Anyone who bets against "Leslie will take X action" when Leslie can participate in the betting is, indeed, a real loser.

The problem I have with people who think compulsive/poor gamblers only hurt themselves and just "get what they deserve" is that compulsive/poor gamblers steal money from people around them to feed their problem/disease, and also have dependents who are in no position to shield themselves from the consequences of those actions.

As usual, if every person was an island, life would seem much more "fair" and simple, but people are not islands. As a society, we hold immense value in being able to do certain drugs, and so fine, we accept that collateral damage will occur. But what is the societal upside of allowing a company to exploit "real losers" in this case?

The entire point is you can argue over the definition, so if there's an argument to be had, what do you expect when betting on it? One can't argue about a number, but we can sure argue over what is the definition of the word "invasion". Yet another reason why prediction markets are bound for shit like this. I cannot imagine why somebody would choose to bet over something in which the book holder gets to decide what constitutes a successful prediction (I mean, other than being a compulsive gambler, of course .. just another industry taking advantage of people who have problems to exploit)

Except insiders are insiders not just because they have inside information but because they have *influence* on events leading to price changes. What you're doing is advocating for the legalization of yummy conflicts of interests which pits people's mission for an organization against their own influence on manipulating future events for personal profit.

Sounds weapons grade stupid to me.

You dont make multiplayer games for a living. Please stop talking, it's embarassing ... for you.

The Turing test (which involves having a 1 to 1 conversation with an AI agent) has fuck all to do with astroturf posts, dummy.

Not by a long shot. Unsafe is scoped. 20% of Rust packages may use unsafe, but the amount of code in unsafe sections is far far far lower. Unsafe means "I accept the risk of doing unsafe things" but because it's scoped, just because a package uses Unsafe, it's still benefiting from the memory safety of bounds checking and borrow checking 99% of the time.

That's a far far cry from "it's just the same thing as doing it in C"

Seriously, anyone using a smart TV should have it extremely limited with what it can reach on the internet, and really, probably should have it blocked entirely. I mean, we have cameras in TV's that take photos of who is in the room, and internal snapshots of what is being displayed on the HDMI connections so that it can lookup the show/video/content and match against what (male/female, baby/toddler/child/teen/young adult/adult/senior) and how many people are watching it.

If your computer connects to your TV via HDMI, they already know.

Usually with our money... Right and Left = Divide and conquer. No option options. I stopped trusting any of them decades ago. ;-)

That's the entire goal of flooding the zone with shit. Trusting nobody is not the smart position I suspect you consider it to be.

ya basic, son

Wow, somebody needs a lesson on proper money management if they can't get by with a six figure income. As stated by some other posters, that is well above the average of $66,622, and also above the median income of $83,730 (in other words, you make more than 1/2 the people in the nation!), even if it is just at $100,000. In fact, only 18% of people in the USA make $100,000 or more per year!

So you are in the top 20% of earners in the USA, and globally, you are somewhere in the top 0.1% of earners (to put some perspective on it)....

So now that you realize you are not only part of the 1%'ers (you are well beyond it from a global point of view, as you only needed ~$34,000 a year to join that club), you need to seriously rethink and put some perspective on a six figure income. You also need to put some thought into the difference between high wealth and high income. If you are simply p!ssing it all away and living paycheck to paycheck trying to "keep up with the Jones's lifestyle", you are absolutely doing it wrong. Trying to follow the latest fad, or fashion, or car craze, or instagram vacation lifestyle just isn't possible without a high wealth, not a high income. When your wealth is such a way that the money you have saved, and invested in stocks, bonds, real-estate, rental properties, and/or businesses simply grows on its own to the point that you don't need to do anything, and it well outpaces what your traditional 6 figure income, well, then you can do things like buy that latest fashion outfit, or go on a six week vacation around the world.... And you get there by working your @ss off when you are young and saving everything you can, eating things like ramen noodles for $0.50 a meal, and drink tap water or home made tea, and only going out to eat a couple times a month, as well as drive a modest car till it is well into it's teenage years of age and finally ditching it when a repair bills to keep it going for the year begin to exceed ~1/8th the price of a new one, and save/invest every remaining dollar you have. You manage to do that in your 20's and 30's and you will be set in your 40's and older, especially if you were earning 6 figures, or even the median US income. The 30 years of interest and growth on properly invested savings should have allowed it to compound ~16x. So if you earned $100,000 and simple saved the approx $16,000 that would have dropped you down to the median income in the USA, in the first year, in 30 years even without saving a single penny more, it would be around $256k, and at around 45 years it would be over $1million. Now image you had been saving $16k each and every year of those 45 years, and never touched it for another 45 years, if you started that at 20 and went until you were 65 year old, you would have effectively 1 million dollars each year showing up in your bank account each year from age 65 until you were 110.

They could say no. No-one is stopping them.

You're right. Also a professional baseball player *could* put their bats down and just stand at the plate, but pointing out that it's physically possible is stupid, especially if your argument supporting that "They Can Just Do That" is that baseball players *should put their bats down*.

This is why such people shouldn't be in positions of power.

Again with the should. It's dumb saying "they can do something, but they won't, but they should" because it's a moot point. Yes, they could also write a press release that is an 80 page Star Trek fanfic set in the narrative universe of Mr Rogers. Nothing is stopping them. But what is the value of pointing out something they are physically capable of when even you seem to understand why they won't? It's just a completely meaningless observation, particularly since you couch it in phrasing that suggests it's just a simple easy thing to do? You're trying to have your argument both ways - it makes you sound simple.

This is why such people should never be in positions of power.

What you're trying to do here is deal with the world the way you think it should be, not the way it actually is. So saying, "You can just do this" if the world was the way you think is should isn't a particularly well supported assertion.

"The whole point of this is because Waymo isn't supposed to make those mistakes,"

There is no whole point in such a complex issue, but I would like to tell this person that the idea is part of the argument for automated vehicles is they may make less mistakes. Perfection shouldn't be a condition for improvement.

For you having an understanding of the area but not the issues. The main complaints are the noise, in particular the backup warning beeping that are required for operations. These beeps have been captured on decibel meters as hitting 112 dBA!

For reference, Santa Monica has had excessive noise ordiances on the books that the limit is for 50 dBA (for up to 15 minutes) or 55 dBA (for up to 5 minutes) between 10pm and 7am. Being that the decibel levels are a logarithmic scale, 112 dbA is actually over 100,000 times the sound intensity than the ordinance allows (a 10 dbA difference is 10x difference in intensity level). This isn't just a simple small difference. It is the difference of say a "live rock concert" vs the hum from a single, normal home kitchen refrigerator running....