Sounds to me like they intend to control the oil production infrastructure which is land/territory within Venezuela - but what do I know.
Isn't the entire Polymarket concept rife with ways to abuse the system? If I have insider knowledge I get shills to create a market for that knowledge - then make an extreme bet at the last moment. Seems sort of like betting the 49ers will not win the Super Bowl because you know that Purdy's kneecaps are about to be busted. Or large options trades the day before the Senate votes on Healthcare bills.
If you want a gambling site, you need to ban insider knowledge. If you want to generate accurate predictions, you want to encourage insider knowledge. But even then, the problem you mention can occur when an insider extreme bet happens at the last minute, because although you end up with an accurate prediction it isn't very useful in the few minutes before it becomes a fact. I don't know if there is a solution.
Time-weight predictions so that they're "worth" more the further in advance they are, converging to "worthless" as they approach the due date? Perhaps there is a way of making this result emerge "organically" from the rules of the system, rather than explicitly encoding it.
Depends on your goals. If you are the platform then there is nothing to solve: you’re running an illegal gambling website and currently getting away with it. If you are an inside trader you’re also doing well.
It’s not great for the gambling addicts but helping people better themselves doesn’t seem to be a theme in federal policy at the moment
Gambling sites probably do have it in their user agreements.
Further, "insider trading" in prediction markets is probably fundamentally illegal under existing commodities fraud laws in the US (I am not a lawyer,) but there's probably nobody actively policing it, and probably no precedent in how to prosecute the cases.
I think it hinges on whether "any part of Venezuela" includes intangible "parts" like being able to tell them who to sell oil to, or whether it only refers to land/territory. The second paragraph implies that control over land is the point of the bet, but it doesn't explicitly say so. Control over the oil industry doesn't require control over land.
Naive view is it's suppose to create public interest measures with real valued results.
Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to see something, eventually, like "X won't be seen in public after December 31st, 2026" essentially creating an assassination market.
“Move fast and break things” works well when you are a little player in a big world, because you can only perturb the system into so bad a state with you limited resources. Now, they got big, and everything is broken.
The people that pay are the Institutions (Universities mainly). Not the readers. The publications are sold to them as bundles even if the Institution does not want all the journals.
Yes you are correct, however I don't understand how this relates to my point, do you mind clarifying? I'd also caveat that the library (the purchaser of these bundles at most universities) often buys bundles based on requests from academics (more specifically research groups/departments) at the university, thus the readers do have some sway over which are purchased.
I do not know specifics of bundling agreements (shocker that I admit not knowing something:). I do know that libraries at some Institutions have started to provide funds to their researchers to pay the APCs. The library then goes to the Open Access publisher and negotiates bulk APC deals if they commit to a certain number of publications. Sort of a win win grant wise. This does not necessarily guaranty publication but if it does not get published you don't pay (processing submissions is an expense Open Access publishers incurs).
I am certain that that no system is perfect. My belief is that the Closed Access publishers have had free reign for so long that the largest ones abuse the system and competitive models are useful to restore some balance. The model also restricts access to information.
I would argue that one downside to Open Access is that incentives volume over quality (as others have said) but I would judge that on a per publisher basis just as I would any publisher. Closed Access models might also provide publication in areas of research that don't get tons of attention and research money.
I would also argue that there are other problems within research such as lack of reproducible results in many papers that is a far more pressing issue. Just my 2 cents. Thank you for the honest discussion.
Authors where paid to do the research and publish their work that produced the paper (that is what the grant was for). PLoS an Open Access publisher pays editors, type sets the work, finds a reviewer and publishes the work for free access on the internet. Reviewers are the ones that generally do not get paid for their work.
Elsevier makes over $3 billion dollars with the closed publication model. They force institutions to pay for bundles of journals they do not want. The Institutions often do not supply access to the general public despite the papers being produced with public money (and despite many of the Institutions being funded by public money).
Paying the cost upfront from the grant increases the availability to the public.
I think the Elsevier model will eventually be deprecated, at the least for the open sector of society (aka taxpayers money). People demand that when they pay taxes, they should not have to pay again due to Elsevier and I think this is a reasonable demand. Many researchers also support this.
At low costs of $2k~$3k per publication[0]. Elsevier closed-access journals will charge you $0 to publish your paper.
>Elsevier makes over $3 billion dollars with the closed publication model.
Elsevier is also[1] moving to APC for their journals because is better business.
>The Institutions often do not supply access to the general public despite the papers being produced with public money
Journals (usually) forbid you of sharing the published (supposedly edited) version of a paper. You're allowed to share the pre-published draft (see arXiv). Institutions could (and some indeed do) supply those drafts on their own.
>Paying the cost upfront from the grant increases the availability to the public.
At the expense of making research more expensive and hence more exclusive. It's money rather quality that matters now. Thus it isn't unsurprising that Frontiers & MDPI, two very known open-access proponent publishers, are also very known to publishing garbage. It's ironic that once was said that any journal asking you for money to publish your paper is predatory, yet nowadays somehow this is considered best practice.
