Yeah, their budget is now 90% secret police activities, and only 10% the kinds of things that are actually important… like interfacing with INTERPOL, and acting as a barrier to arms dealing and human trafficking.
Since we can’t abolish something 90%, we need to assign those duties to another organization, until ICE is left with nothing except evil/redundant duties, and THEN abolish it.
OK, let’s see the evidence for that assertion.
Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research - PMC
There’s one.
But obviously it’s not a guarantee if you don’t know what you’re doing. We also have documentation on where these methods fall short, such as when it’s based on exponential growth, rare events, or something else that humans are bad at understanding. Infectious Disease Forecasting.
But again, good statisticians are prepared to address those things.
And you have no idea of the mechanisms that shape that market.
That’s even better. If I don’t understand the mechanisms shaping the market, I won’t be able to correctly identify predictive variables for my model. In that case, I would be better off trusting the prediction market.
Obviously it would be better if the person building the model understood the mechanisms… but that takes time and money. If you’re managing 30 models, that might not be worth it.
If the contract isn’t something that meets the criteria for an efficient market, then yeah, it’s not something that can be used to give reasonable probabilities.
But for something like, winner of the democratic presidential primary, or the proce of gold in a month… then it’s genuinely a better predictive model than what a statistician would be able to come up with.
It doesn’t provide anything beneficial to anyone but its owners.
For statistics purposes, it gives me something incredibly beneficial. Simply by knowing the price of a contract, I can know with decent accuracy how likely something is to happen.
If you’re not in the field, you wouldn’t necessarily appreciate how valuable that is.
I third Linux mint.
Well, it’s the aggregated opinion of people who use the site. Kalshi doesn’t set the price; people making the bets set the price based on the odds others are willing to accept.
There’s a sampling bias for sure, but since the odds given for this bet are based on how much people are willing to pay for that bet, this gives a very good approximation for how people actually feel about something.
It actually ends up being more reliable than most opinion polls in that way.
For jalapeños and other peppers, the pithy center is where most of the pungency comes from. It’s also more bitter than the rear of the pepper. If you chop into quarters lengthwise, it’s easy to cut the seeds and pith away from the flesh. You’re the left with a milder, sweeter result.
… in case you’re in an experimental mood.
shit like onions and actually use some real fucking spices from India and Mexico
… but… India eats a lot of onions… because as great as the spices are, onions are also great. You can have both. You should have both.
I don’t want a one-time, 5% wealth tax. I want a recurring wealth tax. At 0.5%, such a tax outpaces the one time 5% in ten years.
I would settle for one time 5%… but it’s just so short-sighted. 5% in one sudden movement is actually a big ask… and are we actually going to be able to pull that off more than once?
A recurring wealth tax 1) is better in the long-term, 2) is less disruptive to the stock market (which we should care about, as long as this is the sustem we have) 3) makes for a more predictable economic environment, so people with money might actually still want to live in CA.
In NYC the most surveilled areas actually have lower murder resolution rates.
There’s really no way that could be a causal relationship. It’d be worth diving into the data to figure out which variables are related to each of these.
They included the Spotify logo. It’s just <insert song here> rather than labelling the picture as “Fortunate Sons”.
… Let’s unpack this.
Person points out this is just another case of wealthy and powerful people stirring up trouble between two groups of people. This is easy because people are easy to trick. If the headline is to be believed, even AOC, who isn’t stupid, believes boomers are the source of the problem.
You point out that, based on the people you know, there’s a conflict between boomers and millennials.
but… that’s not proof that the source of the problem actually IS either group. It’s still the case that this conflict is caused by a third group of people who have a vested interest in making sure the poors fight each other.
A progressive wealth tax has benefits as well. I just think there’s value in pointing out the impact that such a small percentage has. Implementing even a fraction of a percentage would make a serious impact; we don’t need to go whole hog right here, right now.
My ideal starting point for a progressive wealth tax would max out at 2%, because that’s within a standard deviation of annual S&P growth.
I understand the perspective that the extreme wealth taxes wouldn’t change the quality of life of the ultra-rich… but do you know what the long term impact on the economy would be?
I don’t. And I study this kind of thing. This is not the kind of system that responds well to massive, overnight changes. Most Americans get their food by buying it… if we fuck up, and the economy irretrievably crumbles without a backup, people will starve.
As desperate as people may be for radical change, it is worth it to make these proposals in a responsible way, and ensure that we’re not doing more harm than good.