Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by EA-3167 159 days ago
It's possible to notice a trend while still having the wit to realize you can't precisely time that trend well enough to profit from it. Another example might be, "Trump is increasingly old, feeble, and incapable of doing his job... but I'm not sure how that will translate into how long he's able to keep the job. It's possible that he could be a vegetable at some point and still POTUS."

Demanding that people gamble with their often limited finances to prove a point orthogonal to the one they're actually making feels disingenuous and dismissive to me.
1 comments
danielmarkbruce 159 days ago
It's not orthogonal. And you will find people will change their mind when forced to put a little money on the line.

"Team X is definitely winning, I'm certain". "So you'll offer me 1000-1 on the opponent?". "No". "6-1?", "No". They often realize they are about 65% certain at some point. And they often aren't being hyperbolic, they are just not thinking clearly.

link
EA-3167 158 days ago
There was a point after which the outcome of WWII was obvious and inevitable, but could you have timed the ending to within a week or two based on that knowledge? Should the inability to precisely time something imply that the arc of its future can’t be obvious?

Clearly not. Does the fact that few of us know the date of our death imply that we might live forever?

link
danielmarkbruce 155 days ago
You've misunderstood the point. It's not about being exactly right. It's about thinking clearly about the probabilities of different events. In your case, you explicitly call out that it's difficult to know the exact timing - so if someone had offered you even money for some particular week, you'd say no. If they offered you 100-1 for said week, it's a great bet, even if you lose.
link