One factor: There's a limit on shorting, due to discounting. Suppose you're 100% convinced that Jesus does not return by 2027, so you want to buy the "No" trading at 96 cents. But you only get your 1$ back in 2028, when the bet resolves. You're not going to pay more than 96 cents for that if you can instead put them in risk free treasuries for the same paltry return.
Thus, the 4% yes are not necessarily people actively pushing back against "No", but rather an artefact of discounting. To alleviate that (and make bets near the extremes track implied probabilities more closely), the cost of making a bet should not be the currently traded probability (plus a spread), but the currently traded probability times the discount factor to resolution time. (This gets tricky if resolution time is probabilistic, of course.)
Yep, not much profit over long time horizons in correcting a relatively small number of people who are either delusional enough to believe in second comings or think it's a fun bet
To add to that, even if there's zero probability of an actual Second Coming, there's nonzero risk whatever oracle a betting market uses gets hijacked by Second Coming believers who resolve some new Jesus.AI or declaration by a cult leader as representing the authentic return of the Biblical Jesus, plus risks of exchanges defaulting on all bets or your winnings being locked up for gambling-restriction related reasons. For related reasons, you could earn money betting on Trump winning the most votes in 2020 after they'd been counted.
> The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
Using certain types of cards will get you automatically banned, I’ve found that out after getting 3 accounts suspended. I made them all using same VPN and email domain. I’ve been using the 4th account with no issues with a reputable bank debit card.
I did consider that. I remember nope-ing out of alacritty in the early days after seeing the developers response to people requesting a scrollback buffer. It amounted to something like "I use tmux, and if you don't, you use the terminal wrong." It left a bad taste in my mouth.
While your point is very helpful ("stare through a window instead"), you're adding a second-order improvement while the article is suggesting a solution to a first-order problem (dread, overwhelm, depression, burn-out).
(Also, even on the second-order of "what about your eyes", I would guess that staring at a wall several feet away is already an improvement over staring at a screen in your hand.)
To play along as we crowdsource a combined solution to more than this narrow problem, I'll add my own 2nd-order suggestion as well (for fitness and health), and suggest staring at the horizon while walking outdoors for a few minutes
reply