We've banned the account for using HN to pursue a narrow political agenda. HN's purpose is to gratify intellectual curiosity, and the site can only work if submitters post a variety of articles about different topics, rather than posting articles about the same topic repeatedly.
>You (and a few other outliers) have their comment history piped into an RSS feed that I check regularly, solely because you refuse to write ordinary comments or submissions. Your post history can even be traced across accounts with basic stylometry, nothing about your contributions are subtle, normal, or genuine.
I don't believe you are a HN mod, frankly this looks like harassment/stalking. Write an email to Dang if it bothers you.
You don't have to be an HN mod to do any of that. The title is negligent and misleading to readers, as well as unfair to Reuters.
There's nothing wrong with the article's contents or speculation. This is a high-quality submission besides OP's insistence on putting their opinions in the title instead of the comment section.
Please stop. Dang has asked you to stop targeting individual users like this, and now I'm asking. It's ugly conduct, and it doesn't even achieve the outcome you want. Indeed it's most likely to achieve the opposite; fixating on individuals only gives them more energy and resolve. If you see a wrong title on a submission, or a pattern of abusive conduct, please email us (hn@ycombinator.com).
The real concern was Russia, given SpaceX has always been a MIC project, now publicly manifest as "Golden Dome" .. a program which undermines M.A.D. and obviously greatly incentives sabotage. There just happened to be a ULA building nearby that was in range and investigated as a possible vector of attack.
People need to stop with this SpaceX has always been about golden dome theory. Its just a silly conspiricy theory that boils down to, lots of people have worked in the US space industry for a long time.
> "Thinking this will prevent war, the US government gives an impenetrable supercomputer total control over launching nuclear missiles"
That's not even close to what the Golden Dome is.
> The Golden Dome is a planned multi-layer missile defense system for the United States, intended to detect and destroy ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles before they launch or during their flight.
The reporting on Elektrek is top notch. They care deeply about real sustainable energy and transportation and are willing to dig deep past the marketing and plainly report the facts. I can't count the number of times they've had exclusive scoops or found insightful angles nobody else was concerning.
This may be true, but from an editorial perspective they are openly and aggressively anti-Tesla. I think it's worth noting as this article is Tesla related.
It sounds like they should be called "indicator markets" rather than "prediction markets", as the data shows they largely just summarize the current knowledge, with little predictive ability.
Sort of. Putting current knowledge into a number can be pretty interesting / useful though. Like many people, I read headlines and pay attention to what's happening in international politics, but from those it's hard to have any sense of how much reality there is to bluster in Iran/Panama/Venezuela/Greenland just from general discourse and media. For me, prediction markets have been very helpful in offering some sort of grounding beyond the general noise in areas where I have very little intuition or realistic sense of the possibilities.
I don't understand the distinction you are making.
Obviously they are based on current knowledge. Nobody has any actual crystal ball.
But the outcomes are with regard to future events. So the correct term is predictions.
And they don't "just summarize the current knowledge". The whole point is that they better reflect the knowledge of people who presumably know better because they are willing to put their money where their mouth is, and ignore the vast majority of nonsense. That's not summarization. That's judgment. That's the whole point.
My sense is that, for prediction markets to work, there needs to be some real knowledge/analysis/judgement spread across at least a material subset of participants. Simply aggregating random guesses is likely no better than any given random guess.
Put another way there needs to be SOME signal buried in all the noise.
And there is. That's why they work. Prediction markets are not simply aggregating random guesses. Were you somehow under the impression that they were?
Not at all. Just saying that there needs to be knowledge/expertise/experience/etc. of some sort embedded beyond just a lot of people making random guesses and I’m not sure that wisdom of crowds always captures that.
But there is, that's the whole point. The more correct and better information you have, the more incentivized you are monetarily to place a wager that will pay off. And the more incentivized you are to place a much larger wager.
Meanwhile, people just making random guesses are more likely to be placing small wagers that are also just canceling each other out.
So the knowledge, expertise, experience that you are talking about is absolutely embedded into this. That is the whole point.
>as the data shows they largely just summarize the current knowledge, with little predictive ability.
What counts as "little predictive ability"? Do weather forecasts count as "predictions", or are they "indicators" too? Sure, they might have a more consistent track record, but then again weather is less susceptible to human interference than whatever happens in geopolitics within the next year. Prognostications about future climate might be less reliable, do those have to be downgraded to "indicators" too? On the flip side, prediction markets have a very good track record when forecasting certain events, such as interest rate decisions. Does that mean whether it's a "prediction" or a "indicator" depends on what you're forecasting?
It was a finite element simulation of a CT-scanned violin, but as they note,
“If there’s anything that’s sounding mechanical to it, it’s because we’re using the exact same time function, or standard way of plucking, for each note,” says Makris, who is himself a lute player. “A musician will adapt the way they’re plucking, to put a little more feeling on certain notes than others. But there could be subtleties which we could incorporate and refine.”
In addition, the resonant characteristics of the bow also contributes significantly to the sound, as it feeds directly back to the stick-slip contact that is more akin to a mode-locked laser’s nonlinear dynamics. The violin body’s resonant characteristics in comparison is more like a passive filter.
reply