Whether pre-emption applies in this case depends on whether the courts accept Kalshi/Polymarket's claim that they operate a futures trading platform, not a gambling platform. If and only if that claim is accepted is there a pre-emption argument, and only then would the opinion of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission be relevant.
And while that is winding through the legal system, courts have decided that Kalshi/Polymarket can continue to operate. That might change in the future, but it is the present reality.
As long as the business is legal to operate, there is no justification for criminally prosecuting the people engaged in that business.
That courts have not ordered them to stop operating does not mean that what they are doing is legal. They could face additional counts for their behavior while the case is pending.
"As long as the business is legal to operate, there is no justification for criminally prosecuting the people engaged in that business."
You are begging the question: assuming that the business is legal to operate in the state of Utah. You keep presenting Kalshi's arguments as though they enjoy some presumption of legality prior to a ruling.
Presumption of legality pending trial is rather different from "quite obviously legal[emphasis in original]" or "definitionally legal".
"until they work their way through the courts, it's "legal"" is a much better phrasing and if the comment had stuck to that it probably wouldn't be downvoted.
How do we decide which version of thinking a model is good at?
A house sparrow (Passer domesticus) doesn't have a worse brain than a human. Nothing does house sparrow thinking better than a house sparrow brain. Not even a human brain.
Avoiding predation is a pretty small part of the life of a house sparrow. There is no reason to believe a cat brain would do a good job with handling the demands of flight (avian brains process visual stimuli roughly twice as fast as mammalian brains, for one thing).
But even if we focus on avoiding predation: would a cat brain in a sparrow body (a silly premise, I'll admit!) do better at avoiding cat predation than a sparrow brain in a sparrow body? I doubt it!
What is the unit for productivity here, though? Time required to complete this one task, which was never attempted before and never will be again? That's fine, but economically uninteresting.
Ultimately, the economic analysis needs to use monetary units. How much faster can return on investment be realized, and at what scale? This analysis has proven elusive because people believe that the very definition, not just the execution, of a task can be delegated to an LLM (which in some trivial sense must be true because means and ends are never sharply distinguished).
Well, the point of the _computer_ formalization is that it's checkable.
An error in the formalization would be a bug in lean. Which, as we know, certainly seems plausible (I've mused on if these giant proofs are incentivizing LLMs to find lean bugs to exploit), but at least it's a smaller surface area.
All that needs to be checked to avoid that is the statement of the main theorem. Any divergence further inside means you proved the main theorem differently than you thought you did -- but you still proved it.
This assumes the Lean kernel itself isn't bugged, but getting it correct is a matter that affects all uses, not just this one, so the cost of making it correct is spread over all those uses.
In general checking that the definitions are correct isn't that hard and assuming at least one of the lean kernels you verify with is correct (which tbf is an assumption, the implementations are based on each other so could have a common bug) that's all you need to verify.
In this case the statement is unusually complicated but still much much easier to verify than the proof itself.
So, the specification of the theorem we are fairly solid on, formalising what a group is, and a simple group, have been done a long time and we are confident in the correctness of.
Assuming you do trust those, then assuming the formalisation passes lean (and lean has no bugs!), then the whole idea is you've got a proof of the theorem.
The papers describing lean and it's core operations are deliberately small. The kernel of a theorem prover is meant to be such that a human can check it for correctness. The kernel does not include things like type inference or execution. It literally checks the proof and that's all and everything needs to match exactly. It's fairly trivial to write such a thing.
Humans have to establish trust in this.
After that, the rest of the language is written. Yes it is possible the type inference engine is broken but in that case the kernel will reject it
I think the OPs argument (which I am not endorsing) is that they in fact enjoy a higher quality of life even if their "standard of living" (measured in purchasing power) is higher.
It's all subjective though. Asking most in a 'developed' country whether they'd trade their high rent for a dirt floor/house would result in an affirmative no. Same for health/insurance - "Would you trade your high premium for 'the nearest so called doctor is a days walk away'" is going to be a resounding no.
But then it's the same the other way around "Would you trade your dirt floors for linoleum if it meant you hard to do hard labor 40 hrs a week?" and "Would you trade your witch for the luxury of owing the doctor thousands of hours of labor?" would both also be resounding nos.
I know there is a growing contingent of those moving off of the grid and spurning modernity for log cabins built by hand, and the converse OLPC in dirt huts thing but for the most part everyone everywhere wants to have their cake and eat it too.
The premise here are essentially those of logical atomism and the unified science movement. The authors would do well to learn about why those projects were abandoned.
reply