still fine ?

Fine? No, I'd be devastated by the death. But why would somebody else's making money — not "out of it", but by predicting it — affect me at all? They didn't kill the child. They didn't contribute to his dying.

Yeah, going home from a funeral — of anyone close to you — and watching people carelessly enjoying their lives unaware of your tragedy is annoying. But you don't get mad at them. Or, maybe, you do — because you're a fool controlled by emotions, rather than rational thought.

Bettors should not be rooting for an experimental medicine to fail just to earn a buck

Why not? If that is one's way to pursue happiness and it does not hurt anyone, what argument is there against it?

"It's quite ghastly."

That's not a reason...

This is where innovative minds come from. People who want to play with stuff and figure out how it works.

Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the 'wrong' time

What if, instead of asking: "Give us the list of everybody using this tower during this period", police asked for something narrower, like: "Give us the list of everybody using this tower during this period, and this other tower at this other period" (which is, what police would've done themselves)? What would make the request palatable to the Court — and Slashdot?

Enough AND-clauses until the resulting list is shorter than a certain number? 500? 50? 5? What if it becomes so short, the phone company employee(s) themselves can identify the suspect(s)?

I can't place a Polymarket bet on there being a hurricane and then go out and cause a hurricane.

Admitting your weakness is the first step towards growing strong!

Seriously, though, I do acknowledge this as a (potentially) valid concern in my next paragraph. But there are lots of other cases, where the bettor either has insider knowledge prior to betting, or can affect the outcome afterwards — both legally and otherwise. Lawmakers betting on financial markets' moves in response to their own legislation is still legal, for example. Other methods exist for the rest of us.

Yet, this proposal is limited sorely to setting wildfires and for the most bullshit reasons of all: "all so the rich and powerful can profit". Hence my contempt...

Can we finally know whether or not there is beer on the sun?!

Prosecuting arsonists doesn't unwind time, bro.

I'm surprised there are physical cell phone stores anyways. I have had a cell phone for 23-24 years and I've never set foot in one.

Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities' suffering

Totally different from hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis, right?

There's also the heightened risk -- according to state and local fire officials -- that individuals could be tempted to commit arson in order to make sure their bets are successful

This is, actually, a valid concern. I don't think, freedoms — including the freedom to bet one's own money — should be curtailed by such concerns, but it is valid.

Funny, how the authors don't hate the would-be arsonists — nowhere close to their disdain for the "rich and powerful", who might (might not!) profit from the betting...

I have such fond memories of EA from the '80s, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a completely different and unrelated entity.

The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)

You are incorrect. What the Carpenter determined, was not about generally "surveilling", but the particular act of requesting historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers.

The Court's majority did rule, that the 4th Amendment protects reasonable expectation of privacy, and the collection of the particular records violated this. But not in general case. What's between your cellphone and the cell-tower can be expected — reasonably to stay private. (Though personally I disagree even with that — anyone carrying an active radio should not expect it to be unnoticed.) But a visible presence in public — detectable by unaided human senses — definitely not. Police have tailed suspects for as long as law enforcement existed — and Bill of Rights' authors certainly knew about the practice existence — and there is nothing wrong about it.

Further, they didn't extend the "third-party doctrine" to the particular case of cell-site records, but they didn't repudiate it completely either.

While the average citizen is allowed to record anything they see in public [...] When the government does it, it is considered a breach of an individuals 4th amendment rights

Nope, it does not — not per Carpenter. Maybe, that's how things should be — though I'm not certain even of that. But it is not, how they are. And the list of earlier court-decisions (which I already posted twice) — the Knotts in particular — shows it.

Further, I was not talking about "the average citizen" — I was talking about a police officer. If one can watch you — without a warrant — he can also record you.

Out of how many in a country of hundreds of millions, exactly?

Ah yes they clearly took the test for fun and didn't plan to attend.

Yes, who would expect people to be prepared to travel to the school they are about to start classes at?

The summary says classes start in a week and they haven't scheduled the retest yet. I think we can assume everyone who wanted to go to this school will be able to get there.