It's worth noting that Polymarket (and all other prediction markets using money) has some fundamental problems that cause inaccuracy. Most notably here, the elections are still several months out, so you're asking people to put up 97 cents to get a dollar back in three months. But for that time frame I could also put 97 cents in treasuries and get 98 cents back, so the market won't be accurate within 1% of reality, and treasuries are considered a good deal safer than Polymarket.
In addition, there can be issues related to fees, Kelly betting (if the correct bet is 98%, don't want to bet all the way to 98% or you have no returns and you definitely don't want to put all of your wallet in on it in case it goes against you), and so on.
So this isn't a "3% chance of the elections happening" it's "3%, plus or minus the rate of return over three months, plus or minus all the other related issues". I don't know if that gets you down to zero percent, but it definitely gets you closer.
(Yes Polymarket has tried to do some things to resolve these issue, no they don't work very well.)
Plus the percent chance that Polymarket doesn't accurately resolve the market. It'll never hit 100% odds because there's value in buying the the 1,000,000 to 1 odds and maybe turning $1 into $1,000,000 from an administrative issue on the market.
You can sell your bet at any time, though. So if you put $100 on NO while it's at 3¢ and then sell them next week at 4¢, you're getting $133 back. You're not necessarily betting on the outcome, but on the sentiment over time.
That's true, but then the people you're selling to have to want to buy the shares. And if you're buying YES at 97%, you're not going to be able to sell the YES shares to anyone at much higher - because eventually someone has to hold it to the end.
It's true that this isn't as true for NO, because a small change can give a huge return, but that's asymmetrical. So there's incentive for traders to buy NO, hoping that it moves down, but not an incentive for traders to buy YES, since it doesn't have any room to go up.
In many areas, this is left up to the parents - minors can't buy alcohol at stores, but parents are legally allowed to give alcohol to their children to drink.
I think the distinction the comment is drawing is about the legality of it not the practical feasibility .
It would be illegal under the currently proposed
/implemented laws and also open up social media to liability, which wouldn’t be true for other products like Alcohol or fire arms that require minimum age to buy but not give to children
Soccer is extremely widespread and played by both boys and girls at a young age (up until puberty or so), but there definitely is a gender gap after that. I'd guess that there are a lot of other sports that are almost solely played by boys, so boys tend to drift away from soccer, while there are fewer options for girls. (Though there are some - lacrosse and softball for a couple examples.)
Field hockey is almost exclusively a girls sport in the US, while boys have (American) football in the fall. Both draw from the potential pool of soccer players in US middle and high schools.
It certainly can matter for proper baking (which this recipe seems to be?), though for traditional pancakes I would never bother. But there's a reason that bakeries weigh their ingredients. It's more consistent and allows for different people to get more similar results.
The baking industry isn't really measuring by weight, they are measuring by bag, which happens to be delineated in weight.
Look, this is arm chair, YouTube cooking. There is so much variation in recipes that 10% here and there is not going to make or break any recipe.
There is zero ability to make a "universally better" version of a recipe by micro optimizing ingredients. For one thing, you can't easily control temperature and humidity variations on your environment. If people think 2% difference in flour content is going to make or break their bread recipe, then daily humidity variations will definitely have an impact. But it doesn't, really. It's the sort of thing people blame when they don't have good process or good technique.
For another thing, there is no way to evaluate the outcome as "better". Better for you, perhaps, but even then, it's mostly psychosomatic. I've doubled the amount of baking soda in a recipe before and it has had zero impact. I've never measured flour by weight and my cookies come out exactly the same as my wife's when she breaks out the microscale
I've been cooking for a long time. I have family members who refuse to come to Easter Dinner unless I'm the one cooking. I barely measure anything, ever. Even when I'm baking. It matters to have things in the right ballpark, but 5% variations don't matter.
It always gets me how the exact proper amount of an ingredient seems to coincidentally round off to an even number of units. You don't often see something that requires 2.07 cups, or 71 grams.
If measurements are rounded off for convenience, a few percentage difference won't be noticeable. People would be better off acquiring a feel for how liquid a batter should be, or how seasonings smell when they're toasted the right amount, etc.
The difference between weight and volume measurements could easily be a 20% or 30% gap. I’ve measured two of my cups of flour before and they were off by roughly that amount.
Maybe I’m just bad at measuring, but it’s a lot more than 5%.
One easy change would be that before any package can be published, it has to wait a minimum of two weeks in a state where it can be reviewed but it can't be installed without jumping through several hoops with big warning signs, things like "INSTALL_INTENTIONALLY_DANGEROUS_PACKAGES_THAT_WILL_BREAK_MY_COMPUTER=1", selecting yes in a dialogue that asks if they want to install software that likely has viruses, and pointing to a different package repository URL.
If there's some change that must get out sooner, then there can be some fee to pay to npm to have their security team do their own review.
Critically, there must be time for someone to review before it's the default to be selected.
I'm sure there are issues with this, this was off my head, but it seems like a really easy step to at least stem the problem for now. And there are a bunch of ideas like this that would help, but NPM doesn't seem willing to take it seriously as an existential threat to the ecosystem, rather than taking trivial steps.
> Critically, there must be time for someone to review
By who? No one at npm is reviewing anything. "Someone" is doing a lot of work here.
Linux distributions have trusted maintainers who are responsible for their packages. People who cared enough to figure out PGP and set up an actual web of trust. That's where the verification happens. All these programming language package managers have nothing of the sort. PyPI, Rubygems, crates, npm, it doesn't matter. I can just make an account and push whatever I want.
These package managers are like this because that's what developers actually want. They don't want to deal with Linux distribution maintainers in order to get their software into the official repositories. They want to just run $packager push and have it out there with zero friction.
As discussed elsewhere in this forum, these exploits are being found by security companies in the first few days after they're published, that's just already too late. For example, the auditor who made the very post that we're discussing! For another, many security-focused AI companies have automated checks on NPM packages. Many people are implementing it on their end by having their client wait seven days before pulling new packages, but that's O(N) rather than O(1), and it's not evenly spread.
If no one reviews it and it still gets out, then we can address it then, but that seems much less likely.
Ideally, the solution is that all of these language package managers need to get serious and have maintainers, but lacking that, at least having the waiting period be built into the server instead of the client is a clear win.
Pyramid schemes are defined by the price and structure. A business that sells knives is a fine business. A business that sells overpriced knives by promising that you can then find someone else to sell more knives for you at an even higher price is a pyramid scheme.
Selling tulips is a fine business. Selling tulips at an insanely high price by promising that the market for tulips will keep on expanding and increasing the price of tulips is a pyramid scheme. (Well, maybe not quite a pyramid scheme, the structure isn't right. But it certainly wasn't a sustainable business model.)
In addition, there can be issues related to fees, Kelly betting (if the correct bet is 98%, don't want to bet all the way to 98% or you have no returns and you definitely don't want to put all of your wallet in on it in case it goes against you), and so on.
So this isn't a "3% chance of the elections happening" it's "3%, plus or minus the rate of return over three months, plus or minus all the other related issues". I don't know if that gets you down to zero percent, but it definitely gets you closer.
(Yes Polymarket has tried to do some things to resolve these issue, no they don't work very well.)
reply