KrauerkingGamblers trying to win a bet on Polymarket are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
What a stupid world we’ve allowed to be concocted.
Yup.
LeonPast few years I’ve been reading a shitty sci-fi series. In this series there’s a race of creatures whose entire society is founded on gambling. They bet on everything, and people frequently bankrupt themselves. The moment you look at that world-building with even a little bit of scrutiny it falls apart in its stupidity.
This is even dumber.
Lol pretty sure I know exactly what series you’re talking about (beer can?). You’re right - it’s dumb, and the writing isn’t exactly Dickens, but it’s funny. Almost finished with the series myself. Something to read until something better comes along, at least.
Go get yourself a juice box!
When I first started the series I almost quit at the first book, it felt very American Military masturbatory, and I wasn’t a fan. Eventually though, the worldbuilding and the cast captured me. At this point however it feels like the author signed a contract to squeeze out a quota of books and quality has suffered. It’s gotten so intensely formulaic to the point of not being interesting. I’ve fallen victim to the gamblers fallacy though so I’m still reading it; I just want it to end.
At this point you can tell that he struggles to make compelling storylines because he’s started writing self-contained short stories he’s throwing in at random parts of the book just to pad it out. It’s a good move though, I think they’re my favourite parts of the recent books.
Overall I like the series, I just wish it hadn’t been dragged out so much.
So uh… what are the odds on polymarket for the guy getting killed?
Can you put out a contract on someone just by betting on polymarket that they won’t die by a particular date?
Lmao I think technically that would work… but I also don’t know how tightly polymarket polices/moderates wagers like that.
explodicle
hansoloI think they already do that, didn’t people make money off betting on the ayatollahs death?
iktFor those asking the same question I have: how is this legal? surprisingly informative video:
So we’re betting on everything now?
Go to https://www.vanta.com/goodwork to check out how Vanta's easy compliance tools can help your businessThere’s a new way to lose all your money. Predictio...
Love this series.
The 21st century really is the “It might seem illegal, but we called it something else, so it’s not” century, especially for the US.
It’s not gambling, it’s a prediction market, or loot boxes. It’s not war, it’s a military operation. It’s not bribery, it’s lobbying. It’s not drug dealing, it’s encouraging doctors to prescribe medications which happen to be extremely addictive…
jqubedThe problem with the last one is that while the sacklers fucked everyone, I don’t trust politicians when they interfere in medical treatments.
How about pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to initiate an interaction with doctors or patients in any way for any reason?
If a doctor/patient has a question they can reach out. If a company has a new treatment they’ll publish findings and doctors in the field will find out through data and not marketing.
I’m on board with that. Though I’d allow them to put out standardized official press releases and catalogs of products. I’d actually prefer the AMA and FDA release catalogs of approved medications if the FDA can be shielded from political interference. As well as having the FDA put out an official summary of a product when they approve it.
Ultimately I do want physicians to be made aware of new medications, and I know they’re already busy. There’s a middle ground between no uninitiated communication and allowing unrestricted freedom to advertise and lie to physicians and patients, claiming things like that oxycontin is nonaddictive.
Quick, let’s rebrand unions and solidarity strikes.
So, let’s vow as a group to win a bet on Polymarket to kill the perpetrators before they kill the journalist!
Most cyberpunk read today.
How that shit is not illegal is beyond me. Gambling is already predatory but outside of sports and in fucking armed conflicts is abhorrent.
Crime is legal… to the degree that you are sufficiently connected.
🔲 - White
🔲 - Male
🔲 - Cis
🔲 - Hetero
🔲 - Christian (preferably conservative evangelical Protestant)
🔲 - Politically conservative
🔲 - Wealthy
The more of these you can check off, the more crimes are legal.
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.”
SamskaraBecause Trump took charge of the SEC. The crypto just handles payments - the market itself is centralized and exists with the permission of the state.
Wake me up when there’s a bet that angers people in power, it gets censored, and someone launches a fully p2p version.
Gambling needs to simply be made illegal
I don’t care what your arguments are gambling needs to be made illegal
I’d vote for you to be dictator for a day to enact your policy.
If I were dictator for a day, I’d outlaw all overly loud personal vehicles. You’d be sentenced to 10 minutes strapped behind your vehicle while it’s blaring full blast, and then anyone who wants can be given guns to just go nuts on your vehicle.
House always wins. It’s literally just a way to steal people’s money.
And in the city I live now, they passed a law for those stupid slot machines like 10 years ago.
