PolymarketMy country is attacking all other Arab countries rn 😂
My country is attacking all other Arab countries rn 😂
Alireza参与话题 6消息总数 429
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 429 条，显示第 401-429 条Look
Look
I told u guys add new strike market
I told u guys add new strike market
Yep, bad luck
Yep, bad luck
So it's not that bad 😂
So it's not that bad 😂
I bought last night at 0.5 and sold it at 1
I bought last night at 0.5 and sold it at 1
Dudeee, i wrote the logic, I don't know what else i can do for u Just hope u don't own any yes shares
Dudeee, i wrote the logic, I don't know what else i can do for u Just hope u don't own any yes shares
Claude is right, its like this (mstr & onchain) | credible sources report But did you find any reports that before 1 june anounce mstr had sold BTC?
Claude is right, its like this (mstr & onchain) | credible sources report But did you find any reports that before 1 june anounce mstr had sold BTC?
Pump it I got 50$ yes shares 😂
Pump it I got 50$ yes shares 😂
Exactlyy
Exactlyy
They're scamming!!
They're scamming!!
😂😂
😂😂
For now we're talking about website bugs
For now we're talking about website bugs
3000 camel i guess
3000 camel i guess
So why did he post it? Most of images and media he and white house posted have been AI, that means they're meaningless?
So why did he post it? Most of images and media he and white house posted have been AI, that means they're meaningless?
U even didn't insult anyone
U even didn't insult anyone
😂😂
😂😂
Yeah trump posted that picture so thanks those people for their hardwork and bless them, good dispute man
Yeah trump posted that picture so thanks those people for their hardwork and bless them, good dispute man
Accidentally 50k 💀
Accidentally 50k 💀
And if u lose, u will lose 250 too?
And if u lose, u will lose 250 too?
I know proposals have terrible ROI (risking $750 bond for just $5 reward), but what about disputes? Is the upside any better if you win one?
I know proposals have terrible ROI (risking $750 bond for just $5 reward), but what about disputes? Is the upside any better if you win one?
Do they saying these things on UMA Rocks server?
Do they saying these things on UMA Rocks server?
How many committee uma rocks have?
How many committee uma rocks have?
Ok, i was trying to helping u out😂
Ok, i was trying to helping u out😂
The rule says the resolution sources are "official information from the governments of the United States and Cuba, and a consensus of credible reporting." So the framing in those sources IS the evidence — we don't get to infer "well it was diplomatic in spirit". We look at what they said: 🇺🇸 SOUTHCOM: "assessed the security of the naval base… safety of service members… operational readiness" 🇨🇺 MINFAR: "issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave" 📰 Diario Libre headline: "Top military commanders of Cuba and US meet in Guantanamo" Neither government nor any credible outlet called it diplomatic. Every source frames it operationally. And the rule has an explicit catch-all: "Brief greetings, chance encounters, or talks otherwise not deliberately aimed at diplomacy or negotiation will not count."
The rule says the resolution sources are "official information from the governments of the United States and Cuba, and a consensus of credible reporting." So the framing in those sources IS the evidence — we don't get to infer "well it was diplomatic in spirit". We look at what they said: 🇺🇸 SOUTHCOM: "assessed the security of the naval base… safety of service members… operational readiness" 🇨🇺 MINFAR: "issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave" 📰 Diario Libre headline: "Top military commanders of Cuba and US meet in Guantanamo" Neither government nor any credible outlet called it diplomatic. Every source frames it operationally. And the rule has an explicit catch-all: "Brief greetings, chance encounters, or talks otherwise not deliberately aimed at diplomacy or negotiation will not count."
This was claude response: 🔎 @Alireza — searched government sources as you asked. Result: even cleaner NO. What the actual primary sources say: 🇺🇸 SOUTHCOM (per CNN/CBS/Military Times reporting their statement): Donovan "led a perimeter security assessment" of Guantanamo Bay and discussed "force protection, safety of service members and their families, and operational readiness." 🇨🇺 Cuban Ministry of Defense (MINFAR): "issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave were addressed and they agreed to maintain communication between both military commands." 📰 Media consensus (all the major outlets use the same framing): • CNN: "US military leader held rare meeting with senior Cuban military officials" • CBS: "Top US general meets with Cuban military leaders" • Military Times: "US general holds rare meeting with Cuban military officials" • NPR / Al Arabiya / Türkiye Today: all use "military officers" framing No source — government OR media — calls this diplomatic. Per your framework: that's a NO. Window check (important nuance I should have flagged earlier): Market was created May 22, 2026 at 12:34 PM ET. So only meetings between May 22–31 qualify. • Apr 10 — Lewin/Kozak State Dept delegation → predates market, doesn'''t count • May 14 — CIA Director Ratcliffe in Havana → predates market, doesn'''t count • May 29 — Guantanamo military meeting → only candidate in window PBS News timeline (updated May 20) + follow-up searches show no other US–Cuba contacts in the window. The Guantanamo meeting is the entire ballgame. Updated call: ~75–80% NO (up from 70–75%). Trade at NO $0.43: fair value $0.75–0.80 → ~32–37¢ edge. The only thing that flips it: a government statement that explicitly characterizes the May 29 meeting as diplomatic, or a new in-person meeting in the next ~9 hours that does. As of now, neither exists.
This was claude response: 🔎 @Alireza — searched government sources as you asked. Result: even cleaner NO. What the actual primary sources say: 🇺🇸 SOUTHCOM (per CNN/CBS/Military Times reporting their statement): Donovan "led a perimeter security assessment" of Guantanamo Bay and discussed "force protection, safety of service members and their families, and operational readiness." 🇨🇺 Cuban Ministry of Defense (MINFAR): "issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave were addressed and they agreed to maintain communication between both military commands." 📰 Media consensus (all the major outlets use the same framing): • CNN: "US military leader held rare meeting with senior Cuban military officials" • CBS: "Top US general meets with Cuban military leaders" • Military Times: "US general holds rare meeting with Cuban military officials" • NPR / Al Arabiya / Türkiye Today: all use "military officers" framing No source — government OR media — calls this diplomatic. Per your framework: that's a NO. Window check (important nuance I should have flagged earlier): Market was created May 22, 2026 at 12:34 PM ET. So only meetings between May 22–31 qualify. • Apr 10 — Lewin/Kozak State Dept delegation → predates market, doesn'''t count • May 14 — CIA Director Ratcliffe in Havana → predates market, doesn'''t count • May 29 — Guantanamo military meeting → only candidate in window PBS News timeline (updated May 20) + follow-up searches show no other US–Cuba contacts in the window. The Guantanamo meeting is the entire ballgame. Updated call: ~75–80% NO (up from 70–75%). Trade at NO $0.43: fair value $0.75–0.80 → ~32–37¢ edge. The only thing that flips it: a government statement that explicitly characterizes the May 29 meeting as diplomatic, or a new in-person meeting in the next ~9 hours that does. As of now, neither exists.
You were right, I researched yesterday about it and it's a NO but as we all know after it gets below 10¢ it's hard to fight back
You were right, I researched yesterday about it and it's a NO but as we all know after it gets below 10¢ it's hard to fight back
😂😂
😂😂
Email it to integrity team
Email it to integrity team
← 上一页
第 9 / 9 页