> Prediction markets don't have any "natural" reason like that for excluding insider trading.
No, they have a different reason. Consider the consequences of a sufficiently large prediction market bet on whether or not <head of state> will be assassinated this year.
Consider also the consequences of insiders and decisionmakers having an immediate financial incentive to take the other side of a bet whose outcome they control.
I've read through ItCP. The illustrations were wonderful, but I was rather annoyed by the typeface.
... And somewhat disappointed by the conclusions. A Java compiler (sans an overview of limitations/capabilities, but I understand the limitations of the format), and a... Haskell library, which, unfortunately, is incredibly irrelevant to me.
How is this subject approached in practice? I'm fairly familiar with authentication (generally handed off to a bespoke service + library that abstracts away most of this for the end programmer), but my generalist experience with other coordination problems between distributed systems is that programmers tend to not be particularly rigorous about them - and try their best to break down cross-service relationships to very, very simple-to-implement-in-a-bespoke-fashion cases.
They absolutely do. On September 12, 2001, ~nobody in the United States was interested in starting a war with Iraq.
Two years of propaganda later, and all of a sudden, half the population had acquired keen geopolitical insights which necessitated an invasion and occupation of a country that had exactly fuck-all to do with 9/11.
A decade later, all of a sudden, nobody wanted to fess up to wanting anything to do with that mess.
Public wants aren't discovered in some interference-free democratic vacuum. The people who own the press put a millstone on their side of the scales.
> Two years of propaganda later, and all of a sudden, half the population had acquired keen geopolitical insights which necessitated an invasion and occupation of a country that had exactly fuck-all to do with 9/11
There was desire for vengeance on 12 September. Reporting and politicians channeled it. That’s very different from driving consensus against something people would otherwise support.
You're proving my point. The thumb was put on the scale, he public was bombarded 24/7 with self-serving false dichotomies and viola, you've just manufactured mass public support for insane bullshit.
It works the same way in other countries too. Look at any country that you believe to believe in insane shit - most of those beliefs aren't organic.
Neither are the insane things you believe in. It's just that you can't even see that they aren't the product of your own reasoning. Fish don't have a word for water.
> You're proving my point. The thumb was put on the scale, he public was bombarded 24/7 with self-serving false dichotomies and viola, you've just manufactured mass public support for insane bullshit.
See also Covid-19. Same shit only waaaaaaay more batshit insane and waaaaaaaay more crazy 24-7 fear mongering.
If you or Google have a plan to make the federal government stop shutting down renewable projects, we can re-examine the data center question after you carry it out.
You're a fund manager. What's the alternative? Throw your hands up and tell your customers to take all their money back, you don't want to get paid anymore?
Exactly. Barter is super insanely expensive in comparison with the most manipulated paper markets; thus, if you closed the current markets, the participants would be very highly incentivized to create a new one, which would likely be worse on all accounts.
No, they have a different reason. Consider the consequences of a sufficiently large prediction market bet on whether or not <head of state> will be assassinated this year.
Consider also the consequences of insiders and decisionmakers having an immediate financial incentive to take the other side of a bet whose outcome they control.
reply