Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sharlin | Hacker News Reader

That’s not how betting works. How much would you really bet, your own real money? For example, I’m totally ready to take the bet at merely 1:1000 odds. In 30 years, let’s say, I’d owe you a $100 if a probe hasn’t broken V1’s distance record, and you’d owe me a hundred grand if we have. In today’s dollars. Should be a no-brainer if you really think it’s impossible.

View on HN

And that’s not how long term bookmaking works, as you’ve proposed a wager where I am guaranteed to lose at least the time value of my money on either outcome, and I’m extremely confident I’d lose exactly and only that. But I’ll happily put down $100 in today’s money if a win in 30 years returns a 10% profit over inflation, on the conditions that the probe must be launched from the Earth’s surface after the book is made, that it must overtake Voyager 1’s then distance inside 30 years, and that it must be actively transmitting at least one piece of meaningful local-condition scientific data back under its own power (for validation of ranging purposes, at least) at that time.

It does't work to get fair odds (estimated value 1) when the gains are a nice dinner downtown and a loss might be financial servitude.

One thing's for sure, $100,000 in today's dollars won't buy you dinner by the time the bet's resolved.

Doesn't the phrase "today's dollars" imply the practical value will stay the same?

If we're going to worry about inflation, we might as well worry about the climate burning up our planet.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but the next ~100 years we'll be bothered trying to have enough food and water and killing ~80% (or more) of humans of the planet who want our food, water, and shelter from the extreme weather that we won't be sending anything to chase the Voyagers...

Nah. This is basically the worst of the worst IPCC scenarios, highly unlikely but for some reason the preferred ones by journalists and self-serving politicians as well as big green industry grifters.

Back of the napkin math shows it to be the most likely, especially with some of the more recent discoveries in regards to water evaporation and co2 emissions.

IPCC is sorely outdated by this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4

TL;DW (poorly): Even IPCC scientists are sort of refusing to believe pessimistic data.

I hope we are getting to the point were rationality will prevail again. We need a balanced view of things, having only -1 on this comment of min here, on HN, which by nature is a climate doomer central fills me with hope.

The only solution is technological advancement.

If humanity doesn’t rise to the challenge (degrowth) this could happen.

Fortunately there are smart people all over the world solving problems everyday and that is likely to continue.

As the ancient South Park meme says...

1. Technological advancement

2. ?

3. Climate change fixed

As I said either advance or die. Reducing energy consumption isn’t an option, it will continue to grow unbound.

I could take the bet at 1:100 odds too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com