Now they are everywhere.
You know who sits at slot machines?
Old people. Retired people.
People living off social security.
It’s literally a way to steal money from people who need it most. And specifically, it was tax payers money.
So whenever I hear ,“but it creates revenue” I think. “Yeah by stealing it from the state and our seniors. Wtf. That’s not real revenue.”
And this whole idea of autonomy. Like people have to choose for themselves if they want to gamble.
We all know it’s addictive. And it’s designed to trick and manipulate people.
There is less autonomy there than you think.
I dunno, I find it hard to respect laws intending to protect people from their own choices, especially when the majority of people can enjoy the thing (or just ignore it on their own) without any problems.
Try to idiot-proof the world and the world just comes up with a better idiot.
I think it’s fair for it to be legal, but only in specific locations and contexts. I think small scale gambling between friends and coworkers is fine. I think well regulated casinos are bad but serve as a deterrent to underground criminal gambling. I think having legal gambling through the internet and on your phone, advertised everywhere is a serious problem.
Prohibition of vices doesn’t work, it just pushes it into organized crime. I want harm reduction more than purity
Im cool with the state owning things. Its the oversize marketing budgets and no concern for harm that comes with private ownership that bugs me.
It pushes them into organized crime because the state fails to provide for people’s needs not because the vice is prohibited
Next
And then there are those of us for whom gambling is not a need. And I think it’s problematic to regard any unnecessary activity, especially one that’s a known focus for self-destructively compulsive behavior, as a need.
Heroin’s a pressing need too, when you’re addicted.
You’re interested in solutions. The person you’re replying to is only interested in hearing his own voice.
Yeah I never assume I can convince someone I’m arguing with on the internet. My goal is to convince the readers. Or entertain myself while bored at work
I agree completely. I always assume there are younger folks in the room who haven’t formed an opinion on everything yet.
It’s not just that, even us old and opinionated people can be swayed when we aren’t in the fight, given we have the wisdom to let ourselves listen to arguments. Especially if we keep seeing similar ideas from those we see as peers. It’s just that when we feel confronted most people (myself included) dig in rather than reevaluate.
It’s the young and the ignorant who have formed opinions on subjects they don’t understand.
At least a few people learn nuance as they age and gain life experience. It’s far from inevitable, but it does happen.
WesDym@phutatorius By crazy coincidence, I've lived close to Ivy League schools most of my life, meaning I grew up around them. When I was a little past college age myself, I regularly went to an eatery that mainly served those kids. The owner had put up a sign:
"Hey, Kids! Move Out of Your Parents' Home Now, While You Still Know Everything!"
It is exactly true. The often simplistic and unbending certainty of youth is the folly of sincere but naïve ignorance, and lack of experience.
They’re not saying ban gambling, they’re saying ban gambling specifically on people dying.
JoeBigelowI think all drugs should be illegal period. Not taking any questions.
Find something else to do.
I think protesting should be illegal period. Not taking questions.
Find something else to do
I think motorcycles should be illegal period. Not taking questions.
Find something else to do
ebuitt: 100 billion lemmings see the phrase “i’m not going to debate you” and immediately take up arms and move to debate positions, so as to maximize the insufferability of the platform writ large
CileTheSaneItt: the person saying “I’m not going to debate you” continues to respond.
Also: “I’m not going to debate you” is not some magic phrase that prevents your statement from being challenged.
In closing: I’m not going to debate you. So if you respond to this you’re a hypocrite.
i don’t know how i could have possibly been clearer that i don’t want the disjointed ramblings of debatecreatures in my inbox, but i know things like “consent” might be a foreign concept to such folk
“When I make statements on public forums that does not mean I consent to people responding to me!”
I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
Then dont post on social media?? Like im not even really responding to you personally, im responding to your comment. If you dont want replies to your comments then dont comment lol. You can make a substack and disable replies if you really just want to get your message out there without replies.
Thinking you can say something and avoid it being challenged by adding shit like “anything you can argue against it doesn’t matter” is the insufferable thing on display here. Almost as insufferable as another person chiming in about how insufferable those who won’t just take that at face value are.
“avoid it being challenged” dear lord. if only internet forum threads had some kind of button that would allow you to insert whatever half-baked disguised-as-a-policy-suggestion reaction one has directly into the thread. maybe then those that suffer the worst from Jubileebrain could utilize that to spew forth all their intellectual capabilities’ worth without doing themselves the disgrace of demanding dissidents put up their dukes
but then it wouldn’t be lemmy now would it