🏅 Top traders

Surprised by the winner, but resolution has been straightforward. Indeed, this review really is about a person which was a physical object. Not much scripture, or review of it, and not actually much theology beyond its political consequences.

@ArtimisFowl I thought you picked object because it's a review of the evidence for the miracle, and the records were objects.

@Wott I am happy to contain multitudes

@ArtimisFowl I’m confused by what you mean by this? Why is Joan of Arc a physical object?

@bens the review was about Joan of Arc, with a focus on how she was an extremely documented person. Both her and the records are/were physical objects (defined broadly: contagious matter). I think the review was of the person more than the documentation (I am not sure I would have resolved 'interviews' as yes, but fortunately it's not a category), but it doesn't matter because both qualify.

I'm happy to contain multitudes: I'm happy to not have to spell out the above or be forced to pick exactly what the review was about. (I was a little surprised at how vague the subject of the review often felt.)

@ArtimisFowl I mean, I’m not complaining about the resolution. I’m just kind of confused. There were basically no relics discussed in the article? It seems quite abstract to define a review of Joan of Arc as “a review of the physical objects that are the non-physical but rather literary texts of documentation of Joan of Arc”? Usually when ppl talk about physical objects, they mean something like a hammer or a bicycle, not the text contained in records that are no longer even of their original form. Is “The Odyssey” a physical object?

Also people are generally not defined as “objects”. People are indeed physical, but living things are usually distinct from objects!

@bens I promised to take a broad reading of the dictionary definition, under this people are unambiguously objects, eg: Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.

I think I've seen people.

And, steel manning the case that the records are objects, I do think part of the case (and thing being reviewed here) is that we have (essentially) original records; very old contiguous in time documentation, rather than transcriptions of transcriptions like so many other records.

List of the reviewed stuff so far, and what I would resolve yes (from the list at time of writing):
Father's mashed potatoes: Physical object, food
Joan of Arc: Physical object, person
Astral comment's section: Religion (I'll take arguments on this), website
Islamic Geometric patterns in the met: Concept, Physical object(s), (Feels like it could be painting or sculpture; I would be interested in arguments on either)
Mice Mechanisms Dementia: Academic paper, Field of study, Dataset
School: Concept
Alpha-School: In-person event/class

There were very few additional categories that felt like they were arguable; I feel pretty good about this list. I will re-read the winner to make sure my memory isn't too warped. I note that the definition of "concept" is a general idea or understanding, most reviews are picking apart quite specific things afaict; I really expected that to appear more.

can we get rulings on the reviews so far?

Is Joan of Arc filed under 'person' even thoughthe review describes itself as a review of the evidence for her miracles?

Are Mashed Potatoes an object? Islamic Geometric Patterns?

@Wott That's a fair request. I'll run through the list in a bit. (Yes, Joan article is about a person imo. I promised a broad interpretation.)

@ArtimisFowl (I've done the exercise in a stand-alone comment)

How come when I added a category it instantly jumped to the top?

@DavidSpies when you add an option, it initiates at 50%

@DavidSpies this is an UNLINKED binary market. Each of the options is independent. They do not sum to 100%. If you read the criteria carefully, it's actually possible for multiple to resolve YES.

@bens Lol I see you were gracious enough to correct it

If you add up all the probabilities, that's about 2.7 expected categories (which seems a bit overmuch, I would have expected it to be closer to 1)

@duck_master Is there an arbitrage opportunity where you just bet against everything?

@DavidSpies no, because new categories could always be added

@bens Doesn't that just help? It makes your existing no-bets even more likely to all be correct.

@DavidSpies well then that wouldn't be arbitraging, would it? that would just be betting NO on everything (which I've been doing)

@bens I think it's arbitraging because if one of the categories you bet against wins, you still compensate by winning mana on all the others. If none of them do, then you win even more mana

@duck_master Based on my judging from the released reviews; I think 2 is closer to true. Note that some of these categories are nested, some are very broad, and many of the reviews are combining or toeing the line between different sorts of things.

@TonyGao the rules literally say that books aren't allowed, so I think even if someone does try to smuggle in a book review per se Scott will probably catch it (and if he doesn't, his readers probably will)

@duck_master Yeah, I didn't read the question properly before adding it. But I think there's a good chance it might resolve to a nonzero percentage.