Strange. The current terms state:

> Restricted Jurisdictions. You acknowledge and agree that you are not permitted to access, use or trade with the Contracts on the Platform if you are residing in, a citizen of, organized in or located in the following jurisdictions (collectively, the “Restricted Jurisdictions”): Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Ontario, Poland, Quebec, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States; or a jurisdiction or territory that is the subject of comprehensive country-wide, territory-wide, or regional economic sanctions by the United States, including but not limited to Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and the Crimea, Dontesk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.

Maybe I'm supposed to ignore that?

Falling victim to the classic fallacy. So sad

That logic doesn't work because not every bet have even payouts. If there's a market for whether a dice rolls 1 or not, the odds might resolve to "no" 83% of the time, but if it only pays you $1.1 per dollar wagered on "no", you're still losing money.

I was about to say “first Microsoft service to reach zero 9s of uptime”, but then I realized, it’s Microsoft… GitHub is definitely not the first

I think these would qualify https://etfdb.com/etfdb-category/inverse-volatility/

Considering moving my team to Vercel. Why?

> Whether it's pennies in front of a steamroller will depend on […] many other variables.

No, all these variables cancel out.

If you were picking and choosing, yes. But this approach is basically betting no on all the markets.

The textbook explanation of this is the central limit theorem, proving this mathematically is a bit more involved for power-law systems like this but it’s empirically valid.