[ExI] roaring twenties

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
Sent: Saturday, 12 September, 2026 3:32 AM
.
>>... It's a guess, Ben.  Right now, what do you estimate are the chances Andy Burnham will be out of office by jingle bells 2027?  Take a guess.  .

>...I'd say that it's unlikely.

>...But I can't put a figure on it...

Nor can I because I don't know anything about British politics.  But you do.

>...Of course I can't, how would that be possible?...

Well, you consider it unlikely.  How unlikely?  If someone offered you a ten to one bet, where you pay one pound if he's still there but you get ten pounds if he is gone by then, would you take it?  I would, sight unseen.  Britain changes out its prime ministers often it seems, and ten to one seems like a good bet for any national leader, with the possible exception of your current king.  Those guys seem to hang on for a long time.  I would take 20 to 1 on him however.

>...Presumably that 'shares selling for 31 cents' means that someone has given it a 31% chance that he will be out of office. I don't know how to understand that. It seems to mean that they don't think he will be out of office. But what does a 31% chance that he will, even mean? I have no idea, it looks like nonsense to me....

Well sure, but it is fun nonsense.

>
>
>> ...To not suck at futures betting, one must master the basic technique of vote your values, bet your beliefs.  One must estimate how much one's own preferences or values influences one's own beliefs, which is a lot.  No matter how much you think it is, it is more than that, even if you take into account the previous part of this sentence.

>...Exactly. Beliefs are derived from values....

So the game is to estimate how much your beliefs are influenced by your values.  Moderates (like me) have a kind of advantage, and those who recognize how to find neutral news sources have an advantage.  That's where Britain comes in.  In the USA, the current POTUS identified the mainstream press as the enemies of the people (hmmm, where have I heard that before?)  Naturally, the press was incensed, for they are accustomed to candidates kissing up to them.  Suddenly one didn't.  So... they wrote negative stories about him.  Well, imagine that.  

Somehow he won anyway.  I didn't consider it likely but more likely than the price of the shares, which were in the mid 20s.  I considered his chances about mid 30s.  So I considered his election unlikely but more likely than the centroid of the mob (not THAT mob, I mean the crowd of people who do stuff like make political bets.)

So the game is to extract one's own values (I voted for the Green candidate in that election) and bet one's beliefs compared to the beliefs of others who are also betting.

....
>
>>> ...Maybe an AI could do it....

>> ...Good question, but I predict an AI would not be as good at political betting as a seasoned veteran human.  We should set up a contest and bet on the outcome.

>...Good grief

No, grief is not good.  It is good contentment.  Be of good cheer, sir!  For you have accidently had one hell of a good idea: AI vs humans in political betting.  One might think the AI has an advantage because it can read everything.  We humans hafta read only what we have time for, but that gets me back to a previous comment about sources.

American politics has become very polarized, as has our news sources, many of which are incensed at being identified as enemies of the people.  After that, their reporting could not be trusted, for their bias and desire for revenge is perfectly obvious (and understandable (think how you would feel if some bastard did that to you.))

Well then, the BBC turns out to be the most reliable source of American political news.  You can also go with TwitterX, which is a broad spectrum, or Reason, which is out on an orthogonal axis, so it is also broad spectrum.  The Beeb is good: they have discipline and have no dog in the fight.  

Fun aside on that.  I have close friends who were physics students in Kiev when they noticed everything was suddenly radioactive.  They did some measurements and found radiation consistent with iodine 131, which indicated a nuclear accident somewhere but the authorities were saying nothing, even as their world was getting more and more GODDAM RADIOACTIVE, their clothing, their hair, the grass, their FOOD, everything.  

Gorby eventually reported that there had been an accident in Chernobyl, not actually saying it was a month ago, but that the fires were out, the approximately five fatalities were tragic since they were heroes of the Soviet Republic, the 299 admitted to the hospital were being treated, most had been released (etc) but they knew the Soviet system and didn't believe a damn word of it.

About that time the yanks found out, and reports started coming in, but the Ukrainians didn't believe a word of those either, because the yanks would write anything to make the commies look bad.

Shortly after the soviets and the Americans reported, news came out of Sweden.  FINALLY, the Ukrainian people had a news source they could trust!  The Swedes were the most reliable way to get sensitive information about what was happening 130 km away.  The Swedish reports were consistent with what the physics students in Kiev were measuring, and the Vikings had no axe to grind, and a reputation for telling the truth.

Likewise, yanks who are good at political betting rely on the BBC, TwitterX, Reason, and even the chatter at the actual betting site for political news.  Then the yank must reason thru everything he read, and figure out what is true and what is propaganda (hint: most "news" is actually propaganda (the sooner a prole figures that out the better)) then estimate a probability of an outcome, compare to available prices, buy if one's estimate differs widely from share prices. 

>>...  Back in those play money days, we took th ebetting a lot more seriously.  When it was play money, we were playing to WIN!  Now, it's only money.  I kinda liked the play money version better.  We had a lotta fun with it.

>...Ok then. I thought it was something serious, but it's not, it's just for fun...

Wait WHAT?  Ben.  This is ME you're talking to.  It's SPIKE!  When have you seen me take life seriously?  Life is about having fun.  That's why I relate to the Sweet Savanah Nights video: it was all about people having fun.  

>...That means it doesn't have to make any sense, so I'm relieved.

>...I can go back to ignoring it...

Well ja.  But even self-identifying grumpy bears are allowed to have fun, ja?  How do you have fun Ben?  Is not hanging out on ExI fun?  I think it is.  It's a kick in the ass.

>...As you were.
(er.. do I need to clarify that expression? Not sure if it's common in america)
-- 
Ben

_______________________________________________

It is common in the American military, but it doesn't make sense here either.  What if... an officer comes into the room and everyone snaps to attention, but a guy was already at attention because another officer was speaking to him?  As you were when?  Before the other officer was there?  Or before you joined the military?

The way it is used is an officer is saying relax, I didn't come here to talk to you, get back to work or whatever you were doing.  But it should have a time stamp on it.  They snap to attention, the officer should say "As you were ten seconds ago."

Ben, as you were, sir!  (at some intentionally unspecified previous point in time.)

spike