I think this is the story of tech in general. In my life, I've seen 3 really big steps down for the middle class: 2001, 2008 and then covid. Basic necessities are expensive today - people point to high GDP but what I see is high prices and poverty. And Tech, we've built a dystopian surveillance state.
A shitshow for whom? I see it as extremely unlikely for the United States of America to not allow individuals to purchase things for whatever money they can pull together.
The only answer is to make it unacceptable socially, more costly economically (taxes, etc), or the third option which involves pitchforks (perhaps that also falls under "unacceptable socially") that I hope we can avoid at all costs. (is this the show you mention?)
Feels like folks used to understand the balance a bit better - but I think I made that up. This next governance cycle is going to be a trust-busting, wealth-confiscating one I think.
I think there will be a tremendous political opportunity in the next 6 months to capitalize on rage in cities against new tech wealth driving up housing costs.
Housing prices aren't going up. They peaked in late 2022. Boomers are a huge generation, with homes millennials and Gen Z can't afford to buy. And they are smaller generations.
I just poked around in your reference and every county I looked at in california is near all-time highs (higher than or equal to 2022) except for the northern nowheresville counties.
Not for apartments / condos in Seattle. I looked today on Zillow and lots of apartment rentals advertised 2 weeks or 1 month free rent. Lets see what happens.
When I see people making money on Iran attacks, and murder of heads of state - it shows clearly something is deeply wrong with Polymarket. Its a level worse than Vegas or Indian casinos. A literal ticket to hell. I'm all for banning these evil sites.
Not sure if Polymarket does the same. Also not sure if I really trust these people to be the arbiter of morality and adhere to their own rules when it doesn't benefit them.
> A registered entity shall not list for trading or accept for clearing on or through the registered entity any of the following:
> (1) An agreement, contract, transaction, or swap based upon an excluded commodity, as defined in Section 1a(19)(iv) of the Act, that *involves*, relates to, or references terrorism, *assassination*, war, gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any State or Federal law.
Polymarket is now two separate entities. Last year they were banned from the US and stopped taking on new US customers and made their site withdrawal only for anyone based in the US. You could bypass it with a VPN, but they did enough to at least look like they were complying.
They've now created a separate company that I believe is called Polymarket US which has it's own version of the site/app which they are using to re-enter the US market. This switched from invite only beta to open sign ups a few months ago.
Polymarket US is mainly just sports betting with a small number of crypto, commodities, and political election based markets, although they have said they plan to expand their market options. Their US based site almost certainly doesn't violate those rules. The version that is used outside the US is the one that has markets that violate that, but since they're not in the US, there's not much that can be done.
So if you kidnap them, hold them in a bunker for a month, then release them, it will pay out. That's probably a positive thing for the world somehow, right?
Sounds like this could easily be worked around by placing a bet on something that will definitely happen as a result of a death, i.e. "bet $X on whether Iran will close the strait".
Publicly traded stocks‘ reactions to a war are harder to predict and have way less leverage than a bet like "US will launch 527 missiles against Iran between 3 and 5 pm"
well I see more problematic the people actually doing the Iran attacks and murder of heads of state. Betting on those is distasteful, but doing those things is where the damage lies.
the entire point of the argument is that they're the same people. Military bets appear to have significantly higher rates of insider trading than baseline[1], which implies two things, both catastrophic. One is that the markets leak classified information (which is the entire point of the market and it should be a national security no brainer to close it for that reason alone) but the even worse scenario is causality in the other direction, that a bet leads someone to take a military decision.
> One is that the markets leak classified information (which is the entire point of the market and it should be a national security no brainer to close it for that reason alone)
It's not at all obvious that leaks of classified information are per se detrimental to _actual_ national security.
It's not because specifically with these markets there is an amplification effect where the one doing the bet creates incentives for what it's betting in favor or against to materialize in the world.
In other words the money spent on bets that involve killing directly foments more killing.
