= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wei_Dai comments on Look for the Next Tech Gold Rush? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (113)
Winning the lottery on your first try, or just frequenting a website that managed to pick a lottery winner on its first try (analogous to how Bitcoin was pretty much the only investment opportunity to be discussed on LW aside from the standard "buy index funds"), is certainly Bayesian evidence for your being able to win the lottery on average. It's just that the prior for it is so low that you don't think it's likely even after updating.
This isn't the case for EMH, given that even economists disagree among themselves about whether EMH is true, or which form of EMH is true.
On second thought, I'm not sure this is true even in the lottery case. Would you really not buy a ticket if the website that previously picked a lottery winner announced a second prediction?
You won the lottery twice. So is what you're saying I should now invest in all the stuff you are investing?
Well, no, it's more like, "I won the lottery twice (figuratively), last time with the help of Less Wrong. I'm not sure how to do it again, but if I encourage LWers to think in that direction, maybe they'll find and point out the next opportunity too."
Gold has also been discussed as an investment opportunity, as has high frequency trading. More broadly discussed have been things like "start a company that does (X)".