By design it's a game where people with inside knowledge or enough power to bend reality can steal money from people with gambling addiction. Automating your addiction might not be the best move.
This is what markets like Polymarket boil down to. Normies can't win. Some will, of course, but that's just chance and there's no way if ensuring it's you.
It's really no different than a casino: if you ever find yourself with more money than you walked in with, cash out and leave.
Best strategy for most people though is to simply not participate and you'll break even.
I fully agree with not participating and would go even further: it's far worse than a casino, which was already bad. It's not regulated. It has a stronger impact on the outside world. With bets you can put a target on people job or head.
Except, the thing is, a decent portion of the population enjoys throwing money away in casinos. If they feel a similar level of enjoyment/entertainment from this type of market, then it's no different and they're playing for a non-financial purpose that your calculus isn't pricing in. Maybe a stretch but theoretically, if they enjoy it enough, it can serve as a much cheaper alternative to a casino and thus could actually have a positive net return to one's personal finances even while losing.
And, I'm not even contemplating gambling addiction. There's a huge market of people that just go to Vegas once or twice a year and come home thousands of dollars poorer. But they don't need it, they may not gamble outside of Vegas, or nothing that would signal an addiction.
> I don't have a gambling addiction, I just enjoy throwing money away in casinos. I come home thousands of dollars poorer. It's a net return to my finances. Totally healthy.
It's all hypothetical of course but I know Vegas has some high table/game minimums and these markets can be pretty cheap if you just want a piece of action. Also, eliminates the cost of actually traveling.
Again, no idea if anyone sees this as a true substitute or not. My guess is not as Polymarket bets don't feel entertaining at all (IMO). So it's not filling that void for anyone, but it hypothetically could.
If cloudflare is providing services to illegal websites, they very much are in full control of the situation. They knowingly choose to keep hosting that content, and have legal customers exposed to that risk.
You may like that the platform is open by default to everybody, but that's the obvious consequence.
Are blocking unlawful? I don't think so. Their country their rules.
Business-wise it's risky to deliver your service from IPs that also serves dirty content. Technical solutions exists, even if you want to stay on Cloudflare.
But it also highlights the fact that the idea of blocking “dirty IPs” is at best a blunt instrument. Every ISP has abusers. Some are worse than others at self-policing their customers. Cloudflare is reputable and better than most. Given the huge breadth of sites sitting behind Cloudflare, it’s crazy, IMO, to block all of Cloudflare.
It does not block all of cloudflare, it blocks their shared IPs.
If you are doing serious business you may not want to do it on IPs that are also used for shady content.
IP reputation is a well known strategy, used by emails and other firewalls.
Okay, so they aren’t blocking whole ranges. Yea, you definitely don’t want to share an IP with a spammer or malware site. I thought they were blocking whole ranges.
In other countries, like Italy, they made a system where domain names are fast-tracked for blocking within minutes. I hate to say it but Spain managed to do something even worse.
Cloudflare is a private company, they might (unwillingly) benefit from hosting illegal services. They don't implement a quick or proactive process to take down content that is obviously illegal. The money made by illegal streaming websites doesn't end in good pockets, which raises further concerns. Such streaming is quickly spawn for the event, then disappear. Even if you fight them legally after the event, they operate from countries that won't cooperate.
Cloudflare could change their policy to take down quickly obvious abuse during live events. They could proactively check new customers before allowing public traffic.
People can vote against protecting property if they think it creates unreasonable effects.
Not sure where you got your stats but top website owners can easily deploy technical solutions to this issue.
We live in a complex word. This problem is not completely manufactured by bad people at sports and television companies. What should right owners do? Accept that content they own is streamed illegally, for profit, and not use recourses the law provides?
It's about 300MiB and maybe 5% of a core if the cloud provider offers a free managed control plan. If you want / like Kubernetes it isn't a deal breaker.
>By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50%
You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not arguing that price hikes haven't occurred. In fact I specifically acknowledged them. I'm only making the narrow argument that despite implications to the contrary, the ad supported plan today is cheaper than the paid plans. In other words the implication that "we're paying more and still have ads" is false.
>you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap
I mean, if you're so fervently against ads to the extent that paying a single cent is "a lot", then I suppose it's true, but it's highly subjective. By most reasonable comparisons (ie. ads vs non-ad price today, ads vs historical ad price), it's not "a lot".
Is server-rendered HTML that bad for 2026 web or is everyone building complex apps?
Many of my customers insists on using Next.js or similar but when I browse their website I don't get the point. They are downloading and executing megabytes of JS while in-page interactions tends to be limited to few basic stuff. Never seen one of their project requiring offline mode. Maybe that's being able to easily replace a [FRAMEWORK] dev with another.
I think the unfortunate truth is the simplest. Web development has long been detached from rationality. People are drawn to complexity like moths to a flame.
> People are drawn to complexity like moths to a flame.
Not to complexity, but to abstraction. The more something is abstracted away, the more fungible "developers" become, to the eventual tune of Claude Code.
No one cares that trying to debug a modern application is as hellish as its performance, the KPI that executives go for is employment budget.
It might be really efficient when you "vibe" and don't know exactly what you want.
On serious projects, it feels like even Claude Code could be more efficient with simple technologies, providing near-instant build and debug.
With reduced abstractions and output looking like input, it can better understand how to fix things rather than trying to guess how to manipulate framework state or injecting hacks.
I don't know if Next.js, TanStack, etc are more abstract than Rails, Django, etc. They're undoubtedly more complex though. I also find it hard to believe that it's some sort of conspiracy by management to make developers more fungible. I've seen plenty of developers choose complexity with no outside pressure.
Can't remember in details that part of the film. Was it explicitly eugenics? Otherwise it could be seen as not getting the same education, depending on parental situation.
It's in the opening scene, where poor, "low IQ" couple complains about getting another child again by accident while a suburban "high IQ" couple was hesitant to start making children until it was too late (the husband dies). "Low IQ" couple's son grows up into a stupid, sexy jock and it goes on from there for generations.
So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt.
> So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt.
Is that really how we use the word "eugenics", though? That scene you refer to explicitly explained that Natural Selection does not necessarily select for intelligence.
So while some people are calling it "Eugenics", it's what we more typically call Natural Selection, Evolutionary Pressure, etc.
Eugenics implies that the selection criteria was not natural. The scene you mention makes it clear that, in-universe anyway, the selection criteria was entirely natural and not a pressure imposed by humans.
I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.
I still like the movie, but like with any 20+ years old comedies, I can recognise issues with its premise which would be more-or-less unacceptable today. In 2006... not as much. The future is now, old man!
> does that scene imply that we should do something to tilt the scales in the opposite direction?
No, it did not.
> I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.
And, to you, "Do something about this" means only one thing - forcefully stopping classes of people from reproducing?
reply