jpmattia

I was very fortunate: Yale CS already used emacs in 1981, and offered local high school students the chance to take their classes. By the time I got to MIT a year later, I didn't know that there were any other serious editors available!

And suddenly, there was a market for body-sized Bragg reflectors in the microwave region.

Holy moly, that was unsettling.

45 years for me. I don't even think about keystrokes anymore.

> and they get to join the index next year without a rule change.

You seem to have ignored the 50% float rule. SpaceX is proposing to go public with about 5% of the float, but S&P requires 50%.

Do we think that the market will absorb the release of 45% of the shares? I'm dubious.

Manias, Panics, and Crashes by Charles Kindleberger is a more modern book, which I'd recommend as well.

> Then I see he links to his own Revolutionary Theory, and it starts to look like outright crankary.

But what an AI-generated crankery! Because I enjoy wasting my time, I chose a random point (beginning of ch2) and started reading:

> Standard field-theoretic practice selects equations using symmetry, gauge invariance, and conservation. This chapter proposes a cognate selection principle built from three structural demands. A potential that carries energy must appear on the right-hand side of its own equation, because the energy it carries is part of what sources it. A potential that describes the same physics in every frame must have an equation that survives change of observer. A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides.

I've italicized a couple of items: Cognate selection principle? Really?

A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides? As opposed to all those tensor equations with differing ranks on both sides? Not exactly the type of thing that makes someone slap their head and shout "Why didn't I think of that?!"

The technobabble is interesting in that any single sentence might make sense in the absence of sentences nearby; It that regard, it's much like an Escher painting: Locally sensible, but globally out-to-lunch.

In fact, you had to pay extra to have your number/address omitted from the phone book.

Great. Let us hope that support for hardware without TPM is next. Creating several mountains worth of electronic waste was a terrible decision. And in the middle of the AI-induced memory shortage!

Although I have to admit: The combination of AI and required new hardware has been a nice boost for switching to Linux.

I think the most intriguing part of this effort: Farmers traditionally employ machines to achieve their harvest. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time that machines are employing humans to achieve their harvest.

I mean, more or less, but you see what I'm getting at.

[I'm still thinking about this a day later!]

I think an additional table/graph of how large-bet performance vs small-bet performance would be interesting in general, as well as broken out by market type.

It kinda answers of the question: Are large bets equal to smart money? or are they equal in "smartness" to small bets?

> but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap)

I confess I'm surprised by that result in particular. I realize your results are for Kalshi, but ISTR some reports from the presidential elections on Polymarket.

But more generally: When you say there is "only a ~1% maker/taker gap", is that weighted by the size of the bets? or is it averaged over the number of bets placed?

In any case: Thanks for a very interesting paper!

Something that appears to be missing: Certain events attract "advertising" types of bets. E.g. There is value in making a candidate appear to be a leader, so dedicating dollars to swinging the market is more of a form of advertising than an intelligent bet.

So it would be interesting to measure the inefficiencies of various bets vs the total market value in that bet.

e: Although full disclosure, I did not pick apart the entire paper. Maybe it's buried in there.