I used to work on Visual Studio 20 years ago. At the time it was 30M lines of code with a history going back over a decade and about ~1k people working on it. Product cycles were measured in years. Time spent working on new features was measured in months, since no one understood how it all fit together we then had to spend years playing whack-a-mole with bugs, to stabilize it before shipping it. I regularly had to debug through large parts of the stack I'd never been in before. So did lots of other people.
Being able to work effectively in large amounts of unfamiliar code was an expectation for mid-level engineers (L62 if I recall correctly). Its not a new skill, but it is increasing in value again.
It highly depends on the task. So far, on the tasks I personally benchmark, DS v4.1 Flash @ deepinfra.com is always cheaper because their cached input price for it is so very low and their cache hit rate is so very high.
One of the things that comes with experience is more things moving from your personal unknown unknowns bucket to your personal known knowns and known unknowns buckets.
I think gambling is defined by the players' behaviour more than the game's structure. There are professional poker players who I would argue do not gamble. They're playing risks as much as an insurance adjuster.
On the other hand, someone investing their life savings into McDonald's meals in an attempt to win a sweepstakes isn't buying burgers.
So the question really is, how many Kalshi and Polymarket users display signs of problem gambling? From what I'm seeing, it isn't negligible [1].
Gambling, at least in casinos, means betting on very random and unpredictable things like the roll of a die. That's the distinction between games of chance and games of skill.
In reality, every thing we do in life is a gamble. Even investing in US Treasury Bonds. (And if you don't think so, look at the national debt again.)
The Commerce Clause covers everything because they stretched it to include literally everything using "impacts market via supply shift." Even without any crossing of any state or even county line.
The ruling isn’t that growing food yourself is interstate commerce, they said that growing food yourself reduces interstate commerce because then you need to buy less food from others.
The problem with Wickard v Filburn is that there is literally no activity that doesn't qualify as interstate commerce, when the framers of the constitution clearly intended that "interstate commerce" was not an all-inclusive concept. If that's what they meant, why would they have placed any limits on Federal power? What is the point of having all those redundant words in the constitution?
That's why subsequent courts walked it back. It was an obviously flawed ruling that produces preposterous results.
I mean, can the government prohibit dying (and throw your corpse in jail) because death means buying less food from others? Can the federal government throw you in jail for not having enough children because that reduces the amount spent on baby clothes?
I don’t agree or disagree with the ruling (I don’t really care, I’m not even from the US), but I agree it seems pretty overreaching. I was just making the point that the court never claimed that growing your own food counts as interstate commerce.
Doesn't matter. Court held that that characteristic was sufficient to elevate the activity to Federal jurisdiction, which has been used as a lynchpin decision for exploding the Federal regulatory state. Logically speaking, If *pointedly not doing activity in such a way as to not have commerce be interstate makes it interstate commerce by virtue of decreasing one's reliance on interstate commerce, all commerce is, therefore, interstate commerce.
There’s a difference between affecting interstate commerce and being interstate commerce. It’s not considered interstate commerce, it only is regulated because it affects interstate commerce.
Imagine there’s a law saying that regulating abortion is federal responsibility and the senate then uses this law as justification to ban demonstrations around abortion clinics. Would that mean that demonstrating next to an abortion clinic counts as abortion?
The question isn't whether or not the commerce clause could regulate gambling. There's no debate that it could. The issue is that the CFTC does not regulate gambling. The question is what was the CFTC intended to regulate, not "what powers does congress have?". There's no dispute that congress could regulate gambling if they wanted to. They didn't.
CFTC seems to be preëmpting state gambling laws under commodities regulation (specifically, as "excluded commodities"). That sounds, to me, like a major question. The sort Chevron deferred to regulators. The kind our current SCOTUS says should be decided by the Congress. To my knowledge, the Congress has said nothing about prediction markets. Which means it's in the domain of states.
Otherwise, fuck it, let's launch a prediction-market based national health insurance market. I'll sell you a contract that pays my medical bills if I have a health event.
