adamandsteve

4 ms·

1.
by adamandsteve 5mo ago
There's a <50% chance you'll make money off of it because it's zero-sum, and if insiders make money on average then other traders (i.e., you) have to lose money on average. The issue is that the odds aren't actually 5
2.
by adamandsteve 5mo ago
"The community" is astroturfed as hell though. Anthropic pays influencers to promote Claude Code and likely bots a ton as well, so it's hard to come to any kind of consensus online. Even if everyone was acting in good faith,
3.
by adamandsteve 5mo ago
This has to be bait.
4.
by adamandsteve 6mo ago
Being good at predicting the future will give you only a slight edge, so even a small amount of inside trading can make you unprofitable.
5.
by adamandsteve 6mo ago
> Why do we need a third party gambling apparatus involved? Wisdom of crowds > wisdom of individual firms, also a market solution actually would work in this case imo. Manipulating the weather seems easy enough to detect and much more
6.
by adamandsteve 6mo ago
Between these I think Amazon is less bad. It's a monopoly & monopsony which causes a lack of innovation and (eventually) higher prices but it's also a much more efficient way to sell things and it doesn't destroy the fabr
7.
by adamandsteve 6mo ago
Prediction markets are far, far more slippery. Anyone working at one of these places had other options & chose to sell their morals so I think it's perfectly reasonable to not hire them.
8.
by adamandsteve 6mo ago
I kind of agree, but presumably this would happen more among people maintaining security-critical projects. In that case it'd be a net positive for other projects to get infected first, since if they aren't delaying package update