What will the winning (1st place) review in this years contest be reviewing? Selections resolve independently after the winner is announced. In the case of ambiguity, 'winner' will be interpreted broadly (eg, in the case of a tie both will be accepted)
Update 2025-03-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on media categories:
Documentaries are considered a subset of Cinema.
If a review of a Documentary wins, both Cinema and Documentary will be accepted as correct responses.
Update 2025-03-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Separate Evaluation: Each media category mentioned in a review will be judged independently.
Broad Applicable Definition: The creator will use the broadest applicable definition when determining correctness.
Nested/Othogonal Categories: Reviews that address multiple or nested categories (e.g., a review of the Dune board game contrasted with the movie and video game) will have all relevant categories scored as fully correct (i.e., 100).
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ1,210 | |
2 | Ṁ1,023 | |
3 | Ṁ842 | |
4 | Ṁ516 | |
5 | Ṁ247 |
People are also trading
@ArtimisFowl I thought you picked object because it's a review of the evidence for the miracle, and the records were objects.
@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.
@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.)
@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.
@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.