Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alex's avatar

I found the article fun, but much of it had "news headline science smell". It seemed like thing were always reported as extremely as possible, from taking a $1->99¢ result sans-explanation, to (implicitly) mischaracterizing what share of prediction market inflow is from sports betting, to critiquing marketing to Gen Z when only 20% are legal to sell to (or, to say it otherwise, imagine a toy company marketing to them a few years later and being criticized for having "only 20% of Gen Z still buying these" — while these companies are scummy, this wasn't relevant).

Michael Crichton used to talk about "the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect", where, when every part of the news you can interpret has a certain type of issue, you ought to realize that all the parts you are ignorant of likely have the same issues. Here, every part I could understand overstated things or interpreted them as much more hostile than warranted. So I am left confused about how to interpret the parts that are new to me.

No posts

Ready for more?