Although I have to admit: The combination of AI and required new hardware has been a nice boost for switching to Linux.

I mean, more or less, but you see what I'm getting at.

I think an additional table/graph of how large-bet performance vs small-bet performance would be interesting in general, as well as broken out by market type.

It kinda answers of the question: Are large bets equal to smart money? or are they equal in "smartness" to small bets?

I confess I'm surprised by that result in particular. I realize your results are for Kalshi, but ISTR some reports from the presidential elections on Polymarket.

But more generally: When you say there is "only a ~1% maker/taker gap", is that weighted by the size of the bets? or is it averaged over the number of bets placed?

In any case: Thanks for a very interesting paper!

So it would be interesting to measure the inefficiencies of various bets vs the total market value in that bet.

e: Although full disclosure, I did not pick apart the entire paper. Maybe it's buried in there.

Edit: Or better still, convince all of their customers to throw away perfectly good hardware and upgrade to one with a single extra chip, creating a hazardous waste epidemic for landfills as a nice side effect. It's especially important to do this in the middle of a RAM and HDD shortage.

Really, I'll just never be half the great business strategist that these guys are.

Maybe you all knew that factoid already, but I learned the name of shape only recently.

I'm curious: Is there a consensus on which startup companies achieved success using IBM as a fab? or if not a consensus, I'd settle for anecdotes too.

My own company (which built 40G optical transponders) used them back in that era. While the tech was first rate, the pricing was something to behold.

You say that as if stroke is orthogonal to heart disease. Much of what prevents one prevents the other.

I think that is key. A great mentor early in my career pointed out to me: "A" rated people need to work for "A" rated bosses. It's possible to have a "B" or "C" person work for an "A" boss, but when you put "A" people under "B" or (god forbid) "C" bosses, all kinds of problems ensue.

[I've personally experienced that situation only once, and swore never again.]

I'm trying to install adblockers (uBlock) and move them over to chatgpt when possible. If anyone has better ideas, I'm all ears.

> in which students sprinkled iodide of nitrogen over the grounds of a military drill, causing explosions under classmates' boots.

https://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/02/mit_p...

The students were dutifully copying the lecture while I was sitting there with my mouth agape realizing that he was working through a simplified example of what energy storage was required for the X-ray laser. IIRC Those guys had their own substation, and would charge the capacitors. The switch would get thrown and the sublasers would shoot at the molybdenum target, which would laze in the X-ray spectrum (and the molybdenum would vaporize, I think.)

Afterwards, I asked him how on earth the energy was transferred from the caps to the sublasers: He just smiled and said "very carefully".

He spoke at MIT (early 90s?) and I remember him talking about making fun of PacBell colleagues in his comic: They would recognize themselves, ask him to autograph the comic for them, and then go away happy (thus making fun of them a second time.)

> As for others, the set of people who understand that Hawking radiation exists has nearly 100% overlap with those who know that black bodies and spinning magnets radiate, so for those folks who are in the set who are also unfamiliar with the author, perhaps it's more clickbaity.

So according to my theory, you must in the set that understands Hawking radiation + black bodies + E&M, but not in the set familiar with Baez.

I worked hard on my theory, please don't let me down and be a counterexample. :)

So full disclosure: I've directly interacted with John Carlos Baez only in social media, with the topics as disparate as music and observational astronomy. My own QFT & GR background is grad course level but with little actual usage in my career. (I've done more solid-state + high-speed electronics work, with a bunch of programming as well.) With that background, and turning the pedantry dial up to 11:

To me, one distinguishing element of clickbait is that the post is ultimately disappointing. The usual M.O. for clickbait is that the website needs eyeballs for advertising, so they beef up a headline of an uninteresting article with the expectation of getting extra monetization compared to an honest headline.

I would venture a guess that he doesn't actually care about monetization, or really even extra clicks, with this post. The screenshot with the big red X through the popsci article sets the expectation pretty quickly, and the tone of the rest of the post is really a rant that mediocre science made it into PRL and then into the popular science literature. He explicitly calls out the popsci journalists for laziness, but in a clever (I'm pretty sure Mark Twain would approve of his name being taken in vain) and erudite (correct use of the subjunctive) way.

Would I have clicked on the title without seeing the authorship johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com? Maybe but I doubt it. There is so much bad popsci physics out there that I'm pretty trained to ignore obviously inadequate headlines. So on a scale of 1-10, I'd rate the click-baityness of the headline no more than a 3. He got me to click, but only because I knew it was his post.

As for others, the set of people who understand that Hawking radiation exists has nearly 100% overlap with those who know that black bodies and spinning magnets radiate, so for those folks who are in the set who are also unfamiliar with the author, perhaps it's more clickbaity.

[edit: And I can't believe you got me to write that many words on the clickbait philosophy. Have I been baited? :) ]