Sorry, I just think itβs gross so many elected democrats are almost wishing for something bad to happen just to stick it to Trump. Makes me a little sad of our party to be honest.
Some people here may be familiar with me from the subreddit r/sportsbook. For those that don't, i'm a part time professional gambler who focuses on finding value in niche markets. I have a career in stats and finance and worked for a top 3 firm in actuarial science.
Every week or so i when i browse this sub i see a the r/soccerbetting rhetoric of DON'T BET IN ACCAS. This advice is spewed without thought and introspection into what it is really supposed to mean. One poor commenter i saw was flooded by a wave of downvotes by the pseudo intellectual betters that sit on their negative ROI's shouting, "ACCCCCAASS BAD VALUEE" and "OVEROUND COMPOUNDSSSS" "STICK TO SINGLEZ AND DOUBLEZZ".
Here is why the attitude needs to change:
- Bad value bets make for worse value accas,
- Neutrally valued bets make for equal value accas
- Good valued bets make for even better valued accas.
If accas are bad, its only because you are admitting to yourself that the bets you make are bad, this shows when you turn up to any daily picks thread and you see the majority of people losing money and feeding the bookies. Accas are most certainly NOT why punters lose money, its the bad fucking bets they make that the bookies FEED off.
The next point is to illustrate why, say you have the option of betting on a fair coin, heads or tails, twice in a row. Usually bookies would give odds for either side of the coin winning (analogous to a fair tennis match) of about 1.9 for heads, 1.9 for tails. Lets pretend we can get odds of 2.0 for heads and 2.0 for tails and you make an acca of guessing heads twice in a row. In reality, the chances of winning this is 0.25, 0.5*0.5. Say you bet Β£10 on this acca. You are going to see returns of either Β£0, Β£0, Β£0 and Β£40. One in 4 times you will make Β£40 meaning the EV of this bet is still Β£10 - neutral. When you add in overround, say 1.9; the EV of this bet becomes AWFUL because you naturally compound the negative EV of the single, people here somewhat understand this judging from the threads i read. To note, when betting on a neutral acca instead of straight singles, you are only changing the distribution of returns, ie sometimes win big but usually lose - evening out to 0 in the end.
HOWEVER - GOOD VALUE BETS EXIST . Sometimes people see something the completely disagree with and using either algorithms or knowledge of the subject, they can make money from the bookies who have here, missed the mark on odd pricing.
What happens with
... keep reading on reddit β‘Many members talk as if all this racism is a thing of the past. They try to minimize the problem by saying that the church leaders who taught blatantly white-supremacist doctrine from the pulpit for over a century were just products of their un-enlightened time. The implication is that we are now out of the weeds because racism is over and we all know that God treats everyone the same so we can move on and we donβt need to worry/talk about it anymore.
Unfortunately, those making this argument are totally ignoring the fact that these racist doctrines and ideas pervade and persist in LDS thought and culture.
I am in my twenties, so Iβm not some old timer who remembers when Mark E Peterson was straight up insulting black people over the pulpit. But in 2010 my Book of Mormon professor at BYU, Todd Parker, taught that people of European descent were more faithful in the pre-existence than Africans or Asians to a class of over a hundred freshman. Iβm pretty sure ancient Todd still teaches there. In the MTC in 2011 my Branch President told everyone in our Zone that the priesthood ban was a result of the Curse of Cain. How many young and impressionable minds have been exposed to these teachings within the last decade? Iβve had roommates and mission companions tell me they believe black bodies USED to be the receptacles of less-valiant spirits, but that changed in 1978. Iβve heard many young LDS people my own age defend and advance racist theories to explain the priesthood ban/curse of dark skin in the Book of Mormon.
You can see some of this going on right now over on the faithful sub in a thread about this topic. One commenter says that black people used to be cursed for their iniquity, but modern-day black people are not. Another says that the Lamanites became βsavageβ and dark-skinned by intermarrying with the βnative peopleβ (also, wow), while the Nephites preserved their civilized Hebrew culture by only marrying among themselves.
Itβs still a problem folks!
Edit: Spelled Todd Parkerβs name correctly
What is your take on the "issue"?
Personally this is exactly what I have been complaining about in the post yesterday about people exploiting tragedies for unrelated political rhetoric.
