Is anyone formulating prediction market questions asking AIs to brainstorm about edge cases in order to leave fewer of them uncovered by the market definition?
We do have humans brainstorming about such things, but this feels like something LLMs might be good at.
Everytime I think that prediction markets bets can't get worse, they do, all in weird ways. I never expected someone betting over when RFC 10,000 will be published but somehow its fits just about right for prediction markets.
just wow, people seem to be having too much money it seems for them to bet over when RFC's are gonna get released.
This isn't even one of the worst offenders on prediction market or even comparable to it but I am just amazed (in a negative manner, surprised? its just strange) by the depth on what people actually bet on these markets.
People aren't betting real money on this. Manifold uses "mana" points similar to HN karma, which is why you get more for-fun silly bets. I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. Disclosure: my mana net worth is 75k; I haven't been active on Manifold.
Interesting thing actually. Seems similar to the trend in South Korea recently where you can online shop to get the thrill of shopping but you aren't actually paying with money.
But I am unsure of the overlap between manifold and polymarket/kalshi. I imagine that some might win in manifold and try to bet on polymarket to win "real" money which ends up being a bit gambling-esque.
But good for manifold for atleast not playing with real money but rather points like this. I would argue that Manifold might be better than polygon/kalshi in terms of net positive outcome of its existence for the world perhaps.
There is an overlap between Manifold and Polymarket/Kalshi. At the very least, Polymarket is more liquid, which creates opportunities for arbitrage and incentives for Manifold users to follow Polymarket. There is something at stake on Manifold itself if you choose to pursue it. There have been ways to convert mana to charitable donations (to your preferred charity), tickets to Manifest (the Manifold conference), and also merch and now prize drawings. Mana is like HN karma in that being at the top gives you status and bragging rights and suggests technical competence.
BS check: $8T is $1000 per person on this planet. A healthy P/E ratio of 25 would translate to earning $40/year in profit from every person on the planet. SpaceX/Starlink obviously doesn’t just walk in and get everyone as a customer though. They have roughly 10 million customers right now. Let’s be generous and say they have 20 million. That $8T works out at $400K per customer valuation which at a 50 P/E would mean $8K/year/customer profit per customer or $666/month/customer profit. Those are generous numbers. Scaling back to 10 million customers and 25 P/E would require $2666/month/customer in profit to get to $8T valuation. For Internet service?
Not that it materially changes your point, but I would not be surprised if Starlink reaches 200 million customers at some point, even with my other comment about Musk personally being increasingly seen as a political security risk, the increasing distrust of globalisation, and the new trend of sovereign-shoring.
$8T/(unreasonably high 50 P/E)/200M customers/12 months = $66.67 profit (not revenue) per customer per month.
The moment Musk's reality distortion bubble stops functioning, his brands' PE ratios are likely to revert to the 5-15 levels of comparable businesses.
7/11 Japan really benefits from urban density, which in turn makes the distribution of fresher food and smaller footprint stores much more of a factor.
The distribution network even shows up in maps. There will be clusters of 7/11 in Japanese cities which is more efficient than spreading them equally.
You really missed the opportunity here. You were meant to bill for the review, assessment, report production, and risks judged when coming up with that 25%.
Most businesses don’t grow just by churning out more units of software. At some point, it doesn’t matter how quickly you can churn out features if you’re not solving customer problems and convincing customers that they should pay for those solutions.
Once software becomes cheap, the bottleneck to growth shift to product design, infrastructure/manufacturing, sales and support.
Our local toy store is a member of marketing cooperative and yours might be too.
They are wonderful and a perfect example of a local toy store - a wide variety, personal service and free gift wrapping on all purchases (a life saver for anyone with kids and a birthday party to go to seemingly every other weekend).
Because - until it makes its way through the courts - it’s not established that Fender has the rights to claim ownership of on the shape in the first place.
In the US, there’s three routes for that - design patent, trade dress and artistic copyright. AFAIK they don’t have a design patent. Trade dress is hard to prove association - would most people on the street say “yep, that’s 100% a Stratocaster” if they say the outline? Probably not. The shape isn’t separate from the functionality so artistic copyright hasn’t upheld either. The fact that Fender has not successfully enforced copyright concerns for over 70 years is also a sign that they never had IP protection on the shape.
In the US, I'm pretty sure they have no protection. They lost a US case to establish a trademark in 2009 [1] (2009 article title says copyright, but text is about a trademark suit). A design patent would have expired, unless it was filed in 1954 and was pending until recently or is still pending... US patents filed before 1995 don't start their validity period until issuance, but that'd be a big stretch.
It's possible there's a US copyright claim, but on a 1954 design, you would have to have registered it, marked the works with the copyright (on at least most of the copies), and timely renewed. There's also, IMHO, a solid question of if US copyright applies to the shape of a guitar. If they had a strong case, I think they would have tried to enforce on it in 2009 when they tried to enforce on trademark.
There’s a story, possibly apocryphal, that the first electric guitar demo was a bunch of strings nailed to some basic lumber and it received a negative reception. The designer went home, tore apart his acoustic guitar and mounted the electronics inside. The sound was not changed by this. The critical reception however was much improved. And the rest is history.
The shape might not be purely functional—and that seems to be the basis for their attempted lawsuit.
The "log" (generally dated to 1941) is the railroad sleeper ("tie" for Americans?) with wings made in the Epiphone factory in Manhattan attached to the side, and is in the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville. This is the guitar that Gibson turned down until Fender and Bigsby (via Merle Travis) popularized the solid body guitar.
The predecessor was a single string on a piece of actual rail and two spikes, amplified by a telephone receiver in the mid-late 1920s.
Money wouldn’t just be diverted from other US stocks though.
Foreign money has increasing buying power as USD weakens against certain currencies and the upside of these IPOs is certainly more attractive to global investors than parking money is lack luster real-estate or bond or cash alternatives.
https://manifold.markets/CollectedOverSpread/when-will-rfc-1...
reply