Congress didn't identify the markets it was regulating by common names or trade names. It doesn't matter if its generally called a prediction market, a commodities market, or a futures exchange. What matters is if it qualifies as a Designated Contract Market as per https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-I/part-38 so if you want to actually have knowledge of what Congress said on this topic your going to have read all of that.
There is already a split decision on this between the 3rd and 9th circuits so it seems likely SCOTUS is going to take this up. I expect they'll be the ones deciding if this in the domain of the states or not. If they don't pick it up then its going to vary by circuit, such that it will be in the domain of some states and not others.
> What matters is if it qualifies as a Designated Contract Market
DCMs are a creature of rule, not statute [1]. The statutes that animate it are the CFMA of 2000, Dodd-Frank "special rule" for event contracts and CEA § 5. The core question, whether the CFTC has the authority to regulate this kind of DCM, is still open.
> There is already a split decision on this between the 3rd and 9th circuits so it seems likely SCOTUS is going to take this up
Links to the split opinions?
[1] To be clear, DCMs are undefined in statute. DCMs are just referenced in other statute. Part 38 is an implementing regulation.
Honestly, I have no idea what case you are resting if you think a petition to SCOTUS to hear arguments to settle all of this means its already settled.
Its seems like there is literally nothing you will accept to show that this isn't settled yet.
I don’t think this is settled law—I never said that. I think the argument for this not being under CFTC and thus federal jurisdiction is clear. I’m curious for someone to show the other argument. If someone just shows me my own argument back, as you did, I’m going to assume that sort of settles your view on it.
To the extent I’m challenging anything above, you’ll see it’s in rejecting anyone claiming this is obvious or settled.
"if someone just shows me my own argument back, as you did" - makes crystal you didn't read substantive parts of the document as both arguments are literally in that document.
I pointed out how you did not seem to understand any of the judicial opinions at issue here and you took your ball home because I have the nerve to disagree with the 3rd circuit (so did the 9th circuit! and the 2nd is about to as well!). I'm following up on all your posts in this thread because you are incredibly rude to everyone while doing the same exact things you accuse them of.
Edit: 2nd circuit denied Kalshi's request for an injunction against NY's enforcement. So yeah... I think I'm within pretty good grounds to reasonably disagree with the 3rd circuit.
Predictions aren't swaps as defined by federal law. If they were, the term "swap" would be so broad that every transaction and exchange of value in the world would be within the CFTC's jurisdiction, excluding those the CEA gives to the SEC.
The only reason the prediction market hasn't already been shut down is because multiple members of the president's family are heavily invested in the industry.
In a morally relativistic, legally positivistic hyper-individualism that ignores the objective truth and prioritizes individual “autonomy” over substantive moral ends, you can pervert any positive law to mean whatever you wish - this is how pornography came to be regarded as protected free speech. (The classical legal tradition views law as an ordinance of reason directed toward the common good.)
So I wouldn’t be surprised under the right social and cultural conditions and the right people in power that it could become regarded as a protected liberty. It is rather frightening that this relativism – deprived of objective anchors and standards – doesn’t strike people as terrifying. Too many people take for granted the status quo they are accustomed to, or they are so fixated on satisfying some appetite du jour that they fail to grasp the waiting Dionysian fallout[0].
I'm not really sure where you are getting this ivory tower view from. Pornography is not protected speech in the united states. The actual legal test as applied by our justice system for this "I know it when I see it" as applied under the Roth test. The practical effect of this is that our legal system is free to censor whatever it wants when it deems it necessary to. You seem deeply disappointed that our society as a result, chose obscenity quite often rather than censorship.
My general position has been that the durability of the Bill of Rights is directly attributed to what you call "relativism". When the government finds the Bill of Rights to be unpleasant, they simply decide it never applied in the first place.
The Founders didn’t exactly anticipate the internet. If states can place restrictions on certain types of speech (eg porn or abortion advocacy) they can certainly place restrictions on gamblers within their borders
I'll bite: futures contracts serve a valuable social/economic function outside of their existence, and are just a commoditization/securitization of something that arises naturally out of doing business (agreeing on a future price today). While you can gamble with futures contracts, the underlying purpose is actually incredibly useful.
