@Bair wanna bet more for the 90% one?

@Bayesian yeah, but not too much :) you alone can keep it above 90% for a long time

@Bair wait, you're the main NO holder! do you actually believe in aliens / the UFOs having a world shattering origin?

@Bayesian yes, I wouldn't be overinvested in it this much if I didn't

@Bair why tho 😭

@Bayesian some personal experience, but it wouldn't convince you, so there's no point in talking about it.

If you really want to understand how someone rational can not only seriously consider it, but actually find it likely, I recommend listening to some podcasts with Matthew Pines, for example this one: https://youtu.be/LpLFWdsIU7M?si=AOzWqA3t6kfTr6GQ (or at least ask some AI to summarize the transcript).

@Bair oh.. ok the introduction makes me think it is insane but thank you

@Bayesian I can see why, but give it a shot, even if you won't be convinced , it's probably going to be entertaining.

If someone else is curious, but doesn't want to waste 4 hours without some assurance that Matthew is not a typical crank, here's a summary you can read in a minute.

@Bair the arguments seem to rely on the UFO sightings in themselves are very unlikely to be caused by equipment failure and false measurements. it seems to me overwhelmingly more likely that those are at fault in general, than that the UFO sightings are from extraterrestrial origin or something. I don't get it. I asked the AI to provide a detailed argument the podcast presents for why the UFO sightings will have world shattering origin, and it just doesn't consider / rule out the default assumption, that it's measurement errors. I am made more skeptical by the fact that you asked the AI to agree some conclusion was justified, instead of displaying the line of reasoning that led to this conclusion, so that anyone can verify the validity of the argument, but that's a detail I guess

@Bayesian Ok, fair points. My question to AI was indeed somewhat loaded. And you can dismiss any individual claim of any sort by insisting it actually might be a measurement error (though there are many cases with multiple credible witnesses and many modes of measurement where it's much harder to do, still possible). There are just too many individual claims, and you are probably not aware of them because you haven't looked into it enough.

And I understand why what I wrote above won't persuade you. And even if Trump says later this year that all Grusch's claims are true, you'd still probably think it's a psyop of some kind. It's hard to change one's mind about this unless you have personal experience.

@Bair Do you think trump saying it’s all true is likely? We might be able to find a bet we both wanna make in that regard

@Bayesian I need to see how he behaves in the first couple of months of his presidency to decide how likely it is. I can bet in a market about it then. For example, it can be added to your "What will happen during Trump's second term" market.