PolymarketI have an exploit, I can put any damn price on the books I want
I have an exploit, I can put any damn price on the books I want
Thonker参与话题 26消息总数 1397
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 1397 条，显示第 951-1000 条I have a sell at 100.1c
I have a sell at 100.1c
"It's not x — it's y" <:sobpray:1476012617007894548>
"It's not x — it's y" <:sobpray:1476012617007894548>
"Let's unpack this" <:sobpray:1476012617007894548>
"Let's unpack this" <:sobpray:1476012617007894548>
ChatGPT can't emulate my wonderfully discursive and parenthetical prose
ChatGPT can't emulate my wonderfully discursive and parenthetical prose
I think ultimately the P2 argument boils down to the fact that the P1 argument that it doesn't count because it's a vote on if a vote will be held on sucession is a false dichotomy — it's both a vote on if a vote on secession will be held and a non-binding vote on secession due to the (somewhat bizarre) way the question is formed
I think ultimately the P2 argument boils down to the fact that the P1 argument that it doesn't count because it's a vote on if a vote will be held on sucession is a false dichotomy — it's both a vote on if a vote on secession will be held and a non-binding vote on secession due to the (somewhat bizarre) way the question is formed
Real ones move in silence 🤫
Real ones move in silence 🤫
Love the sharpies that are all furtive about it 🤫
Love the sharpies that are all furtive about it 🤫
pi is a secret sharp 🤫
pi is a secret sharp 🤫
He just communicates in an ESL/AI-like way
He just communicates in an ESL/AI-like way
pi isn't a retard
pi isn't a retard
He made a ton of money on Microstrategy and singlehandedly saved the airspace market from misresolving
He made a ton of money on Microstrategy and singlehandedly saved the airspace market from misresolving
fr, omg that guy must have such a big cock
fr, omg that guy must have such a big cock
I don't think there would be something else before EOY
I don't think there would be something else before EOY
I love price arguments when the price is 75c, meaning the market actually leans toward it counting
I love price arguments when the price is 75c, meaning the market actually leans toward it counting
Price was at 1c for No bro!!! Gr33dy is a scammer bro, market decided it was a Yes!
Price was at 1c for No bro!!! Gr33dy is a scammer bro, market decided it was a Yes!
Why didn't you buy bro????
Why didn't you buy bro????
Remember the time Canada and Mexico got steel tariffs imposed on them and it was widely reported on every outlet on the planet and the market was at 2c at the end of the market timeframe and it got proposed Yes at the end of like April for the EO that happened in February that did that? I remember
Remember the time Canada and Mexico got steel tariffs imposed on them and it was widely reported on every outlet on the planet and the market was at 2c at the end of the market timeframe and it got proposed Yes at the end of like April for the EO that happened in February that did that? I remember
It's been at 75c for a long time
It's been at 75c for a long time
I've transcended monetary desires. 🪷
I've transcended monetary desires. 🪷
Was literally weeks
Was literally weeks
Yeah I was surprised how long it went basically undiscussed here
Yeah I was surprised how long it went basically undiscussed here
asshole I was just on the page
asshole I was just on the page
who stole my proposal
who stole my proposal
Not nary a one
Not nary a one
I don't recognize a single one of these niggas
I don't recognize a single one of these niggas
what sharps bro
what sharps bro
Has literally NEVER EVER EVER happened and when someone says it's available it's ALWAYS a scam.
Has literally NEVER EVER EVER happened and when someone says it's available it's ALWAYS a scam.
There's NEVER free money on Polymarket on something that's already happened.
There's NEVER free money on Polymarket on something that's already happened.
I'm just more eloquent
I'm just more eloquent
Yeah but you do -- not —
Yeah but you do -- not —
That it's just a vote to hold a vote on sucession, but I think I defeated that with my argument above
That it's just a vote to hold a vote on sucession, but I think I defeated that with my argument above
Media charaterizations are also somewhat unfriendly to the P1 interpretation
Media charaterizations are also somewhat unfriendly to the P1 interpretation
Hyphens are for hypenated compounds — dashes are a punctuation mark that marks an abrupt chance in a sentence.
Hyphens are for hypenated compounds — dashes are a punctuation mark that marks an abrupt chance in a sentence.