Prediction betting has an argument that truth discovery is economically valuable, but I don't buy it.
If prediction betting was banned, only two businesses would be affected, Kalshi and Polymarket. If futures markets were banned, many businesses would be massively affected, and almost every business would be indirectly affected.
Probably without intending it you've gotten right to the heart of what's at dispute here.
The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts. Sometimes gambling is dressed up a speculating, but one could argue that one can speculate as a participant in many card games since they allow room for analysis and aren't pure chance. This is what the legal dispute comes down too.
The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.
>Probably without intending it you've gotten right to the heart of what's at dispute here.
Awfully rude.
>The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts.
No it doesn't. No one argues that state gambling laws actually regulate the trade of securities, options, or anything actually covered by the CFTC, so this is a completely sham argument.
>The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.
The value of truth discovery is completely irrelevant to these cases. Either congress intended to regulate sports gambling under the CFTC, or it didn't. The executive branch can't get around that.
Kalshi and Polymarket make money because they advertise themselves as legal gambling (I haven't done extensive research of this, but I do get alot of advertisements for them). Then they justify their existence as some sort of futures market.
This feels like a similar playbook to crypto. People make money through pump and dump schemes and/or luck/speculation. Then they justify their existence as some bastion of decentralized power/coordination.
That's really interesting. On another thread someone said something about health insurance related contracts like that was some kind of slippery slope bad outcome from allowing prediction markets. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but our health system is so broken I'll support anything that shakes up the status quo. I doubt Kalshi or Polymarket will turn in to that, but maybe they'll create a wedge for someone else to create a health event marketplaces.
I think a lot of folks here think I'm debating this because I support prediction markets, but I could have cared less which way SCOTUS comes down on this. Now I'm rooting for Kalshi when SCOTUS picks this up and not regretting the time I spent on this. I try to avoid commenting on anything political, but I had a moment of weakness while I was waiting for benchmarks to run. Thanks!
A future is a contract to deliver a good at a time at a price. That's ordinary business. All of the scaffolding around futures contacts is at core built around buying and selling actual stuff. A pork future is an agreement to buy actual pork.
The event contract isn't tied to the delivery of a good or service.
I asked about option contracts not futures contracts. As to futures contracts there are many that are not associated with anything physical (e.g. stock indexes, bitcoin, US treasuries, etc.).
No, lol, their opinion did not reach that. The third circuit's opinion stated that we need clarity from congress as to whether or not sports gambling, and also "bingo" (not making that up) are actually covered by the CFTC. They just said that the statute preempts whatever state law could be on this issue, which is not the same thing as what you said would be ruling "the opposite" which would be that the outcome of a sports game is a financial event. That's obviously not true outside of the context of gambling. Unlike, say, everything that is actually regulated by the CFTC.
And this is what I've been trying to get at here... who can actually say with a straight face that congress intended to regulate sports gambling with the CFTC? It's a ridiculous proposition to which there are no actual facts that support it. Nothing in the congressional record, nothing in the statute. Just a broad reading of the language while keeping one's head in the sand.
The 3rd circuit literally said they are '"swaps" subject to the CFTC's jusridiction' which is literally the opposite of what the 9th circuit said. Thanks for making me use literally twice in the same sentence.
The reference to bingo was something that New Jersey and the dissent brought up. Direct quote that covers both:
'Because Kalshi’s sports related event contracts are traded on a CFTC-licensed DCM and depend on event outcomes associated with economic consequences, they fit within the Act’s definition of “swaps” subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(a)(1)(A), 1a(47)(A)(ii).
New Jersey and the dissent “pile inference upon inference” and postulate that anything from bingo games to pingpong matches will fall under the CFTC’s jurisdiction.'
> The reference to bingo was something that New Jersey and the dissent brought up
That the holding opinion addresses, quoting the same exact section you did and then going on to say that "[i]n such far-fetched scenarios, Congress’s express delegation to the CTFC and the Securities and Exchange Commission to 'further define' swaps would prove useful." So yeah, that exact point stands.
