Polymarketokay and what is a vote for Yes?
okay and what is a vote for Yes?
residual参与话题 10消息总数 204
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 204 条，显示第 151-200 条that is dependent on IF they vote for no referendum
that is dependent on IF they vote for no referendum
“voting for remain in Canada” how is it about that? if they vote for no referendum about independence it means they just dont want to vote yet
“voting for remain in Canada” how is it about that? if they vote for no referendum about independence it means they just dont want to vote yet
“ballot text explicitly says “whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada” is not concerning secession.” the ballot doesn’t say this it will instead say whether to vote on Alberta independence or not”
“ballot text explicitly says “whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada” is not concerning secession.” the ballot doesn’t say this it will instead say whether to vote on Alberta independence or not”
yeah same bought some N
yeah same bought some N
“concerning” is a bit ambiguous for sure
“concerning” is a bit ambiguous for sure
but I agree with <@1428890877744644240> that this referendum is not about desire for independence or setting up a “framework”
but I agree with <@1428890877744644240> that this referendum is not about desire for independence or setting up a “framework”
it is kinda framed that way?
it is kinda framed that way?
desire for independence cannot be directly seen from the current referendum
desire for independence cannot be directly seen from the current referendum
no it actually makes sense
no it actually makes sense
what they mean by concerning is mentioned in the second statement
what they mean by concerning is mentioned in the second statement
ummm i kinda started agreeing with you😂
ummm i kinda started agreeing with you😂
what about establishing the framework
what about establishing the framework
dude the referendum is gonna be establishing the public’s desire for independence it is establishing a framework being it a pre referendum for voting on independence doesn’t mean it is some random voting
dude the referendum is gonna be establishing the public’s desire for independence it is establishing a framework being it a pre referendum for voting on independence doesn’t mean it is some random voting
should albertans vote to vote on “independence” which is yes
should albertans vote to vote on “independence” which is yes
This market will resolve to "Yes" if any provincial government in Canada officially schedules a referendum concerning the province’s potential secession from Canada the vote is gonna be about if the public wants to have a referendum setup for independence or not the provincial gov has scheduled a vote to vote on independence but it is surely “concerning” independence whats the P4 arg?
This market will resolve to "Yes" if any provincial government in Canada officially schedules a referendum concerning the province’s potential secession from Canada the vote is gonna be about if the public wants to have a referendum setup for independence or not the provincial gov has scheduled a vote to vote on independence but it is surely “concerning” independence whats the P4 arg?
my god we don't have anything more interesting to discuss yet
my god we don't have anything more interesting to discuss yet
lebanon ceasefire?
lebanon ceasefire?
what market is being discussed?
what market is being discussed?
no one has anything new so it comes down to these two markets again
no one has anything new so it comes down to these two markets again
there's no case of yes yet
there's no case of yes yet
there is not even a need of NYT, EO is crystal clear
there is not even a need of NYT, EO is crystal clear
ok i see you on N
ok i see you on N
you on Y or N?
you on Y or N?
hmmm yes waiting
hmmm yes waiting
it feels too dry here recently, no scams 😅
it feels too dry here recently, no scams 😅
nah i am just bored listening about the same thing for so long
nah i am just bored listening about the same thing for so long
its done, move on from it
its done, move on from it
who tf is still talking about mstr here?
who tf is still talking about mstr here?
for which market?
for which market?
yeah jk
yeah jk
wh insider going to repost again on twitter it seems
wh insider going to repost again on twitter it seems
coz june 30 resolved Y w/o dispute
coz june 30 resolved Y w/o dispute
i agree with this, non-binding here just means having an EO which we have but the core issue is there is no review being done FOR public release they are just reviewing for benchmarking it seems, rather than giving a greenlight that it is now good to release to public there is no pipeline in the EO which talks about approving anything
i agree with this, non-binding here just means having an EO which we have but the core issue is there is no review being done FOR public release they are just reviewing for benchmarking it seems, rather than giving a greenlight that it is now good to release to public there is no pipeline in the EO which talks about approving anything
yeah
yeah
i am on N dude
i am on N dude
the rules are not very clear as always
the rules are not very clear as always
i think we have a very nicely written EO, no ambiguity in that so there shouldn't be any need for looking at any other reporting.
i think we have a very nicely written EO, no ambiguity in that so there shouldn't be any need for looking at any other reporting.
https://polymarket.com/event/trump-orders-federal-review-for-ai-model-releases-by-may-31 Y odds nearly tripled in a few hrs
https://polymarket.com/event/trump-orders-federal-review-for-ai-model-releases-by-may-31 Y odds nearly tripled in a few hrs
reviewing a public release is different from reviewing **for** public release
reviewing a public release is different from reviewing **for** public release
actually now when I think about it, the rules do look a bit ambiguous The first statement says: "review process **for** the public release of new AI" -> which leans towards No as they are not gonna do that second statement says: "A qualifying action must create a federal process for reviewing or approving the public release of new AI" If the second statement has to supplement the first statement it has to be interpreted as reviewing **for** public release or approve the public release -> again leans No I think then the N argument is stronger
actually now when I think about it, the rules do look a bit ambiguous The first statement says: "review process **for** the public release of new AI" -> which leans towards No as they are not gonna do that second statement says: "A qualifying action must create a federal process for reviewing or approving the public release of new AI" If the second statement has to supplement the first statement it has to be interpreted as reviewing **for** public release or approve the public release -> again leans No I think then the N argument is stronger
any interesting finds today?
any interesting finds today?
srsly sometimes i think how hundreds of millions are being traded here everyday
srsly sometimes i think how hundreds of millions are being traded here everyday
wtf is this
wtf is this
In the post: "Richard Leon should stop playing games with America’s Security! If anything happens, he will be held responsible for the Death and Destruction caused to our Country. He has already created enough problems by allowing “Top Secret” information to be released and exposed" he even attacks him in a negative manner.
In the post: "Richard Leon should stop playing games with America’s Security! If anything happens, he will be held responsible for the Death and Destruction caused to our Country. He has already created enough problems by allowing “Top Secret” information to be released and exposed" he even attacks him in a negative manner.
his msgs make me so anxious
his msgs make me so anxious
again there is no mention of any filing wait period. if they expect us to wait until then, it should be in the rules. maybe in future markets. this should not be resolved based on the waiting assumptions.
again there is no mention of any filing wait period. if they expect us to wait until then, it should be in the rules. maybe in future markets. this should not be resolved based on the waiting assumptions.
then what is the Y arg? i am asking a simple question. when the rules dont mention any wait period why would we wait?
then what is the Y arg? i am asking a simple question. when the rules dont mention any wait period why would we wait?
waiting indefinitely seems more retarded
waiting indefinitely seems more retarded
its called de-risking
its called de-risking