That they are virtually always replaced with other mass-murdering dictators, usually after a period of even worse mass murder known as a civil war. All at the low low cost of some billions of dollars taken away from useful work.
Ali Khamenei was recently murdered, at a price tag of several tens of billions of dollars, so far. His more radical son now occupies his former position. As a result, is the world a better place?
During COVID, I was working on an esports startup site that was a mix of social media karma + betting. The idea was you had more karma and your posts got more reach the more right you were.
We experimented with extending this to non-esports topics during the election, which led to a bunch of Trump-based predicting. Then Jan 6 happen and the whole site went to hell. I pivoted the product because I just didn't want to deal with running a site like that.
Seeing what is happening with these sites makes me feel good about my choices. If I were in charge of a product that enabled this I wouldn't sleep at night.
The other side of that argument could be something like: "Dude, Khomeini better not be killed, it'd suck for me, an average iranian dude. I'd probably bet he dies so I can hedge my personal financial wellbeing for that case"
There are several things about the "these are good because people can hedge" argument which bother me and I struggle to disentangle them, but one facet is this: These betting-markets may be an inferior form of hedging, especially for non-trivial scenarios that are intended to evoke sympathy. (Civilizations have a lot of prior art in risk-management.)
For example, our statistical Iranian Dude may be much better-off using their bet-money for targeted purposes, like stocking up on useful imported durable goods that may become unavailable, ideally ones that would have resale value even if nothing bad happens.
The convenient online casino doesn't require any more than a vague sense of anxiety to bet, but that generality also limits how well you can use the money to protect yourself. If you're specifically worried about famine, better to arrange a future result of food, versus a payout of cash when nobody is selling food. If you're a factory that uses X as a manufacturing input and worried about a geopolitical blockade, you may be better off investing in alternate supplies or futures contracts for X.
The average iranian dude is not going to send money to a company that has donald trump junior on its board of directors to 'hedge their bets' around the Iran war situation.
> to ban something we must be able to construct an argument that does not hinge on morality. For example, theft is bad because it deprives you of your possessions. No need to invoke morality.
Ok, I'll bite. Why is it bad to deprive you of your possessions?
And given that the house always wins, is it not depriving the gamblers of their possessions?
Gambling creates addicts, and addicts are more likely to act in desperation. They might steal, default on debt, or kill themselves and are less productive members of society. I bet societies with lots of addicts are much less likely to thrive because they carry a ton of dead weight. Thus we should ban or at least curb gambling because it hurts us all in general.
We legalized online gambling, the end result is more and earlier addiction and the added tax does not outweigh the societal cost due to loss of jobs, added crime and secondary effects of broken families on monetary, let alone ethical grounds. And they had to change the law to have more bite due to gambling sites mostly ignoring the required checks on addicted and heavy usage players, because profits have to be made. At least they got rid of the insane commercials since that's what most normal people complained about.
> For example, theft is bad because it deprives you of your possessions. No need to invoke morality.
This assertion also hinges on morality. Why is being deprived of your possessions bad. You ultimately have to reach for an ethical framework to justify it.
Funny how people take journalists as some sort of most moral form of human being. Meanwhile they are most likely to take bribes for editorializing, silencing, ads or completely making up stories. All while they are most likely to get earliest information on markets ergo most likely to rig markets themselves.
You've been so busy straw manning with the ridiculous and unstated claim that journalists are the "most moral form of human being" that you have conspicuously failed to answer my question.
This is great news. From my perspective from someone who grew up in the 90s, America feels like we took the turn towards Biff Tannen's Pleasure Paradise. A future very fa from our promise filled with gambling, social degradation, and worse economic prospects for everyone. Gambling sites like Polymarket are just a symptom. More states need to move in this direction, because its just a tax levied on the uninformed to insider cashing in
I lived there, and I am familiar with that. I would be happy if they did away with all of it, including the state-administered lottery. But this is a great start of low-hanging fruit.
I'm only aware of Avi Loeb, who AFAIK is generally considered a crackpot and a grifter within academia, and his claims about Oumuamua and aliens aren't taken seriously by the mainstream.
