Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | fsckboy's commentslogin

combining repeated samples of any distribution* (any population density fuction including power law distributions) will converge to the normal distribution, that's why it appears everywhere.

* excluding bizarre degenerates like constants or impulse functions


No, that's not correct. Sums of power law distributions can converge to power low tailed distributions, not normal distributions.

he only got away from it (it being the allegation)

Israel does military censorship, same as any other country, you can't communicate information that would harm the defense of the country or aid its enemies. Israel is in a hostile and armed neighborhood with frequent hot conflicts, both regular military and irregular forces, so the issue is fairly everpresent compared to other Western style democracies such as in Europe where their neighbors are peaceful.

The EU does quite a lot of military and non-military censorship as well, such as banning RT and its ilk.

you can't experience Latino culture without thinking that they treat happiness as a goal, it's sort of like you're applying a Germanic/Protestant/Puritanical filter to Americans

also I don't think the more subtle distinctions between happiness and contentment is something people can be expected to maintain in their everyday speech at every moment. That's just not how language works.


catholicism is not procreation only, for example sex on a calendar of "rhythm method" contraception is ok

any game with a positive expected value is also not gambling, it's mining

Any system that is a zero-sum game with an effectively uncertain outcome is effectively gambling.

Investing at least positive sum in theory. Prediction markets are not.


When you say "effectively uncertain outcome", do you include situations where the events are random but the odds are predictable?

Let me give you an example. On average, there are 14 storms big enough to be named in the 6 month long Atlantic hurricane season. If a prediction market was saying 30% odds of a storm big enough to be named every day for all 183 days, betting against that would be free money. Would you call it gambling to make the same bet on all 183 days? The day-by-day outcome is uncertain, but the overall outcome is extremely certain.


Yes, I would call it gambling simply because someone has to take the other side of the bet and lose.

The entire point of there being a gambling "line" is because two parties have to agree on a wager that they both think has positive EV. That's effectively gambling. Somebody has to lose for the other party to win.

Obviously if the counter-party is an institution with a legitimate need to hedge, it becomes an insurance policy, but that is a world of difference than just two counterparties wanting to make bets for fun.


I think you're close to a good metric, but you need to consider the situations where one person doesn't have a positive EV expectation, or where that expectation is provably wrong. I think those situations can empower a winning non-gambling actor.

One participant in a market can be gambling while another participant isn't gambling. In particular, casinos don't gamble.

Also for many things there exists a scale from fully random to fully skill-based. So in my opinion things can be semi-gambling with a lot of gray area.


that makes no sense. companies need capital, that's why there is a stock market. dividends are paid from past earnings, never capital (earnings are only a %age of the value of the capital) and not from higher expectations of the future.

In a perfect world… reality is different, however.

Plenty of companies take on debt to pay dividends, e.g. just before going public.


growing companies generally have capital needs that exceed retained earnings, so paying dividends would by definition increase capital need.

you need to learn a little finance, i.e. that subset of economics dealing with financial markets. Markets "crowdsource" values in the face of changing needs, preferences, probability and volatility, and that's an incredibly useful thing.

yeah, you can treat investing in markets as a game (fallacy: stock markets are gambling casinos), but people who are serious don't do that, so don't lay the sins of insincerity on markets.


You might have a point with institutional investors, but regular consumers on Polymarket are absolutely just gambling.

because parents get to vote same as you, and it looks like they are winning. there are many problems in the libertarian utopia that could be dumped on individuals ("if you don't like it, don't leave your house") but equally unfortunately many prefer a socialist utopia with lots of social and financial controls

I don’t think any parents as constituents had anything to do with these laws.

If voter priorities influence legislature so much, where is our healthcare reform that the obvious majority of people have been demanding for decades?

Many parliaments and legislative bodies throughout the western world continually ignore their constituents’ demands because lobbying bodies with real money get their priorities addressed first.


a ravioli is a b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ beige box abstraction to which you pasta arguments interface usually after forking

Is it open sauce?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: