Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sambaumann's commentslogin

10c yes seems really high for a tie. NCAA rules don't allow for ties in football. I know prediction markets have very long shot bets but I would expect that to be closer to 1c

Edit: it looks like the tie market is only for if the game is tied at halftime, which makes much more sense


I paused and wrote out all the probabilities and saw no way to improve beyond 80% - I scrolled down hoping to be proven wrong!


(I'm the author)

I think there's an annoying thing where by saying "hey, here's this neat problem, what's the answer" I've made you much more likely to actually get the answer!

What I really wanted to do was transfer the experience of writing a simulation for a related problem, observing this result, assuming I had a bug in my code, and then being delighted when I did the math. But unfortunately I don't know how to transfer that experience over the internet :(

(to be clear, I'm totally happy you wrote out the probabilities and got it right! Just expressing something I was thinking about back when I wrote this blog)


I, erroneously, thought that "when Alice and Bob agree there's a 96% chance of them being correct, then surely you can leverage this to get above the 80% chance. What if we trust them both when they agree and trust Alice when they disagree?" Did some (erroneous) napkin math and went to write a simulation.

As I was writing the simulation I realized my error. I finished the simulation anyway, just because, and it has the expected 80% result on both of them.

My error: when we trust "both" we're also trusting Alice, which means that my case was exactly the same as just trusting Alice.

PS as I was writing the simulation I did a small sanity test of 9 rolls: I rolled heads 9 times in a row (so I tried it again with 100 million and it was a ~50-50 split). There goes my chance of winning the lottery!


Turns out, at least in my area, for the grocery items you need to buy at least $25 worth to qualify for the free shipping.


Yeah, this is misleading. You can't send a lime for $0.25. It's $3.24 minimum.


I canceled prime ~8 years ago because where I am, half the stuff I wanted was considered an “add on item” that could only be shipped free if you had > $35 of other stuff, which is a complete scam because you get that without prime.

Maybe that was just for me (in a large Canadian city at the time) or maybe they don’t do that anymore?

I haven’t considered getting prime since, it would be a lot more interesting if it actually provided the shipping terms they advertise.


It was like that in NYC at the time as well. I'm not sure when it stopped but have not seen add-on items in a long time and most things seem to ship immediately regardless of price (with Prime).


Yeah, haven't seen in a long time either. I can't help but wonder if it's related to Amazon building its own delivery infrastructure instead of relying on UPS/USPS like it once did? (At least where I am.)


I checked the first five items while logged in with Amazon Prime. They all required a minimum order of either $25 or $100 to get free shipping.


I checked the lime listed and it seems to be a regular amazon prime item for me (norcal) and not the grocery you described, which we also have.


Did you press the buy button? The shipping fee is $2.99


Ah, you're right. Sneaky.


I also don't agree with the argument you replied to, but a counter-argument to your point is that we don't mandate individuals to wear name tags while in public


been using vim for years, just did the tutorial and learned several things I did not know


According to the status page services are being restored


I still find a lot of websites/applications (including my own) affected.


presumably the time is replaced with the actual current time at each generation. I wonder if they are actually generated every minute or if all 6480 permutations (720 minutes in a day * 9 llms) were generated and just show on a schedule


Plenty of businesses fail to find a way to make a profit


OP said necessary, not sufficient


OP said "will". That doesn't sound like "necessary, not sufficient" to me.


You're missing context and/or didn't read OP's comment. He said "will" with regards to reaching AGI. He said "only AGI can find" with regards to profit. It was the latter that this thread was addressing.


You're missing context and/or didn't read OP's comment. He said "because". It will happen because that's the only way to reach profit. That's why it will happen.


Yeah, exactly. The context here was about the profitability part of OP's comment. The parent said "plenty of businesses fail to find a way to make a profit," and my point was that OP's statement doesn't contradict that. OP was saying they'll need AGI to be profitable, not that they're guaranteed to become profitable.

Sure, they phrased it as "they will reach AGI," but that's clearly tongue-in-cheek...the underlying idea is "they better reach AGI, because that's the only way they could make money." So my comment ("necessary, not sufficient") was just pointing out that even if AGI is required for profitability, it doesn't mean they'll actually get there or succeed once they do, and that the original comment was perfectly compatible with the idea that not every business reaches profitability.


'the underlying idea is "they better reach AGI, because that's the only way they could make money."'

Yeah, that's what I was going for.


Wikipedia [1] implies it's to give them an incredibly large field of vision to spot prey, though the source it cites [2] seems less certain about that

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_height...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20131011012320/http://blogs.bu.e...


It's not worth it to them precisely because the vast majority of web traffic is served over HTTPS. You can bet they would these days if most traffic was HTTP


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: