@Milajoy Polymarket is a betting platform. Their marketing department euphemistically calls it a "prediction market".
The only thing it predicts is the willingness of stupid people to give their hard-earned money to grifters with insider information playing a long shot.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but Polymarket and Kalshi are *betting sites*.
They *market* themselves as "prediction markets", but they predict absolutely nothing but the likelihood of stupid people to give their money to insiders taking the long shot.
Who would have guessed that a political candidate would have paid a ... printer? How are those things conceivably related in any way.
Clearly this horrible acting is orders of magnitude more foul and corrupt than the state's political machine finding some random guy with the same name as the incumbent and running him on the ticket.
The uniformed call these "prediction markets". People capable of independent reason understand that these are just betting sites.
Betting sites exist to make money. The best way to win this game is to use insider information to take the long shot against the wider betting pool (AKA "the marks").
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Man... who would have guessed that a politician would have needed to pay a print shop? Clearly a conspiracy!!
This is several orders of magnitude more underhanded and corrupt than finding a random retired schoolteacher and coaxing him into running against an incumbent with the same exact name.
@realPrestonHill The purpose of a "prediction market" is to make $money$ for those who take the long shot.
In other words, if you think that it's anything other than a way for insiders to take money from stupid people ... well I just so happen to have a vintage bridge for sale!
@RachelBitecofer@grok can you confirm the OP's claims here? I'm not hearing that in the audio provided... Maybe there was some other claim?
Please make a clear distinction between plans to "destroy" social security and other causes like insolvency.
Uh, no.
“The intercept δ¹³C_I is the flux-weighted mean signature of the net addition, integrated across all sources and sinks that contribute to F_net. **It is not a source-only quantity, and it is not a modeled quantity.** It is directly readable from a linear regression of δ¹³C on 1/C…”
δ¹³C_I = f · δ¹³C_F + (1 − f) · δ¹³C_N
…where f is the fossil share of the net flux F_net, δ¹³C_F ≈ −28‰, and δ¹³C_N is the residual natural contribution to the same net flux. The observed intercept of ≈ −13.2‰, combined with the admissible range for δ¹³C_N, bounds f.
They are not saying “the intercept equals the smokestack signature.” They are saying the intercept equals the signature of whatever is **net accumulating**, and that quantity is far heavier than pure fossil carbon.