The issue there is time. The Nobel prizes will be announced in around 9 months. Buying a share of "No" would currently cost 98.2 cents, working out to a (basically) risk-free return of around 2.4%. Alternatively someone who wants a very low-risk investment product could just buy 1-year t-bills with a return of... ~3.5%. And that doesn't require messing around with buying crypto and the inherent risk of trusting Polymarket with your money.
Anything under 3%/year of time until decision is going to have pretty limited predictive value within that range. Anything starting above that range will end up hitting that floor rather than going to zero because of the difficulty of finding a counterparty.
While Polymarket does offer holding rewards interest, it looks like it doesn't for this particular market.
That doesn't mean there aren't other explanations. It could mean that No holders expect to incur an opportunity cost greater than the risk free rate. Combine that with how there's low liquidity (there's less than $300 on the book buying Yes, and at 2 cents or less), and so we could just be seeing the effect of random fish temporarily distorting the price. It could also mean that the risk of a smart contract failing is making it not worth the hassle for a market maker to come in at such a slim margin and low volume.
They're offering interest on roughly a dozen hand-picked markets, according to their documentation. (I wasn't aware of that, so I stand corrected on the general assertion that they never do.)
> That doesn't mean there aren't other explanations.
Why do you need other explanations, when the observed probability can be precisely and fully explained by opportunity cost?
I don't have to "need" other explanations in order for them to exist. The current price does happen to accurately reflect what the risk free rate would imply. But look at the graph history: it hovered around 1% for a large chunk of December.
There are also issues with the time value of money for long-shot events. Someone has to be willing to buy a share of "No", and if that works out to a return lower than the risk-free rate (eg. buying t-bills) there will be no incentive to take the "No" position. That makes anything roughly under 3-4% per year pretty unreliable.
This is a petty political slapfight, basically the definition of an off-topic submission. If you want to hear about it, turn on CNN.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
You could maybe make that claim about the original broadcast, but an article in The Verge about internet censorship - and the internet routing around censorship! - seems highly relevant to tech.
For this to be actually tech related it needs to have more interesting technical details. Otherwise it's like any other pirated movie and limitations of free speech story (it is always "censorship" or "good thing" depending on what speech particular person dislikes because of their political party)
3 hours ago I was against flagging these posts but after discussions in this thread I can see that it brings out the most insanity/flamebait/unconstructive/petty HN people and I fully support flagging these posts. No thoughtful conversation will happen
What exactly is novel about this case of copyright infringement if you put aside the political angle? Thousands of new torrents get uploaded every day, this is established technology that has existed for decades.
The stats don't bear that out. Bluesky has been losing momentum since the election, with its DAU dropping from around 3.5 million to under 1.5 million today. For comparison Twitter has over 100 million. Right-wing alternative platforms had similar issues sustaining momentum, despite a much stronger push factor (right-wing people kept getting banned). It's hard to overcome the power of Twitter's network effect.
The stats show that Twitter is going down overall. People can’t handle the amount of bots and discourse over there
Threads is basically at the level of Twitter now.
Mass immigration from countries where measles is endemic? India has over 10,000 cases per year and makes up the plurality of Canada's immigration intake. Canada has a very high two-shot vaccination rate, but there are pockets like the Mennonite communities that are vulnerable.
Only for stays greater than six months. So an unvaccinated person can fly in from wherever and stay for 180 days legally, or just overstay their visa. That's plenty of time to spread measles.
this is a racist dog whistle. Stop with the "mass immigration" BS.
India, contrary to what the racists believe, has a long and successful vaccination program. A country of 1.5 billion people has around a 70% MMR vaccination rate among infants. Canada's in the 80% range and dropping.
Canada had eliminated measles, it was reintroduced by travel from a country where measles was endemic. This is not rocket science. High-volume international travel from countries where measles is endemic, like India, poses a public health risk to countries that have eliminated the disease. The same goes for tuberculosis, hepatitis, etc.
Those rules are usually intended to prevent people from having a derelict car up on blocks "under repairs" for weeks or months at a time. No one will notice or care if you do a quick oil change.
Unfortunately something like 90% of "vulnerability reports" are some guy in India running an automated scanner reporting something that isn't actually a vulnerability and demanding $1,000+. This creates a ton of noise in the system both for legitimate security researchers and the people stuck managing vulnerability disclosure programs.
The alternative was loading up a Coast Guard ship with guys and sending them out to do an interdiction, seizing 11 men, processing them through the American legal system, incarcerating them for decades, and then eventually deporting them. I bet that costs a couple orders of magnitude more than a drone strike. Arguing cost is not compelling in the slightest.
It's cheaper to drone strike a house with an alleged serial killer in it, than to arrest him and then give him a trial to see if he's actually a serial killer or not.
I had a fingerprint scanner on an old phone and it would fail if there was a tiny amount of dirt or liquid on my finger or on the scanner. It's not big deal to have it fail on a phone, it's just a few seconds of inconvenience putting in a passcode instead. On a firearm, that's a critical safety defect. When it comes to safe storage, there are plenty of better options like a safe, a cable/trigger lock, or for carrying, a retention holster (standard for law enforcement).
Anything under 3%/year of time until decision is going to have pretty limited predictive value within that range. Anything starting above that range will end up hitting that floor rather than going to zero because of the difficulty of finding a counterparty.
reply