My personal opinion is that all of San Francisco is best avoided, so I feel comfortable with my assessment even stipulating, arguendo, what you just said. :)
I lived in Chicago for about a decade, and around 2017 to 2023 I set a goal of biking to every one of the 76(?) neighborhoods. I made it to about 63. There are definitely neighborhoods rougher than others. But tbh every neighborhood has good food, and, you know, normal people living there. Like, in Garfield park I remember buying ribs from a guy that was just sorta cooking them outa the back of his truck. They were terrific. Pilsen has great Mexican food, and Devon has nuts Indian food (Ghareeb Narwaz is by far my favorite). Yeah, in some neighborhoods, on a couple of blocks there are guys out on the corner selling. But no one's bothering anyone. There's nowhere you can't go on a Saturday at 1PM. Basically, what I'm saying is, the Chicago you see on the news isn't the one I live in. So, you know, keep your wits about you, take care, but I think everyone in Chicago should go to a random neighborhood and get some food.
I've lived in some of the roughest neighborhoods there and never felt particularly unsafe walking around at all. A couple of times people dumped bodies in my yard, but I also had that problem when I lived in a really nice area too :D A couple of other times I took to my basement while there were gang shootouts happening outside my house.
There is lots of great food in Chicago. Downtown is nice to me. You can get around the whole city on bike + El (subway).
It's still my least favorite major city, though. I have no urge to live there again.
Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square (called those 2 neighborhoods home) then Summer and Caldwell Lily Pond. I spent many a summer evening under the promenade in front of the Frank Gehry Bandshell; And the Lily Pond...those posters are stunning. Really evoked a sense of place and love for the city.
Good picks. If you didn't already know, Ryan Duggan did a print series of iconic neighborhood pizza places. I've had Fox's in Beverly on my wall twice and both times I ended up having to give the print away to someone who was one-shot by it when they came to my house.
Not clear why this is hitting HN today, but these are popular enough in Chicago to be kind of a cliche. No matter how convincing the poster is, I think you'll be disappointed if you plan a trip to visit scenic Galewood.
This was bait enough that I jumped into Google Maps to look at a few random Galewood streets via street view. Obviously very suburban, but looks like it'd make for a nice stroll until you tired of the cookie-cutter layout. Hugh Hefner's childhood home as a bonus.
I live across the street from it. It's fine! It's just one of the most boring neighborhoods in Chicago. Walking distance to Johnnie's Beef, though, which is the best beef spot in the city.
Of Galewood itself? Yeah, no, though it's across the street from one of the most famous architectural areas in Chicagoland. But the posters? They're deliberately an homage to WPA style.
I agree with Thompson about these kinds of prediction markets, but predicting horrible catastrophes is one of the prosocial early use cases of these things.
Agreed, as long as it's a catastrophe that the bettors can't cause, but for which advance warning can mitigate harms.
For instance, I'm in favor of bets that a certain astroid will strike the earth at a certain time and place. A signal from the prediction markets might cause somebody to evacuate in a scenario where they'd otherwise cry "fake news."
Let's not bet on whether the water will remain drinkable, because the last thing we need is for somebody to have an incentive to poison it.
> For instance, I'm in favor of bets that a certain astroid will strike the earth at a certain time and place. A signal from the prediction markets might cause somebody to evacuate in a scenario where they'd otherwise cry "fake news."
I understand the point you're making, but in this case, you're still incentivizing someone somewhere to not attempt to the best of their ability to intervene in that astroid. Bets that truly can't cause any change in behavior that might affect the outcome are a mostly theoretical category, in my opinion.
If the bet can't cause any change in behavior then the whole thing is useless. The whole point is to do some good with it. The constraint is that the bettor can't alter the outcome.
Another one would be discovering malware in a PR and betting loudly enough that it won't get merged. The bet is how you make your certainty rise above the bot noise and attract extra attention on the maintainers' part.
Granted that's also theoretical, but it's worth theorising about how we'll get things done in a world where the only way to be heard is to put your money where your mouth is.
I think I see where you're coming from, but if we're using them to predict hurricanes, it's likely just meteorological data arbitrage. All else seems like random chance; hardly an example of an oracle.
Crazy, but, hear me out: mirrors in space warming the Atlantic, mirrors in Africa warming the atmosphere ("solar power"), Trump wanting to nuke a hurricane, etc.
Pandemic? Go harvest bats and put them in a cage with chickens. You don't even need a molecular bio lab.
Stock market crash? Bombs. Terrorist attacks.
Energy prices? Derail a train carrying fuel cars. Bonus points if it's in a major metro and has a blast radius. Or, I dunno, start a war with Iran.
Dynamite the fault? I presume you haven't seriously thought about how much dynamite it would take and how deeply you'd have to plant it.
Mirrors in space? Again, have you done the math? How many thousands of acres of mirrors would you need, how many rockets would it take, and how much would they cost? Could you make enough on the betting market to break even?
I think cryptography engineers increasingly agree with this take, but it's also a different world: it would be straightforward to do XAES and modern P-curve implementations (now that they've been worked out with complete addition and stuff like that) now, but that was less the case when WireGuard was first published.
Ordinary implementers aren't doing de novo implementations of AES, and the gap between the P-curves and Curve25519 has closed, so this feels like a critique that might have been more germane 10-15 years ago?
reply