Basically Clinton criticized Rep. Ilhan Omar for pushing "Anti-Semitic tropes". Then a radical student activist confronted Clinton for her statement and said that this is exactly the narrative that βstokedβ the hatred of Muslims that led to Fridayβs terror attack on two Christchurch mosques. This confrontation caught fire on the social media. Now a lot of people on the left denounce Clinton for her statements calling her Islamophobic and a lot of Republicans coming in defense of Clinton saying she did nothing wrong. What a shit show.
I just fail to see how speaking out against antisemitism in any way relates to Islamophobia.
To start off, she is no doubt inspiring and clearly doing good for the world. I wish her nothing but the best, and I would much rather have her than no one advocating for these issues.
Despite that:
- I think itβs fair to say that most, especially older, people will not listen to a teenager with no experience regarding climate science, no matter how accurate or precise her statements are. This is less an inadequacy of Greta, and more so that of those listening to her. The drama surrounding her age is a polarizing point that causes both sides to entrench in their positions. To further make my point Iβd like to generalize a bit. Most non-conservatives will find her ideas to be self-evident, and take any criticism of her as personal attacks (against her person). However, the topic is climate change, not unnecessary attacks on teenagers. And, most conservatives will not want to βargueβ what they believe as the proper climate change argument with a teenager, so unless theyβre particularly open-minded, this aspect of Greta cause more damage than benefit.
Respectfully, I believe a proper college-aged candidate that could rip into conservative counter points with painful accuracy and not draw unnecessary attacks on age and inexperience would be better. Lastly to this point, the authenticity of Greta is curtailed by how painfully obvious it is her speeches are not completely her own. Despite that logically not being a big deal, audiences see her speeches the same way we see parents of 9 year olds βquotingβ some enlightened thing their child has said.
- A rhetoric of fear, combined with any emotional misperceptions due to her age as stated in the last point, could cause the public to not take her seriously. Climate scientists, despite being right more often than not in the last few decades, have unsuccessfully predicted climate disasters throughout the years. Opponents of climate change are focused on these instances, and the rhetoric of fear and disaster (implied to be in the moderately short-term to those uniformed of climate change time-scales) could very easily make them believe this is another one of those instances.
Unfortunately, I am not educated on what alternative rhetoric would work best. Perhaps framing green energy as a missed opportunity or climate change as more optimistically avoidable would work.
- This is probably my weakest point, but I think itβs fair to say that unless Greta has politically experienced people behind the scenes helpin
So I have noticed this in many threads now and maybe my little write up will help some to get get riled up by this snake.
First thing I noticed is that he pops up in very specific threads. They are almost always technical and they are often controversial.
.
He than assumes the position of the doubter sewing doubt.
.
>I'm really not getting why everyone thinks merely publicizing an attack like this after-the-fact would obviously be sufficient to stop or prevent it.
.
But he never makes his position clear. By not making his position clear he has all the space to back up as the discussion goes on. If you compare a few different threads you likely come to the same conclusion, that his only position is the absolute. Like 100% of users should be running full nodes. The chain should be protected by 100% hasrate. He will never make this clear, because he is not their to solve a problem, he is there to se doubt and dispute.
.
Here is the answer from a redditor to the above quote: >I'm really not getting how 100% of users running non-mining nodes would be sufficient to stop or prevent it.
.
And his reply: >Why would a miner even try to break a rule if no users will follow them?
.
He also rarely gives you any front to attack he keeps his answers vague and let's the other party talk:
>You are assuming that merely publicizing misbehavior will be enough to prevent it or reverse it. I disagree.
No argument just food for the user to rile up.
And another one (quote in quote is from a redditor) >>Public knowledge of invalid coin issuance gives market suppliers ... Coinbase detects >>an invalid mint on a 51% attack, Coinbase freezes trading on that chain immediately
>What if Coinbase agrees with the change, or is complicit, or are paid off by the miners, >or isn't running full nodes (see BSV payment processors)? What if they don't want to >risk losing a ton of funds by 'shutting down' for the day? And Coinbase is just one >exchange out of many. What if the other ones follow the longer chain? You're making a l>ot of assumptions here.
And another one:
>So you sacrificed an accurate argument for simplicity? Your argument here totally falls apart if even a few exchanges allow miners to sell their coins.
He only accepts 100% answers and in a reddit setting this is of course not possible. Everyone assumes the other party discusses the topic in good faith. Contrarian doesn't that simply not his goal.
He is obious
... keep reading on reddit β‘
