@zoink's banner p

zoink


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 23:23:49 UTC

				

User ID: 753

zoink


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 23:23:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 753

To toot my own horn I think I was the first to post in the old thread with time zones it's hard for me to say but I think I posted within a few hours of the shooting.

A woman in Minneapolis has been killed in an altercation with ICE. I don’t really trust any of the narratives being spun up. Here are two three angles:

Angle 1

Angle 2 [Twitter] [youtube]

Angle 3 (Emerged as I was writing this)

This is actually a fairly discussed type of shooting. Law enforcement confronts a person in a vehicle, the LEO positions himself in front of the vehicle, the person in the vehicle drives forward, and the cop shoots the person. Generally, courts have found that this is a legitimate shoot. The idea being that a car can be as deadly a weapon as anything.

Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.

I have a long history of discussing shooters in self-defense situations [1] [2] [3] and also one of being anti-LEO. However, I’m softer on the anti-LEO front in the sense that within the paradigm in which we exist, most people think the state should enforce laws, and that the state enforcing laws = violence.

The slippery slope for me: “Fleeing police shouldn’t be a death sentence”

“Resisting arrest shouldn’t be a death sentence”

“If you just resist hard enough, you should be able to get away with it”

People really try to divorce the violence from state action, but the state doesn’t exist without it.

Criticizing insider trading in the stock market is one thing but criticizing it in prediction markets is another. Harnessing insider information is a reason Robin Hansen pioneered the concept of prediction markets.

I understand why utilitarian arguments exist against insider trading, but deontologically I'm having trouble getting to it being unethical.

Any regulation can be rationalized. Burqas are mandated to mitigate lusting after women because lusting after women leads to all kinds of untoward things.

Investing wins long term because of overall market growth, not information disparities. Wisdom of the crowds only works in unbiased markets. The famous examples work unless you shove a bunch of lead weights up the cow's ass or put ping pong balls in the middle of the jar of jelly beans. Insider trading increases accuracy, reducing volatility on net, long term. This is good for long term growth.

Prediction markets are zero sum to begin with, so I don't expect them to survive long-term without subsidies

I'll take that bet /s Gambling is zero sum and is one of the most persistent markets that has ever existed.

Does this sound insane to anyone else?

Using congressional insider trading as a rough proxy, the vast majority of people are vehemently against insider trading. People have a knee-jerk reaction to unfairness (caveats abound) and thus insider trading must be prevented. Being a libertarian, I'm much more comfortable with unfairness than the general public.

How is liquidity more important than accuracy in long term market outcomes?

I believe a big issue with child rearing discourse - relationship discourse for that matter - is that people really need to define what they are talking about. Before this one sleep training blew up on my feed where the range of believed practices seemed to be from letting your 3 week old scream until they pass out to not immediately running to pick up your six month old if they made any noise whatsoever.

Complaining about 10 minutes is weird, but it's not like I spend hours playing with my 2 year old. On weekdays I probably "actively play" with him less than 30 minutes a day. We interact more then that but it's just touch points. We'll interact for a minute and then he'll go back to doing his own thing.

This comic will always be with us. It amuses me that in the comment section it's talking about Net Neutrality. Remember that massive culture-war issue and how it completely disappeared?

This is one of those losing things that only weirdos think should not be illegal. That's the cross us libertarians bear. Though, unlike price gouging and insider trading, which I think are good things, this does fall under the "immoral" and should come with severe social ramifications. Just like many things, if it is going to be illegal, the law should not pertain to the tool but to the person who misuses the tool. But hey, I guess we just make it illegal to get some things done while your car warms up.