back the money or not?
But this is my point.
You send money to the wrong person, you are losing that money (at least, as represented by the database entry in your bank account) and thus getting it back is how you are made 'whole.'
You send a photo to the wrong recipient... you have not lost the photo.
There is no 'harm' in this case because there is no detriment to your interests and no cognizable 'right' that has been impugned.
This seems so basic and obvious to me that I'm REALLY curious as to how you can equate these two events in your mind.
And so it sounds like we're worried about something other than a child's consent being present or not.
And of course, you're seemingly expecting that the female side of the equation isn't going to be mature and wise enough to make good decisions here and thus is not blameworthy.
But you get young guys, who are similarly immature and unwise, and you expect them to behave with maximum propriety, and if they do not, then they should expect immediate and swift reprisal. I don't see why leniency due to inexperience and immaturity absolves one but not the other.
If we think kids engaging in uninhibited sexual activity is bad, and, in that vein, that sharing nudes is bad, I simply suggest that we are concerned for reasons orthogonal to 'consent' and should thus apply rules that restrict all the parties' behaviors, possibly for their own good, regardless of who did or did not agree.
Mostly the latter.
But, for example, candidates can collude, a candidate can drop out and endorse another, there's a few ways to nudge outcomes with 'guaranteeing' them.
Hell, a candidate could bet against themselves if they know that their opponent is about to drop some really juicy opposition research but also knows most of it is provably false.
More options
Context Copy link