It's a DASH not a HYPHEN
It's a DASH not a HYPHEN
It's the proper way to do it
It's the proper way to do it
I was typing for 5 years I take offense to the idea I was using AI <:sobpray:1476012617007894548>
I was typing for 5 years I take offense to the idea I was using AI <:sobpray:1476012617007894548>
option shift -
option shift -
Yes I use em dashes — no I'm not an AI
Yes I use em dashes — no I'm not an AI
———————
———————
option shift - bro
option shift - bro
Windows user spotted
Windows user spotted
I discussed this extensively with someone else — I'm almost tempted to say it should be P4 -> P3 due to how the question is formed. This is a market on if Canada will hold a vote, binding or non-binding, on if any provincial government in Canada will schedule a referendum for secession. Non-binding votes qualify. An example of a non-binding vote would be a vote that establishes a desire to secede from Canada, but if passed has no legal power to actually do that. Attached is an example of a non-binding vote in the political primaries for a state in the US (namely, Texas). The question asks if Texas "should prohibit denial of healthcare or any medical service based solely on the patient's vaccination status." If passed, this vote has no legal power. It's non-binding. The Alberta referendum has been characterized as non-binding. This means that once passed, it has no legal power to force secession from Canada. The exact wording of the question is: "Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?" This has been characterized as non-binding. But it *is* binding for something. It's binding in that it legally binds Alberta to hold a binding vote on secession. The question is a bit fragmented and borders on the grammatically improper. It kinda asks a question in a way that imposes a false dichotomy, right? The alternative to holding a vote on secession is not a lack of a desire to secede, and the converse is also true. The answers to the question are: "Hold Seperation Referendum" or "Remain in Canada" The question is asking, in perhaps a manner that imposes a false dichotomy on its voters, two questions: "Do you want to remain in Canada" and "Do you want to hold a binding vote on remaining in Canada"? The first question is non-binding. The second is binding. The non-binding desire to leave Canada portion still applies and qualifies under the rule. Additionally, media have charaterized this as a non-binding secession question. It counts.
I discussed this extensively with someone else — I'm almost tempted to say it should be P4 -> P3 due to how the question is formed. This is a market on if Canada will hold a vote, binding or non-binding, on if any provincial government in Canada will schedule a referendum for secession. Non-binding votes qualify. An example of a non-binding vote would be a vote that establishes a desire to secede from Canada, but if passed has no legal power to actually do that. Attached is an example of a non-binding vote in the political primaries for a state in the US (namely, Texas). The question asks if Texas "should prohibit denial of healthcare or any medical service based solely on the patient's vaccination status." If passed, this vote has no legal power. It's non-binding. The Alberta referendum has been characterized as non-binding. This means that once passed, it has no legal power to force secession from Canada. The exact wording of the question is: "Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?" This has been characterized as non-binding. But it *is* binding for something. It's binding in that it legally binds Alberta to hold a binding vote on secession. The question is a bit fragmented and borders on the grammatically improper. It kinda asks a question in a way that imposes a false dichotomy, right? The alternative to holding a vote on secession is not a lack of a desire to secede, and the converse is also true. The answers to the question are: "Hold Seperation Referendum" or "Remain in Canada" The question is asking, in perhaps a manner that imposes a false dichotomy on its voters, two questions: "Do you want to remain in Canada" and "Do you want to hold a binding vote on remaining in Canada"? The first question is non-binding. The second is binding. The non-binding desire to leave Canada portion still applies and qualifies under the rule. Additionally, media have charaterized this as a non-binding secession question. It counts.
We have daily Trump insult markets. Might Trump daily *praise* markets be a nice addition? <a:thonkSpin:662106139344764929>
We have daily Trump insult markets. Might Trump daily *praise* markets be a nice addition? <a:thonkSpin:662106139344764929>
I stand by this btw You can read every word clear as day
I stand by this btw You can read every word clear as day
It was clear
It was clear
I was upset initially too but then I actually read the rule 💀
I was upset initially too but then I actually read the rule 💀
The credible reporting was for the reopening
The credible reporting was for the reopening
I'm eternally grateful
I'm eternally grateful
He said the site wouldn't update and it didn't
He said the site wouldn't update and it didn't