Of course you'll never draw a causal link between the online bullying he received from Kramnik and his sycophants, but it's impossible to deny it was related. Just go look at his podcast appearances a few weeks/months ago. He was spending a ton of effort just trying to clear his name from the Kramnik witch hunt, and he looked wrung out.

It's a real shame. Very young, very talented. A great influence in the chess world.

>"TheStatsMan" doesn't think more accurate prediction helps improve things.

Yeah, that's right. My life's work is prediction. And yet the statement I made is still true.

>improving society's ability to identify likely outcomes

If only people got rich for improving society instead of ... this.

And before you push up your glass and snort, I urge you to consider why prediction is in fact not a necessary condition to improve anything.

Being set in your ways isn't a virtue.

Watch the energy markets

Get a load of this guy who is using the same email address since 1979.

It's amazing to me as a person that works with data that people willingly use Pandas. What a piece of hot garbage. The syntax is garbage, the way of reasoning about data is garbage - it's a piece of garbage.

And yet it's the defacto requirement for something like 80% of data science/ data analyst jobs. It honestly blows my mind.

The stats are 80% of global energy production is, fossil fuels. A resource that will, eventually, run out.

Interior lighting will be a thing of the past. That is, unless solar and wind power are scaled massively. Nuclear won't be enough alone. Even with all three, it's doubtful the energy debt caused by the depletion of fossil fuels will be overcome.

Markets for essentials goods are not the only markets worth protecting.

> but otherwise it is no different than people wasting their money on concert tickets or expensive cruises or whatever.

I don't think you really understand what you're talking about.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4903302

The number of people that go bankrupt because of an addiction to cruises, I would wager, is practically nonexistent - but the effect of legalized gambling is measurable and negative.It predominantly effects low income people with few prospects. The legalization of online sports betting is directly correlated with bankruptcies in young men, which has down stream impacts that are quite harmful for society.

Maybe it never occurred to you that bankruptcy is also directly correlated with suicide?

https://academic.oup.com/aje/a...

It turns out going bankrupt because of gambling (a known addictive behavior) is correlated with drug use and suicide.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

Your thesis that it's no different between spending your money on a cruise or concert seems to be quite wrong.

I would say setting up rules of business that prevent people from being exploited is foundational to liberal societies with a free economy.

A society without rules will never create anything of value.

If everyone is just doing it anyway, then why do bankruptcies increase when gambling is legalized?

Let me help, it's because everyone isn't just doing it anyway. Because laws have a deterrent effect.

There's a relatively basic model you can construct that will show that, at the state level, if you legalize gambling you will induce a certain number of bankruptcies. Mostly men aged 18-30.

The easiest way to improve society somewhat is to ban gambling.