Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by imglorp 24 days ago
Very close already. Death threats went to this journalist; seems someone bet on missile hits. https://factkeepers.com/polymarket-gamblers-vow-to-kill-jour...

It also incentivizes leaks from insiders, sometimes endangering others. A soldier was charged for betting on a military operation. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-soldier-charged-using-clas...

And of course throwing pro sports, but that's been happening for ages. Sports has always been crooked: eg the Eupolus Scandal from 388 BCE.

5 comments

I thought this one was the most interesting:

‘Hairdryer or lighter?’: French police look at claim of sensor tampering to win weather bets

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-l...

Whoever did that deserves a few years in prison. Normally I'm not too much of a friend of draconian BS - but accurate reports of temperature, air pressure and wind speed are incredibly important for the safety of air travel.

It's bad enough when such systems fail due to whatever sort of issue, but the last thing aviation needs is people intentionally blowing holes into the swiss cheese security model -.-

Also bad if such crucial information is based on a single sensor with barely any physical security
This logic is how we ended up with TSA.

"What do you mean, people used to just walk up to planes with their shoes on and a FULL 8-ounce water bottle in hand with barely any physical security?"

It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons, vs. trying to strengthen the commons against all possible adversarial behavior.

We ended up with locked cockpits that the pilots won't open for anybody, plus passengers willing to fight back due to the tragedy of the terrorists. We ended up with the TSA because Karen needed security theatre and the government was all too happy to increase the funding and scope of DHS with the nod of the useful idiots.
And the locked cockpits have been indirectly responsible for a huge number of deaths. Best intentions and all that
I don't even think Karen got involved, it was just the Bush administration seizing the opportunity for more corruption, pork barrels, surveillance and harassment of the population at large full stop.
> It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons

It's impossible. No matter how good of a job you do, there will _always_ be people out to watch it all burn.

When underlying problems are left untreated the number of unreasonable responses increases as a symptom of that. For sure, you'll always have that tiny minority who are just misanthropes. But a lot of the people who end up causing destruction do so because there's some problem affecting them that's not being dealt with. The modern world incentivizes creating underlying problems because not only can you profit from the unreasonable responses, but you can sell protection against them as well. A large portion of the economy actually revolves around this as a consequence of the shift towards service rather than production.
Just because it's impossible to solve a problem 100% doesn't mean that it's impossible to improve the state of things. Perfect is the enemy of good. There aren't that many people doing random chaotic damage, and it's not worth it to protect against all their potential harm.
If you need serious physical security for every little bit of infrastructure, then your society will be able to afford far, far fewer nice things.
Well usually there isn’t an incentive to mess with this type of critical infrastructure, and yet, behold, the externalities.

Even foreign actors during war time wouldn’t go through the effort of messing with individual temperature sensors.

Oh man, I thought from the headline that it was going to be about a new prediction wager on the site about whether the manipulator had used a hair dryer or lighter.

That would have been perfect.

Because the picture already shows it is a hair dryer, now the prediction market would be what make and model...
It also substantially changes the definition of who's an insider. Polymarket has bets for random things like a particular word being used by an announcer. Suddenly the announcer is an insider on that bet.
I don't understand why people would want to bet on such an easily gamed outcome. I can understand that some people are compulsive gamblers, but it seems such a foolish thing to bet on. To me, it'd be like betting with someone about how many fingers they're going to hold up.
Throwing in pro sports is at least harmless for people who don't care about pro sports.
Enough people do care about pro sports that someone who doesn't still needs to worry about being caught in a riot should something like this happen. (they already worry about riots for real wins/losses)
There's also known relationship between sport betting and domestic violence.
The main relationship is to all gambling. Sports likely gets assumed to make it worse because people still believe the myth that the Super Bowl is the worst DV day of the year.
People sometimes do drastic things when they experience large gambling losses. They might embezzle, rob, scam, be unable to pay rent or debts. It has a significant effect on people who are not directly involved in gambling.
lost good money on the Eupolus Scandal.
Leaks from insiders are always good.