superfrank

I wasn't saying we shouldn't debate the implementation details. I just think they should be separate arguments.

It's like if someone killed my dog with 3d printed gun and so everyone started talking about banning or regulating 3d printers. It's like, yes, debating 3d printer regulation is probably a worthwhile debate to have, but regardless of where we end up on that it doesn't change the fact that that person killed my dog.

We should be having a debate as to whether there are certain things that are off limits to bet on, but regardless of where that debate goes, if a state has banned sports betting, it should be banned regardless of the platform.

I totally agree with your response to my first point. I have another comment in this thread that might be at the top right now, but I basically say that I think the fact that Minnesota, a state that has a complete ban on online sports betting, is bringing this case actually gives them an advantage over previous states who've brought cases because the entire argument can just be "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." as opposed to trying to explain why betting on the Super Bowl on Kalshi is somehow different than making the same bet on DraftKings.

On your second point, I don't disagree, but those issues aren't tied to prediction markets. Traditional online sportsbooks have allowed gambling on presidential and state elections for at least a decade now. Kalshi and Polymarket have taken this to the extreme, but they didn't start the fire.

We should be restricting what people can bet on regardless of the technology used. My concern with tying these two points together is that law makers will assume that solving problem one also solves problem two, when it doesn't. I'm worried that law makers will just outright ban prediction markets and go, "job done" leaving the door open to bring them back by creating some new gambling method that technically isn't a prediction market.

I don't want Polymarket allowing bets on whether we're going to war, but I also don't want DraftKings offering that bet. On the flip side, I frankly don't care if someone wants to bet on the Super Bowl, or the winner of Survivor, of how much rain New York will get tomorrow whether it's on Polymarket, or Kalshi, or DraftKings, or anywhere else. Prediction markets are how people are placing bets. I don't actually care how the bets are places, I care what is being bet on and I think most people would agree with that.

I have a website I run that is focused on sportsbetting so while I know high level what is legal where, I'm not actually in Minnesota, so I don't know every single detail especially when it comes to what's allowed in person.

My guess would be that either A) that's tribal land and there's an exemption for that in the current laws or B) they have a casino, but don't offer sports betting or C) they only allow sports betting on the property by either requiring all bets to be placed in person or the app they offer is for sportsbetting is geo-fenced to their property (which is how states like WA do it)

First, over 90% of the wagers on Polymarket and Kalshi are already on sports (quoting John Oliver's Last Week Tonight on that one). Despite the headlines, Kalshi and Polymarket are mainly just sportsbooks.

Second, while yes, some of the markets available on prediction markets can push people to do awful things, there are plenty that are harmless. I'm cherry picking to make an extreme point, but I would so much rather have someone betting on what the temperature in Los Angeles is going to be tomorrow on Kalshi than betting on who will win the little league world series on DraftKings.

I support regulation saying certain things should not be allowed to be bet on, but allowing bets on morally questionable things isn't a quality unique to prediction markets.

Sure, but that's not really an argument to ban prediction markets, it's an argument to regulate what the public can or cannot bet on.

Most major online sportsbooks have taken bets on the US presidential election for well over a decade. I can't imagine anyone really arguing that it's okay for DraftKings to offer that market, but not okay for Polymarket to offer it.

I put it somewhere else in this thread, but there are actually two different questions that need to be answered separately. Are prediction markets just sportsbooks by another name and are there certain things that we should not allow people to gamble on.

The argument around prediction markets always seems to squish those two into one which I think does people who want regulation a disservice. I think to most people, the answer to first question (are prediction markets just sportsbooks by another name) is a pretty resounding yes. The second question has a lot more room for debate though. Even if people agree that there should be things we don't allow people to bet on, there's still plenty to argue over where we draw the line. The problem is that as long as we mush these two together, people will use the disagreement over the second question to prevent action from being taken on the first.

> I think you could make a case in separating the two, of course opening further discussion, but because sports betting takes place in a comparatively very controlled environment I think the risk profile is pretty different versus, idk, betting that the temperate will be at or above a certain point and then someone sticks a hair dryer on the thermostat[1]. Cheating can happen in sports of course, but the risk profile and real-world impact I think is quite a bit different. Worth discussing, but I think that's an important distinction.

That's kind of the point I was getting that. That's not really an argument about prediction markets, it's about what things should we be allowed to bet on.

I'm looking at FanDuel right now and I can bet on 1v1 eSports games of FIFA. The bets aren't even just who will win, but it's things like how many goals will a team score or who will score first. During the last Superbowl books were offering bets on things like what color tie the announcers would wear. I get that there's maybe a slight difference between that and betting on what words a sports announcer will say during the broadcast, but IMO, you're splitting hairs. They're both very easily to manipulate and very open to insider trading.

I think you probably agree with this, but IMO, there needs to be two separate conversations. One, are prediction markets sportsbooks by another name? Two, are there certain markets that we should not allow betting on?

Personally, I think the answer to both of those is yes, but I think if you smush them together into one conversation it makes things really messy.

> there seems to be no upside whatsoever

There's the same upside as pretty much all other forms of gambling. Plenty of people enjoy it and it can be used to generate tax revenue for the state.

Don't get me wrong, there's tons of harm that can come from it, but the arguments to allow them are essentially the same arguments for allowing sports betting.

I hope someone is. From the bill:

> EFFECTIVE DATE This section is effective August 1, 2026, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

For the record, Minnesota currently has a complete ban on sports betting.

We've seen a couple other states that allow sports betting go after prediction markets. Personally, I feel that any state that allows sports betting is going to struggle to argue a case to ban prediction markets because you're essentially arguing over implementation details. Even arguments that certain prediction markets are ripe for insider trading or morally wrong fall a bit flat when you realize that traditional sportsbooks let you bet on things like college basketball player props and the little league world series.

I'm still not sure Minnesota will win their case, but it feels like that detail gives them a lot better chance of winning compared to many other states.

How so? To me it seems like the exact opposite of what's happened with Star Wars in the last 20 years.

538 was purchased and then left to wither and die where as Disney seems intent on squeezing every last penny from the Star Wars franchise by using the IP as much as possible

> Nothing about programming forces anyone to do anything

I see you've never written any Go

> nothing about tailwind forces you to build inaccessible or "div soup" apps

Totally agree. I feel like this was more a by product of React. Not that React forced this either, but it felt like the rise in both went hand in hand for some reason.

While I think it's true that none of the current top FE technologies force the div soup, they don't discourage it either. It would be nice if what ever FE technologies catch on next did try to encourage better practices around things like accessibility. Make the path of least semantic HTML the path of least resistance and allow people to fall into the pit of success, ya know?

> can we just go back to talking to each other in person

He posts on an internet message board

They suspended service areas they deem high risk until the software update can be applied. So while, yes, it's just a software update, it's a recall in the sense that they've temporarily pulled all the cars off the road in certain areas

I've been on the codex train for a few months now for personal stuff, but have Claude at work. I always tell people it's as good if not better than CC, but it has different strengths and weaknesses.

Claude was more autonomous and still is a little, but I think GPT 5.5 closed that gap a lot. Claude is far better at front end design. I think it's still better at big picture planning.

Codex is far better at code review and catching bugs that actually matter. I think it's better at following directions, although I think that regressed a bit with 5.5 (flip side of the autonomy I mentioned earlier). A lot of CC users claim to not like Codex's personality (or lack of), but personally I prefer it.

First, I want to fully acknowledge that these are tech bro problems that barely register in the grand scheme of things. I spent the first half of my adult life working minimum wage service industry jobs and more of my social circle than not are not in tech, so I fully get how entitled this sounds to anyone outside of big tech.

With that out of the way, I think you misinterpreted my comment a bit. I wasn't saying that want a nice jacket and a small bottle of Veuve over a decent salary. I was saying that the fact that they took time to do something a little bit special and unique created a positive memory.

I think if I give slightly contrasting stories it'll illustrate my point. At the company I talked about that gave me the Veuve bottle on the first day, the Patagonia jacket that I got was the same one the CEO had and regularly wore. I also learned later when I found a box of small Veuve bottles in a storage closet that the CEO chose that brand because he personally liked Veuve for special occasions. Whether intended or not, I remember feeling valued because it didn't feel like these were cheap knick knacks to keep the workers happy. The fact that he actually liked these things made them feel like a real gift and that was very humanizing.

On the other hand, I was at another company where they gave everyone somewhat cheap jackets for a big event and then the exec team showed up in brand new, matching, leather jackets for the same event. That kind of pissed me off because it basically said, we're too good for the gift we just gave you.

Like I said in the last comment, I don't really care about the things, it's the thought that counts.

So when I talk about the "buy your own damn beer" thing, I'm not saying I want a pizza party instead of a raise. I'm saying that if the company is in financial trouble and we need to cut the perks to make pay, that's fine. If the company telling employees they can't afford a few six packs while reporting record profits and the CEO is buying a new Lambo then that's a totally different story. If a company is penny pinching for no reason and they're fine sending that signal, then it's their prerogative, but given how much companies spend on recruiting talent, I feel like if shelling out an extra $200/yr in a way that feels even a little bit personalized is a no brainer.

> If you want actual improved working conditions, there is only one path that has proven to work and it involves organizing with other workers while resisting your bosses through whatever means you feel comfortable with.

Clearly that isn't true. I've worked at plenty of companies that treated me very well that didn't require organized resistance to get. I was literally talking about two of them in the comment you're responding to. You mention "there is a reason why you don't get time-and-a-half when you're on-call as a tech worker", but I've worked at companies who did that. Shit, Google does that. Your claim that "the only way" forward is for workers or organize and resist is undermined a bit by the fact that one of the largest tech companies on earth already does the thing that you're claiming can only be achieved by organized resistance.

If you like the idea of unionization that's great. I'm not particularly against it for other people, but it's not a magic wand. I spent a chunk of my life working as a checker at a unionized grocery store and I've never felt more like just a piece of meat than at that job and that feeling came from both the way my employer treated me AND the way the union treated me.

Like I hinted at before, I don't really want to join a union. I'm not going to stand in other people's way if that's what they want, but it wasn't for me. My experience was that it was kind of just trading one master for another. I just want to spend $250 on lunch for my team for Bob's birthday and I don't think a union is going to help with that.

I've done a lot of work in the scraping space for a side project I've worked on for years. At this point I've built my own tools, but over the years I've tested just about every paid scraping service that currently exists.

I think it would be really valuable to add some sort of tool that allows me to enter a URL and see a subset of the data returned, latency measurement, and flag if the Enhanced Bot Detection was required to get that data.

I can't count the number of times I've signed up for a service to see if they could get data from a URL that's giving me problems only to find that they couldn't scrape it either. It would be really helpful to know before I sign up what I need to pay for and that your tool can actually get the data I want. While it may result in fewer sign ups for your site, I think it will result in the customer who do sign up being higher value customers and potentially reduce support burden.

It's insane to me how big companies don't realize how far these little things go.

I worked at a publicly traded company worth tens of billions of dollars where I had to escalate to the VP level to get reimbursed when I paid for our team to send flowers to one of our team members after his mother was murdered. Expensing books, courses, or equipment is essentially out of the question and getting approval for team events requires a business related reason and are regularly denied.

I worked at a 50 person company where on my first day I arrived and there was a company logo'd Patagonia jacket on my desk and a small bottle of Veuve Clicquot. I worked at a different just allocated every team $100 per person every 6 months and said, "Do something with it. The only rules are you can't just pocket it and it has to be spent as a team."

The large company paid me triple what those other companies did, which is why I stayed for nearly 8 years, but in my head they're the cheap bastards who didn't care about their employees. I have such better memories of the companies who paid me far, far less, but set aside a few hundred bucks a year to do something special. I understand the big tech company mindset of, "If we're paying you half a million dollars a year you should be able to buy your own damn beer", but I think they forget that their employees are human and often it really is the thought that counts.

Unless they're cheap, it's not going to sell well for K-12.

I used to work for an ed-tech company that was specifically focused on software for chromebooks and in talking with customers the biggest selling point of chromebooks for schools what their price. The school issued devices get absolutely beat to shit and they just expect a certain number to be decommissioned at the end of the year. Most schools are looking to buy the cheapest thing that does the job and the small group that have the money to actually buy premium devices are going to gravitate toward Apple products.

If Google is selling these for less then $500 then maybe there's a place for them, but like we saw it with the Pixelbook, there just isn't really demand for an $1000 chromebook

Maybe give publishers a way to quarantine versions with a warning that stops the install, but allows users can override if they choose to is the next step?

Give a publisher a way to tag a version as malicious and then in those hours between the exploit being noticed and the package being removed anyone who tries to install gets a message about that version being quarantined and asking whether they want to proceed.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's better than just waiting for NPM to take action without opening the door up to another left pad situation.

Without going too into detail, my company is really, really big on estimates and predictable delivery timelines. An entire years worth of work is speced out, estimated, and scheduled by the end of October the previous year. It's a really terrible process, IMO, but it's the process so it is what it is.

Normally, most teams (mine included) are about 10% behind their plan by the end of Q1. This year my team is closer to 10% ahead despite the fact that we're down one engineer due to a small re-org at the end of last year. These projects were planned and estimated before AI was in heavy use and when, at best, most AI focused devs were still using it like smart auto-complete. Essentially, we estimated the projects before AI was heavily used and we're consistently beating those estimates by a good amount which is not how all previous years have gone.

The AI metrics dashboards didn't roll out until mid-March and, while I'm still seeing us beat our estimates from last year, we're not seeing any additional gains. Basically, all of Q1 we had AI and no dashboards and were beating 2025 estimates by X%. For Q2 we had dashboards and extra pressure to use AI and we're still seeing those X% gains, but no additional gains despite higher token usages.

We also have KPIs around completing a certain number of a certain type of Jira ticket that customers can file and we've seen a similar pattern of an sharp increase in tickets completed in Dec-Feb and then the new rate holds, but no additional increase after the company started pushing AI usage.

My company did something similar (dashboard to track tokens). It was made available to managers about two weeks before it was available to everyone, so I got to see all my reports' usage before they knew they were being tracked.

The dashboard got announced publicly and just about everyone's usage went up by 100%-200% almost immediately and hasn't come back down, but nothing I'm tracking shows any increase in output since then. We absolutely saw productivity gains a few months ago, but it feels like now people are just burning tokens for the sake of it.

On top of that, as a reaction to the rising costs, we've now gone from unlimited token use to every engineer now having a monthly token budget of $600. I get why that was done, but we're a publicly traded US tech company worth 10s of billions of dollars. We're not hurting for money and the knock on effects are just crazy. For example, I had an engineer in sprint planning say about a large migration type ticket, "Can we hold that ticket until the end of the month? I don't want to burn through all my tokens this early in the month." I just cannot imagine that that's the culture that our executive team was trying to cultivate when they first purchased these tools.

I'm not anti-AI and actually really enjoy using AI for development, but over and over I've watched business leaders shoot themselves in the foot trying to force more AI use on their employees in pursuit of ever increasing productivity. I just keep thinking that there's no way that any productivity gains we've seen from the forced, tracked AI usage are enough to offset the productivity lost from anxiety and churn caused by the unrealistic productivity expectations, vanity metrics, and mass layoffs that have come along with increased AI adoption.

Maybe it's just because I grew up spending way too much time on the internet, but I write like that and have since well before LLMs. As much as people like to attribute that style to AI, I don't think it's the dead giveaway that people act like it is.

Wow. It wasn't until I read your comment that it clicked that the Turner in Turner Classic Movies is Ted Turner.

Got it. I misunderstood what you were saying

How widely known were the pieces of text? Are we talking about a section of MLK's I Have a Dream speech or hand written birthday cards from your grandma?

I'm using those as the two extremes, but if it's anything by anyone moderately well known (even a lesser known piece of writing), I'm not too surprised that it didn't need the web to figure it out. It's like if you showed me a Wes Anderson film or played me a Bob Dylan song I'd never seen/heard before, I could probably still figure out who it is without looking anything up. I don't think it's surprising that an LLM can do that much better than a human can.

Now, if you're giving it things like personal emails between you and your family and it's able to guess who you are, that's much, much scarier.

I mentioned it in that thread, but when the HERMES bug was first reported multiple people on Reddit claimed that it could also be triggered with openclaw specific file names. It makes me think that instead of going just saying, "this approach for defending against 3rd party oauth isn't working" and rolling things back, they just tried to fix forward and continue with the strategy

How would you test that that works?

Apple would like a word...