Better busness or are their customers demanding it? PLoS is a Non-Profit - feel free to look up how much they make. I believe it is public record.
If researchers cannot pay the APC then PLoS often reduces the fee. Also - half of that grant money is used by the Institution as administrative overhead. An part of that overhead is paying Elsevier for journal access. If you want to decrease the cost of research that may be a better place to start.
I agree that volume often tends to result in garbage but the review is supposed to lessen that. Again that garbage did get funded some how.
I am not pushing PLoS - they are simply a publisher I am familiar with that uses this model.
The garbage thing is really interesting. I'm going to propose another reason for garbage is Academia's reliance on publication as the primary means for giving promotions and judging peoples work. This leads to all kinds of disfunction.
Was it Nobel Prize Winner Peter Higgs that said his University wanted to fire him because he didn't publish frequently enough?
Authors may NOT be paid at all for their work, or may even pay to do it.
I am a self-funded PhD student and no one paid me for the work that went into my open access paper. As it happens in this case the journal waived the publication fee, so no one paid anyone anything except I suppose the nominal pro-rata portion of my university fees that I paid.
That is true also. The pre-pub route may be your best bet if that is a concern. One shoe does not fit all feet. I am only trying to argue the merits of the Open Access model. It is certainly not perfect.
It is certainly not perfect. Competition/Choice is good. It is interesting that people do not understand their grant money is paying for it regardless. Either an upfront cost or through the administrative overhead the Institution gets from the grant.
Why was this comment flagged? There’s plenty of room to disagree with it, sure, but it isn’t offensive or repulsive or anything. If anything, I’d love to see it argued against…
It wasn't flagged, they're shadowbanned. [dead] without [flagged] is not the same as [flagged][dead]. [dead] alone is shadowbanned or maybe mod killed, [flagged][dead] means that it was flagged to death by users.
They (or someone) needs to message the mods about it, it looks like they've been shadowbanned since their first comment 6 months ago.
Microsoft has started raising prices on many of their products. I suppose they decided that their current customers need to pay the increased CapEx for AI;) New motto - AI pay for it whether you use it or not.
It was bad until General Bone Spur found a way to profit from it. Now it's ok. As usual the deal was just some verbal agreement that was not binding in anyway. How many times will people keep falling for this?
Let's face it. Working for other people sucks. They set the agenda. They make the decisions. Often those decisions and agendas will not be what you think is best. It maybe the case that you are correct. Go start your own thing and run it how you see fit.
Now if you want to see what a really "caring boss" is like watch this video of former employees of Musk. The real interesting thing is some of them seem to like the humiliation, lack of boundaries and over work. Similar to what groups of soldiers feel after serving in a war together and returning with PTSD. Hope the money was worth it. Personally I would avoid it but to each his own.
I worked and even had a business with and/or worked for three people that I've known for a long time. And had loud substantial disagreements with - before going into business. Worked like a charm every single time. The personal side I mean, business was neutral once, a complete failure but I only wanted the paycheck anyway once, and a resounding success in a traditional business where I handle only IT right now.
In the first venture I found out I hated selling and business. Sure, I can do it, but I really really don't want to. I am a minimalist, and I might have become a poor monk in a monastery a thousand years ago. I don't want to sell anyone anything. So in the next two businesses I left all the business stuff to others, and it is sooo much better.
And now that I'm in a non-IT traditional business I'm a servant 100%. And it is nice. My main focus is non IT stuff, and I use computers to achieve that. Finding differences in thousands of EDI messages for invoices, order confirmations and deliveries, for example. HOW - who cares? I am not developing a product. If it's a one-off I may just run some command line tools. Or, shocking!, I actually use Excel. Or I ask ChatGPT for a little helper Python script to run over the raw data files.
Doing servant work without business responsibilities is really nice :) My boss may have the bigger house and car, so what? He also has exponentially more stress (I have pretty much zero). In my youth I may have had a different opinion, but now I don't want his stress level for any amount of compensation. And no, future early retirement by making lots of money now does not change the equation. I don't want to retire at all anyway, keep doing business stuff on the side at least. Without the stress it's no problem! One of my direct colleagues is way past retirement age...
It's true there is no silver bullet. I did contract work after 2000 dot bomb. I enjoyed working for myself.
The thing I liked most is that when my clients would ask me to do things - I would often propose things more reliable and less time to implement solutions. They would then opt for the less optimal thing sometimes for good reasons. If I was an exempt employee that would have meant me spending my personal time on the extra work to meet deadlines. The contractor me would bill them for the hours:)
Isn't the entire Polymarket concept rife with ways to abuse the system? If I have insider knowledge I get shills to create a market for that knowledge - then make an extreme bet at the last moment. Seems sort of like betting the 49ers will not win the Super Bowl because you know that Purdy's kneecaps are about to be busted. Or large options trades the day before the Senate votes on Healthcare bills.
reply