Polymarketyou already know
you already know
Begotten参与话题 14消息总数 1585
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 1585 条，显示第 251-300 条I believe Bosaurum is a man of logic, and he doesn't side with redditors
I believe Bosaurum is a man of logic, and he doesn't side with redditors
genuinely, the worst faith statement I've ever read
genuinely, the worst faith statement I've ever read
you have a serious mental disability
you have a serious mental disability
yes, do you have issues comprehending 2 rulesets to form complex thoughts?
yes, do you have issues comprehending 2 rulesets to form complex thoughts?
this is a possibility
this is a possibility
if iran has agreed to stop enrichment from this single clause, it means that trump has not agreed for them to enrich. trump market N, iran agrees Y. if iran has not agreed to stop enrichment, it menas that trump has allowed them to continue enrichment. trump market Y, iran agrees N. in which case can both go N?
if iran has agreed to stop enrichment from this single clause, it means that trump has not agreed for them to enrich. trump market N, iran agrees Y. if iran has not agreed to stop enrichment, it menas that trump has allowed them to continue enrichment. trump market Y, iran agrees N. in which case can both go N?
but there is one single concrete clause in the memorandum. if it agrees that they have the right, it means that trump gave them green light. if they don't, they have implicably agreed to stop enrichment
but there is one single concrete clause in the memorandum. if it agrees that they have the right, it means that trump gave them green light. if they don't, they have implicably agreed to stop enrichment
dear notards, why are you buying 58c shares when you can buy the same shares for 7c?
dear notards, why are you buying 58c shares when you can buy the same shares for 7c?
this screenshot, on the otherhand, is meaningless
this screenshot, on the otherhand, is meaningless
where exactly is this distinction made or implicably agreed to in the memorandum text? status quo is not "meaningless", it represents something, otherwise it would not be written
where exactly is this distinction made or implicably agreed to in the memorandum text? status quo is not "meaningless", it represents something, otherwise it would not be written
the nuclear facilities are there - they're not absent. you can have an absence of activity, not a structure. if there is an absence of activity, it means a concrete agreement
the nuclear facilities are there - they're not absent. you can have an absence of activity, not a structure. if there is an absence of activity, it means a concrete agreement
The MOU treats the current stockpile as a fixed quantity that needs to be addressed in negotiations (downblending). If Iran resumes or expands uranium enrichment during this 60-day window, the stockpile grows. A growing stockpile directly undermines the stated purpose of the negotiation period (reducing/disposing of the stockpile). The downblending mandate is undermined by any new enrichment. If Iran is permitted to continue or resume enrichment (even at low levels) during this window, a causal problem arises: The total enriched uranium stockpile grows while the parties are supposed to be negotiating how to reduce it. This would make the interim framework internally incoherent. The only way the downblending negotiation makes sense is if the stockpile (and the enrichment that feeds it) is held constant. Low-enriched uranium is the direct feedstock for further enrichment to higher levels. Allowing Iran to produce new LEU during the 60-day interim period increases the available feed material - hence the "status quo of nuclear program" - which eludes a strict definition. If you cannot interpret the standalone "status quo," consider the memorandum text as a whole and you might understand that it has to mean something, i.e. absence of nothing.
The MOU treats the current stockpile as a fixed quantity that needs to be addressed in negotiations (downblending). If Iran resumes or expands uranium enrichment during this 60-day window, the stockpile grows. A growing stockpile directly undermines the stated purpose of the negotiation period (reducing/disposing of the stockpile). The downblending mandate is undermined by any new enrichment. If Iran is permitted to continue or resume enrichment (even at low levels) during this window, a causal problem arises: The total enriched uranium stockpile grows while the parties are supposed to be negotiating how to reduce it. This would make the interim framework internally incoherent. The only way the downblending negotiation makes sense is if the stockpile (and the enrichment that feeds it) is held constant. Low-enriched uranium is the direct feedstock for further enrichment to higher levels. Allowing Iran to produce new LEU during the 60-day interim period increases the available feed material - hence the "status quo of nuclear program" - which eludes a strict definition. If you cannot interpret the standalone "status quo," consider the memorandum text as a whole and you might understand that it has to mean something, i.e. absence of nothing.
cannot interpret the text = assume that status quo is absolutely nothing? is that logical?
cannot interpret the text = assume that status quo is absolutely nothing? is that logical?
does it just mean nothing? is status quo something?
does it just mean nothing? is status quo something?
lol
lol
how come? does status quo just mean nothing?