>The 3rd circuit literally said they are '"swaps" subject to the CFTC's jusridiction' which is literally the opposite of what the 9th circuit said.
No, the 3rd circuit literally said that the CFTC designated Kalshi a DCM, so therefore it must be the case that its sports events contracts fall under DCM event contracts regulated by the CFTC. This is much more limited than my construction of the 9th circuit holding, which you insisted this is the opposite of it.It's literally not. The 9th Circuit's holding goes much further than to say they aren't a DCM. It says that a sports event can't be an event contract under the CFTC, so it does not even matter if it is a DCM or not.
You had me thinking you read the opinions when you came with the quotes, but it seems like at the same kind of superficial level the 3rd circuit is playing around at here. The 9th Circuit's holding is much broader and addresses the fact that the DCM designation is basically a sham, and clearly well beyond whatever congress could have intended with the statute.
And it's funny that you act informed about this but are playing ignorant the politics of the Trump admin's cronyism with Kalshi and its sudden and unprecedented designation of it as a DCM. Resting in the shallow depth of the 3rd circuit's opinion isn't a good place to be when you really think about what that court represents. And do you really think the supreme court is going to say that the executive branch can decide what congress intended by making designations like that? Fat chance. There's nothing in the congressional record that could ever indicate an intent to give the CFTC power to preempt state sports gambling laws on an individual corporate basis by special designation.
I feel like you're just interested in this for the culture war politics of it and take up the law as a barb. You're just being rude up and down this thread with your intuitive arguments which are really just legal non sequiturs but you don't get that because you don't do actual legal analysis (which is fine, I see all sorts of analyses on this site that I can't do, I just read in those circumstances).
"same kind of superficial level the 3rd circuit is playing around at here" - as you believe you're more authorative than the 3rd circuit, rational debate is an impossibility
Anyone is free to criticize, I guess that's why you also pay the 9th circuit no mind too. Get a grip. Or as you put it in the same thread below, congratulation on "declaring yourself the winner."
Edit: 2nd circuit denied Kalshi's request for an injunction against NY's enforcement. So yeah... I think I'm within pretty good grounds to reasonably disagree with the 3rd circuit. You really just come off like a buffoon.
/ES futures are used to hedge an SPX position or speculate on SPX. SPX options are also cash settled.
I’m not going to allow you to depose me, if you want to know more about futures contracts, CME and CBOE publish information on all of their futures contracts.
The substance is hard to see through the conflation of CS and software engineering. Do you actually believe that all there is to software engineering is CS fundamentals?
Steam can absolutely be replaced. There's lots that could be improved in the process of sifting through tens of thousands of games to find the ones I want to play. I have Epic's store installed on my gaming PC as I still play Fortnite. It has none of the things I want improved over the Steam experience. Literally none.
Put up or shut up Epic. I'm unemployed so you can hire me to do it for you, but I'll bet you'd rather just whine about it.
I've never seen a large business whine as much as Epic does, and they pick fights with their biggest partners all the time, too. If anything capitalism seems broken because they remain around.
From the comments here I can infer that it has a schema and in turn I can extrapolate that this is as much "for humans" as many other config formats that are deterministically parseable.
A GUI is a config format for humans as it can you show what all of the configuration options are along with text that tells you what they do. A GUI can also ensure that there are no invalid settings that are discovered separately from the edit session (sure it may not do so, but it has the possibility unlike whatever random text editor the user opens the config in).
Exactly. If I need a new supplier for my business, why would I ask around, listen to pitches, negotiate, sign contracts, monitor quality, etc.? I should be able to ask one of my AI agents to do all of that. And when the new supplier does not work out, I re-prompt my agent.
if you run a business, are you perfectly happy with it or are there a few things that worry you or even keep you awake at night that you would like to address?
They've been offshoring as much as they can for decades. The H1-B program hasn't stopped it and if it were eliminated there wouldn't be a huge surge in offshoring. Many companies have already hit the limit on offshoring and had to pull things back onshore.
Being able to work effectively in large amounts of unfamiliar code was an expectation for mid-level engineers (L62 if I recall correctly). Its not a new skill, but it is increasing in value again.
reply