This is exactly what the article is arguing people are doing when betting on the Jesus thing:
> [Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
...
> Has this galaxy-brained trade ever gone well? Yes! In late October of last year — a week before the election — Kamala Harris was trading around 0.3% in safe red states like Kentucky, while Donald Trump was trading around 0.3% in safe blue states like Massachusetts. On election day, these prices skyrocketed to about 1.5%, because “No” bettors desperately needed cash to place other bets on the election. Traders who bought “Yes” for 0.3% in late October and sold at 1.5% on election day made a 5x profit!
No, not really. What I was doing was playing predictable spikes in volatility in the market over a long span - theoretically i could have done it forever had the market never closed. I also doubt the hillary market moved because of liquidation needs in other markets - it was driven almost entirely by conspiracy theory news. I followed it very closely, it was not this at all.
I'm pretty sure the comment was sarcastic. The grandparent comment was so over the top with its moral outrage that sarcasm feels like about the only appropriate response.
I am now realizing that it was most likely sarcastic after reading your comment and am now wondering how I didn't take the extreme speech as obvious sarcasm before.
Should've know when they said interpreters and compilers.
Incidentally I replied with sarcasm to theirs as well so it all works out.
This opens the door for fully legalized bribery. Which is already happening. The SEC recently asked a judge to halt its own investigation into Justin Sun for fraud after he bought $75 million worth of Trump's WLF coin, $56 million of which went directly to Trump, immediately after the election. The case now will likely get dropped completely.
What's to stop foreign governments from doing the same thing, if they aren't already?
I am against meme coins, but ruling them to be collectibles like a trading card makes sense to me. How is a meme coin different than a baseball card? What about a virtual baseball card or other virtual item from CSGO or World of Warcraft?
To bolster my point, one could face the same corruption issue we face today with baseball cards: Trump could own a limited-edition baseball card; foreign governments then could then buy all the other prints of the same card, lowering the supply and raising the demand of Trump’s collectible. One can thus see how anyone can use any collectible as a means to corruption in the same ways that meme coins can be used.
I am illustrating why the SEC ruling is not completely unfounded on first pass. However, I think meme coins have a higher chance of being used for scams (and corruption, but that is a separate point) because there is an implicit promise that this product will induce a return and because the coin is rarely an ends in itself. But how do you regulate people’s intention? You can’t read people’s minds and force people to not to buy a collectible for the sole purpose of making a return on investment. I think people would find it ridiculous to tell pawn shops to not buy a Pokémon card if the shop treated the item solely as a means to flip, for example. Moreover, such market participants are beneficial because they offer liquidity to more sincere buyers and sellers.
I am not sure what logically consistent and beneficial regulations around meme coins would look like, but with more thinking than I have been able to put into this topic, I am sure one could come up with some. My instinct is SEC regulating the tokenomics to maximize transparency and force the creators to release the tokens in a way that won’t allow them to “rug pull” would be a good starting point. I think I would not be opposed to such relegations in any collectibles market, making the regulations logically consistent.
Regarding the president of the United States, Jimmy Carter was forced to sell his peanut farm to avoid conflicts of interest. I think that anyone who becomes the president of the United States should have to liquidate their whole net worth — collectibles and all — and put it into an independent fund that they have no control over. They will then get a set percentage amount of money from this fund every year, and everything left over when they die goes to their presidential library. They are not allowed to take money from anywhere else ever again. That would fix this corruption problem for good and has the added benefit of deterring people from running who just want to use the office for their own personal gain.
The only reason he tried to get out of it was because tech stocks tanked shortly after the bid and he knew he could have gotten it for far cheaper than the $44B. The entire time it was happening I was convinced that if he could get out of the bid he would immediately make another one for around $30B and still buy his favorite addiction. People like him and their motivations aren't that hard to read.
He wasn't _forced_ to buy anything. He was forced to pay what he promised for it.
I wonder if this effect can be explained by the we form the "bouba"/"kiki" sounds when we speak them. "Kiki" has a sharper enunciation when using your tongue and mouth to form it, while "bouba" feels more like an open round one.
This question narrows the scope of "safety" to something less than what the people at SD or even probably what OP cares about. _Non-random_ CSAM requests targeting potentially real people is the obvious answer here, but even non-CSAM sexual content is also a probably a threat. I can understand frustration with it currently going overboard on blurring, but removing safety checks altogether would result in SD mainly being associated with porn pretty quickly, which I'm sure Stability AI wants to avoid for the safety of their company.
Add to that, parents who want to avoid having their kids generate sexual content would now need to prevent their kids from using this tool because it can create it randomly, limiting SD usage to kids 18+ (which is probably something else Stability AI does not want to deal with.)
It's definitely a balance between going overboard and having restrictions though. I haven't used SD in several months now so I'm not sure where that balance is right now.
> non-CSAM sexual content is also a probably a threat
To whom? SD's reputation, perhaps - but that ship has already sailed with 1.x. That aside, why is generated porn threatening? If anything, anti-porn crusaders ought to rejoice, given that it doesn't involve actual humans performing all those acts.
As I said, it means parents who don't want their young children seeing porn (whether you agree with them or not) would no longer be able to let their children use SD. I'm not making a statement on what our society should or shouldn't allow, I'm pointing out what _is currently_ the standard in the United States and many other, more socially conservative, countries. SD would become more heavily regulated, an 18+ tool in the US, and potentially banned in other countries.
You can have your own opinion on it, but surely you can see the issue here?
I can definitely see an argument for a "safe" model being available for this scenario. I don't see why all models SD releases should be so neutered, however.
How many of those parents would have the technical know-how to stop their lids from playing with SD? Give the model some “I am over 18” checkbox fig leaf and let them have their fun.
> The harm to society of people who need them not getting pain drugs far outweighs the pain to society of those who don’t need them abusing them.
How do you measure that? Opioid overdoses accounted for at least 72,800 deaths last year [0] and there are countless more addicts out there whose entire lives are ruined because of that addiction. Many of those people, if they ever recover, will never take opioids again for any real medical pain relief like you did for your wisdom teeth because of the very real risk of relapse. Additionally, opioid withdrawal is, according to almost everyone who's gone through it, is one of the worst experiences you can feel.
I'm not taking the side that it definitely doesn't outwheigh the need of those who genuinely need them. On the whole I actually probably agree with that. But stating that so confidently and ignoring the very real pain, lost lives, and broken families caused by opioid addiction because you had your wisdom teeth pulled and wanted opioids feels pretty dismissive and not a serious argument.
The incidence rate is per year and the study was over an average of 32 years per patient. At that rate you'd expect around 105 incidents instead of 4, although there are other considerations like age to take into account.
You can argue whether or not Palestinians deserve the response, but what makes you think Hamas does not represent Palestinians? A recent poll by the Arab World for Research and Development shows that 75% of Palestinians support both the October 7th attacks and Hamas's vision of a single, Palestinian-only state. And Hamas's vision to achieve this state is actual, literal genocide.
> [Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
...
> Has this galaxy-brained trade ever gone well? Yes! In late October of last year — a week before the election — Kamala Harris was trading around 0.3% in safe red states like Kentucky, while Donald Trump was trading around 0.3% in safe blue states like Massachusetts. On election day, these prices skyrocketed to about 1.5%, because “No” bettors desperately needed cash to place other bets on the election. Traders who bought “Yes” for 0.3% in late October and sold at 1.5% on election day made a 5x profit!