how come? does status quo just mean nothing?
if iran has not agreed to end enrichment via MoU, then trump has agreed to their right to enrich via MoU
if iran has not agreed to end enrichment via MoU, then trump has agreed to their right to enrich via MoU
how?
how?
inspections != activity
inspections != activity
I think so, the consensus doesn't currently have a concrete standpoint. we should judge this purely from the MoU text
I think so, the consensus doesn't currently have a concrete standpoint. we should judge this purely from the MoU text
so trump agrees to enrichment is Y?
so trump agrees to enrichment is Y?
but you cannot suppose that it has no objective meaning
but you cannot suppose that it has no objective meaning
i asked him like 5 times
i asked him like 5 times
if this goes p4, I'm APING trump agrees to enrichment Y
if this goes p4, I'm APING trump agrees to enrichment Y
not gonna happen, ESPECIALLY with clarif. thonker was saying clarif favors p4, seems it's the opposite
not gonna happen, ESPECIALLY with clarif. thonker was saying clarif favors p4, seems it's the opposite
again, supposing with the p4 logic that status quo is not no enrichment
again, supposing with the p4 logic that status quo is not no enrichment
if he agreed to the MoU which implicably agrees to the status quo, it means that he did
if he agreed to the MoU which implicably agrees to the status quo, it means that he did
wdym nah?
wdym nah?
addition: if status quo is not no enrichment, then trump agrees to enrichment is also Y, trading at 7c...
addition: if status quo is not no enrichment, then trump agrees to enrichment is also Y, trading at 7c...
can you tell me what status quo is?
can you tell me what status quo is?
supposing that a consensus has a concrete standpoint, it has to be consistent on these 2 markets, i.e. both cannot go N. supposing that there is no concrete consensus and we're judging purely from the MoU, both cannot go N, it's an impossibility because "status quo" is an absence of nothing
supposing that a consensus has a concrete standpoint, it has to be consistent on these 2 markets, i.e. both cannot go N. supposing that there is no concrete consensus and we're judging purely from the MoU, both cannot go N, it's an impossibility because "status quo" is an absence of nothing
<@1178665239173140504> here's a good P2 argument
<@1178665239173140504> here's a good P2 argument
just copy and paste both rulesets to any AI chatbot and let it explain why it's a logical impossibility
just copy and paste both rulesets to any AI chatbot and let it explain why it's a logical impossibility
the odds are currently 8 times better
the odds are currently 8 times better
if status quo means low level enrichment as you ALL claim, why aren't you buying trump agrees to uranium enrichment Y???
if status quo means low level enrichment as you ALL claim, why aren't you buying trump agrees to uranium enrichment Y???
if a clarification is issued, explaining the case of P4 is going to be tough
if a clarification is issued, explaining the case of P4 is going to be tough
<@570563844678877196> thoughts?
<@570563844678877196> thoughts?
it's not a theorizing. both going N is a misresolve on one or the other
it's not a theorizing. both going N is a misresolve on one or the other
it has to mean something
it has to mean something
what this implies is that "status quo" doesn't mean anything, which is not the case. it means something
what this implies is that "status quo" doesn't mean anything, which is not the case. it means something
"any quantity of uranium by Iran for any future amount of time" it says
"any quantity of uranium by Iran for any future amount of time" it says
I get it, but it's an impossibility. if both are judged in accordance to MoU, it's an impossibility
I get it, but it's an impossibility. if both are judged in accordance to MoU, it's an impossibility
I don't get how that can go N and iran ceases enrichment also N
I don't get how that can go N and iran ceases enrichment also N
https://x.com/AJENews/status/2067972358124580970?s=20
https://x.com/AJENews/status/2067972358124580970?s=20
can you please add me? I can send you a p2 argument to post in UMA thread
can you please add me? I can send you a p2 argument to post in UMA thread
big words for an illiterate ESL trader
big words for an illiterate ESL trader
this explains why I had you blocked since I first saw your messages here
this explains why I had you blocked since I first saw your messages here
in the context I provided, they are irrelevant. you're clearly not reading any context here
in the context I provided, they are irrelevant. you're clearly not reading any context here
iran's laws are irrelevant. they didn't restrict their own right to procurement of nuclear weapons, preceding this memorandum. they re-affirmed a mandate. Please read the context of my argument also, which I provided
iran's laws are irrelevant. they didn't restrict their own right to procurement of nuclear weapons, preceding this memorandum. they re-affirmed a mandate. Please read the context of my argument also, which I provided