This is a reaction to reputation, which is sometimes reasonable. But reasonable people also confirm their suspicions with evidence regardless of the situation.

Go ahead and save your time, but remember your reputation is at risk as well, and I would consider you unreasonable.

Sadly, there are not enough minutes in a day to verify all information thrown at me. So taking shortcuts feels necessary to me. Sure, this should be contingent on new information and developments.

> Pretty predictable what happens when you deny coverage for a treatment someone needs

Other poster demonstrated that you have no idea what "need" is. So you also have no idea what a "shortcoming of the present system" is either, because how the hell would you even know?

People being denied treatment they need seems like a shortcoming of the present system.

Where the hell did you read that

Presumably he means theft from shareholders. It's an accurate summary.

Probably Matt Levine.

Why would the opposing side of that exact same bet allow themselves to be fleeced of all that money for free?

You're asking why someone hiring a hitman would be willing to part with their money?

Because that's what money is for, to purchase things, like hitmen (apparently).

OK so its much a shallower thought than I anticipated.

Why go through the "prediction market" at all then? The hitman still killed someone, payments are not anonymous in this market, and its certainly not clean. Further, you share the pot with however many are involved, proportional to the allotted bets on each side and presuming binary prediction. And if the winds change on the market for the bet proportional to the "hitman's" side, you lose out on dollars that would otherwise be paid to you (the hitman).

And it'd be so easy to stiff the hitman just by equalizing the positions by timing it.

All that risk for something that's far simpler to just pay directly?

> Why go through the "prediction market" at all then

It's there. It's not actually easy to find hitman for hire. This is a publicly advertised market for it.

Plausible deniability. We weren't paying for the witness to be murdered, we were expressing our confidence that no one would murder the witness.

Price discovery. The market tells you how much you need to pay a hitman (if you overpay hedge funds swoop in and take the difference, telling you for next time. If the hedge funds underestimate the cost they end up paying a significant penalty to the people who they prevented from hiring a hitman).

Crowd funding. The market means that every can chip in however much they want towards paying the hitman, and they only end up paying if its enough. In fact the middlemen who accepted the bets in the meantime may promise to pay some small amount of damages if enough isn't collected.

It is impossible to stiff the hitman, and there is no risk for the hitman that the "winds change". The hitman takes out the entire "yes" position before committing the murder. If it's not enough, they don't commit the murder.

Asymmetry of information. Fixed bets depend entirely on a small enough group with the ability to influence the outcome, keeping their mouths shut.

The opposing side is getting paid, not getting fleeced.

There's a number of people who try and influence elections, money is not nearly as effective as you think it is. Or else a few people that have a few billion in their coffers would run and have won elections in places and other things far more than what they currently do/have done.

The wealthiest entity in the USA is the government itself. It's not even close.

Further, if currency was not able to influence things then that eliminates the main purpose of fiat currency, there is obviously a place for it in any case. Just because you don't like the direction it's being used doesn't mean you have a reasonable position either. Fiat is a benefit to the government in all ways and its in it's best interest to uphold the strength of their currency, not just for the locals to the land in the borders, but if they want to influence the rest of the world.

You should go down the path of "fair elections" because you otherwise lose all points for being vague and imprecise that no one can contest you on because you don't think we are worth the argument.

If tomorrow I owned 1 zillion dollar, that wouldn't make me able to change the course of next US (presidential) elections. It's not the only factor, ofc, but it is a very relevant one. Let's consider other factors that might be relevant: influence, visibility, arguments, fame, political weight, political knowledge, time, will. There are others. Someone with no influence on these factors and no money can hardly influence the outcomes of a nation election. If that someone was made a billionaire overnight, it can gain control over some factors, improving the likelihood of their impact over the next elections. Will they succeed? Not necessarily, but that their impact can become perceivable is undeniable.

Fair elections: in the US there are a bunch of practices related to vote that I don't consider fair. First and foremost, how votes are counted. Then, how money can be used to finance parties and campaigns. Gerrymandering is another one.

I look forward to the Great Australian firewall, maybe they can contain themselves without infecting the rest of the world.

> arguments like this ignore the point.

And the point should be ignored even more. Free software is a fairly specific thing, trying to co-opt it into something it isn't makes you the bad actor

Make your own idea instead of stealing and leeching off the success of others. Thats frankly disrespectful to even have the gall to do this. You definitely don't deserve ruining another's image for your idea of how society should work.

This is precisely what the author is attempting to do.

> I know my goal: shift the default in open source from “it’s free for anyone to use” to “please don’t use this if you’re evil”. I don’t just want to do this for my little project; I want to slowly change the discourse. I’m not sure how to do that effectively, if it’s even possible.

> I remain unconvinced at the societal value of “freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”, often called freedom 0. I don’t want to donate my work to the bad guys!

They never use the term “free software” to describe their goals. To the extent they use the term “open source” it’s in the lowercase informal form. How else should they describe their ideas if not using this terminology?

There are lots of alternative movements to Free Software and Open Source, like Ethical Computing, Fair Source etc. Use one of those, or the more generic "source available" term.

Why misrepresent what someone else said to make your point?

> My comment was pointing out that there are multiple possible (probably simultaneous) causes for the jury statistics.

Sure, but this is a non-statement without qualifying anything behind it. You can defeat any argument by claiming its "multi-faceted". Just like how I am doing to you right now, but instead forcing you into the position where you lack evidence to dismiss.

Very apt, OpenAI's start was always poach-central, we know this from executive email leaks via Elon/Sam respectively.

Any gibberish on any company's behalf of "poaching" is nonsense regardless IMO.