> And the people they're both making money from, are people who think they have enough expertise + exposure to function as superforecasters — and who probably could function as superforecasters, in a market with fewer "sharks" in the pool — but who lose out simply because they were slightly less well-calibrated than whoever they were trading with.
This seems like a complicated way to say "suckers". Of course they don't usually self-identify as such and think they act rationally.
In 2008 I was in high school and wrote a TI-BASIC tutorial in German [0] on my blog that became by far the most popular thing I wrote - maybe on par with my post about how to fix a quest bug in Skyrim by teleporting Delphine.
I was a bit mad back then that people for some reason appreciated those posts more than many very deep teenager ramblings about politics/philosophy :D
I have to say that intuitively I wasn't at all surprised that duplicating a single layer didn't do much good, but I had never expected that you can identify and so clearly visualize these relatively short circuit blocks (and of course it's around the magic number 7! /jk). Super cool research and really well explained!
The response you link to was published on September 30, 2025, so it's not the response to gem.coop? I'd say gem.coop is the response to Ruby Central's actions?
If it weren't effective, large businesses and interest ("lobby") groups wouldn't spend millions on trying to establish certain words.
Calling it "sideloading" instead of "installing" software successfully cements the notion that it is somehow not a completely normal thing to do. That's problem solved for the Googles and Apples of the world.