Did it myself, if I want a reimport I will say so explicitly.
Updated post to include a prediction for next week, which I forgot to do. Prediction was made at 9:10am eastern on Friday (so it involves seeing Thursday's numbers).
Nonzero helpful almost certainly, also almost certainly much less effective than glasses.
2. I still think that there's enough different ways this can fail that 30% is reasonable, and I dunno where the 29% comes from here? Presumably it would be higher than the 30% baseline for p(17|16), what am I missing? (And the way it resolves to false is if we say it's a third wave that happened rather than a second, not that the numbers don't match, and I agree that this is wrong and it resolves to true).
The Shilling Point in NYC is, as I have always understood it, indeed the clock (aka the information booth) at Grand Central. It's a much, much better choice than the ESB, and also what I expect others to expect here. Epistemic Status is "This Is Known" and this extends to the degree that I will literally say "Meet at the Schilling Point" when I want to indicate that's where we are meeting, which is not that uncommon as it often makes a lot of sense, and the majority of the time no one asks where I meant by that.
(Yes, Penn Station's train times display and Times Square itself are in theory possible but can confirm that they're both objectively terrible, and worse at the job we're proposing.)
Agreed that in theory ESB is on the board but I would be pretty shocked if someone actually went there.
I had. Somehow I read it as someone who Vitalik motivated to do this, rather than Vitalik himself, presumably Vitalik doesn't care about 50k but it makes sense he'd care in theory anyway.
My takeaway was that there's a lot of things to be nervous about when betting even on an event that already happened, and that this was a pure supply-and-demand issue where people who knew the election outcome still had to overcome several risks and make it all worth doing, and you wouldn't do that in these ways for less than ~10-15% return minimum, and the other side had people who believed false things and were thus price insensitive.
If anything the failure to see more divergence in markets due to these issues is the thing that needs explaining.
If I'd had access to FTX I would have considered doing some of this trade, perhaps quite a lot in dollar terms if liquidity was there, but no way I'm going to get involved in several layers of smart contracts in order to collect this little of a payoff. I don't trust it.
That's not how I interpret it, because to me if Vitamin D works pre-hospitalization it could work on either mechanism - preventing infection or reducing severity. So that's another way it could be 'too late,' if it acts on an earlier stage. Are you thinking Scott is saying more like 45% to work if taken early because it's 25% to prevent infection and also 25% to reduce severity?
I remember reading it as the Gates Foundation doing a lot more than that, but it would fit with my look into Gates before if they only gave 4mm, at which point they don't get much credit here given their stated intentions.
I don't. Now that we have more visibility, people who know more, please say more.
This would potentially explain the disagreement - if taking lots of D requires K2 but no one's testing with K2 then all the huge correlations would be there but the interventions wouldn't work.