I'm not the poster you replied to but it's worth mentioning that there are, unfortunately, examples of more than a few highly-credentialed academics and scientists believing some pretty out there things. Due to such a large sample size, humans being human and tenure being for life, sometimes you're going to get outliers. Plus expertise in one discipline doesn't necessarily generalize to appropriate scientific rigor and skepticism in other domains.
While I don't understand it myself, I've seen a study showing how some scientists can compartmentalize and apply different standards of evidence between their professional life and personal beliefs. In other cases, scientists conducting rigorous lab controlled studies have been deceived by fake psychics doing simple magic tricks (and not nearly as well as a competent magician). For example, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ at Stanford Research Institute being fooled by Uri Geller. While Puthoff and Targ were trained experimentalists having worked in laser physics, their parapsychology study designs had poor controls and lacked statistical rigor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI
As a long-time skeptic, I've learned to avoid broad appeals to authority because relying on "a scientist said..." is ineffective when a true believer can cite a credentialed scientist spouting nutty stuff. In recent years the situation around military assessments of UFO sightings has also changed dramatically. In the mid-2010s, some UFO enthusiasts already in the military managed to work their way into positions as UAP investigators, largely because "UFO Investigator" was a role no serious military careerist wanted on their record. Suddenly, what were once hundred page dry, technical assessments boiling down to "inconclusive" (which no one cared about) became artfully crafted, overly-credulous reports highlighting sensational (but poorly supported) "possibilities." This coincided with a political recalculation from some members of both parties in congress and the White House during the past two administrations to stop fighting the tiny but highly vocal UFO community as it was a no-win battle and instead basically leverage UAPs as a sideshow either for attention or distraction. And it's working.
oh come on! where's that hacker spirit? you can download these and create a site that has them indexed as you'd like using the latest in LLM tech to parse the files and build the site for you. you can then turn around and give us a Show HN
The economy can get better while life gets worse for most people. After all, an economy where 95% of the work was done by enslaved people might produce amazing profits and a very high GDP....
GDP is a measure of economic activity, and goes up when people are forced to rebuild after natural disasters etc.
%Debt to GDP excluding military pay and allowances indicates how your grandchildren will live. Above >130% they will be poor, and remain poor indefinitely. You may disagree, but it is not like anyone wants this to happen.
The economic conservatives were compromised, and went insane =3
I wish it were easier to measure well-being. Someone who works 20 hours a week and half has as much money may well be enjoying life more than someone working 40 hours a week, but we don't quantify this well.
When I lived in California I was always weirded out by colleagues talking about how they never took vacations. It's like bragging about being poor.
Generally, there is a fundamental philosophical difference between currency and wealth. In silicon valley, a middle class life is well over >$180k/yr, as Rent-seeking economics is unsustainable.
Rule #23: Don't compete to be at the bottom, as you just might actually win.
Have a glorious day =3
The ikigai chart helps some highlight better options:
It may be unreliable to you. I see the life of most people around me getting better. Even people that are somewhat poor (not dirt poor, but free lunch poor) have homes, three squares and snacks, PS5, mobile phones with cellular data, and cable tv. The biggest life issues I see are usually strongly related to substance abuse and mental health.
Transplanting to even just the 80s would be a culture shock for most people.
Really curious. How is life getting better for most people? No one has kids, they can't afford families, medical care is unreachable, housing is unaffordable, I guess if your life is scrolling on an iphone its MUCH better but if you want to live, educate a family, retire, live in a safe community, or have healthcare its worse in every measure.
There is huge variation in what the US trend looks like from the ground that varies by region, age, income level, industry, and demographic.
EI think if you’re a professional class baby boomer the trajectory has looked fantastic through your life.
If you’re a 35 middle income living on the coasts (where at least 100 million Americans live) you may have watched affordability collapse and QOL decease significantly over the last decade.
I honestly think that the idea that this is what’s happening is almost entirely propaganda.
I think people have an overly
rosy view of the past and an overly negative view of the present. What has changed more than anything is we all have the 24/7 instantaneous news cycle, and algorithmic propaganda delivery.
Every election year zillion of dollars get spent convincing you the country went to hell in a handbasket because of the other party.
Which is not to say there are not issues, or even some new ones, but I don’t think the present is significantly worse than the past in many ways, and it is significantly better in several
This is overly optimistic and a "it hasn't happened to me yet so who cares" view. World War 3 has started and DHS is killing Americans and rounding up people in the street because one side was able to convince the country that the only thing to do was destroy and hurt a lot of people including themselves. That's not better than my past and it is significantly worse in a lot of ways. I haven't even received a cost of living increase in my salary in the last 5 years, let alone watch things and places I enjoy in life be dismantled so someone can make money off the attainment of bread.
We were speaking about economics. But I’m sorry anybody who thinks World War III has started has had their brain warped by propaganda even worse. You probably didn’t mean to illustrate my point but you did perfectly.
World wars happened when large numbers of countries had mutual aid agreements that were triggered. Those largely don’t exist anymore outside of NATO. See how literally nobody is putting troops on the ground to defend Iran, Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, etc. If world war war risk existed, the nukes would already be flying and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The propaganda I’m talking about is very clear in your comment, you can’t just say some things suck, and there are things you don’t like, it has to be the most extreme version. We can’t just be involved in a couple wars we shouldn’t, it has to be World War III. Trump can’t just be a terrible president. He has to be Hitler. The DHS has killed three people, which is terrible, but it’s pretty far from the gestapo. That extremeism is exactly what I’m talking about.
I’m sorry your income has not increased in the last five years, but that is not the average Americans experience. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I will start by stating that none of the media landscape is referring to it as World War 3. That is a conclusion I made myself.
Further I think “the economy isn’t as bad as it could be so everything else that doesn’t directly affect me is propaganda and all the problems right now in the world are perfectly fine” is the ultimate propaganda. You’re essentially saying “shut up you’re still alive just be okay with the world state even if it’s not desireable”.
You are definitely a maroon. Especially in the way you are talking down and hand waving away my complaints and taking my brief list as the only things that I have an issue with.
The propaganda isn't extreme in mainstream media, it's extreme on social media, subreddits, etc. I am sure the NYT knows WW3 has not begun. I'll happily wager anything you want that it has not if we can define it. You definitely did not come to that conclusion without help, and the fact that you came to it is forgiveable (not everyone is a student of history).
"Further I think “the economy isn’t as bad as it could be so everything else that doesn’t directly affect me is propaganda and all the problems right now in the world are perfectly fine” is the ultimate propaganda. You’re essentially saying “shut up you’re still alive just be okay with the world state even if it’s not desireable”."
I didn't say any of that or anything vaguely similar. Merely the idea that the economy is getting better while the life of the average American is getting worse is mostly propaganda. (It's certainly true in some ways for many and many ways for some, propaganda works best when it's rooted in something true and obvious.)
You know I am sure that Russia and other adversarial nations have millions of people and bots trying to make you hate your country. If you were them, wouldn't that be your main message? Your country is going to hell in a handbasket. You'd have a hard time finding a country where a whole lot of people would disagree.
Great empires fall from the inside. The thing that scares me more about the future than anything is just how good our enemies have gotten at stuffing our heads with distrust and fear of our own country and the people in it. There's no way I could tell you that you're patient zero (or in this case, I guess patient 100 million) that you would be happy about, but there it is.
I dont hate my country, just a few electeds running it. I do not spend time on social media and I read a variety of news sources. I’m not really sure what your point is other than to label everything propaganda that sounds negative. I can’t be unhappy with aspects of my country and express it otherwise I’m some kind of robot to propaganda. I’m not sure about you but I have organized people for protests and participated in real local change. I honestly do not understand what makes you happy in being an optimist-defeatist. Perhaps best to stop here.
reply