Ryan Garner

@stats_feed 20% of ancient monuments are aligned to the north pole. The rest are aligned to a location in Southern Africa.

What’s your favorite true statistic that makes at least one person do a double take when they hear it?

@EcdoPrep @nobulart This converts any 2x1 image called map.png into a spinning globe gif. gist.github.com/imkharn/9fc0a9…

@imkharn @nobulart How did you generate this visualization? I love it.

I think you missed Stani's point. He was already aware that the outside world was successfully mislead on what DeFi means by marketing teams of companies like Drift. The public needs to be trained to realize that most protocols lie and call themselves DeFi or decentralized to trick the outside world and regulators. You can either choose to warn the outside world, or help spread misinformation that harms the adoption of crypto and enables startups to fraudulently market themselves as DeFi.

@StaniKulechov i know within crypto we understand what's defi and what's not - and aave sets a great standard for it but to the outside world, this all falls under one category. we're not in a bubble anymore, this is how the industry gets perceived

defi is fucked lol drift just got drained for $200M+ and here's how: - attacker minted 750M fake tokens - made a raydium pool with $500 liquidity, priced at ~$1/token - compromised admin key listed the fake token on drift - disabled all withdrawal guards in one tx - deposited $785M of fake "collateral" and drained every vault in 31 txs over 12 minutes - nobody noticed for an hour - attacker came back 2hrs later to grab a few more million the multisig was 2/5 with a 0-second timelock. $200M+ protected by two signatures and zero delay. and people wonder why nobody takes this industry seriously

Maybe it is warty crustose coralline algae (CCA). Grok says: readily colonizes hard limestone substrates. They secrete calcium carbonate building thick, hard encrusting layers directly on the rock. Many species produce “warty protuberances,” “mammillae,” or knobby/nodular growth forms — smooth-curved, rounded bumps or domes that can reach cm-scale (thumb-sized) and grow densely packed where colonies meet or overlap. In calm water, they thrive, settle easily, and accumulate over decades to centuries, turning a flat surface into a distinctly bumpy, bioconstructed one. The bumps feel somewhat smooth because the algal thallus is densely calcified and rounded by growth. They survive at depths up to nearly 300m. They do not count as coral but some species do leave behind this wart surface on limestone. @EthicalSkeptic

These limestone blocks in front of the “Khafre” Pyramid were exposed to such extreme temperatures that they bubbled… Might this be a clue as to how old the Great Pyramids actually are?

@AirdropGlideApp If an admin key can steal all funds, it is the opposite of DeFi.

Drift Protocol just got drained for over $200 million. This is why no-one is using DeFi any more. It seems that everything gets exploited on a long enough time horizon. For most, the benefit of earning a couple of percent a year, doesn't outweigh the downside of a potential 100% loss every few years.

Why this formula? The goal was to charge every trader the same percent of their realized profits. But, they haven't realized profit yet, what? Yes, so instead we can charge the correct percent on average. We know the odds they will win is on average 'p', is roughly the price they paid for the share. So, they have 'p' chance of making (1-p) profit. Multiply those together and you have their realized profits in expectation. Simply multiply this by the fee and bam, everyone pays the same fee on their profits. (on average). Because of this, the formula can also be rewritten like this: C * 2 * (portion of everyones profits Polymarket wants to take) * p * (1-p)

@williamlegate @Frosen Tell your coworkers the correct formula that always charges the same percent of expected winnings and won't upset anyone is: C * 4 * feeAt5050odds * p * (1 -p) This was the first thing I designed for Augur in 2015.

BREAKING: New fees on Polymarket appear to be as high as 94.8%

@MattSibson I just wanted to share that I found a great picture that shows all 3. Source: youtube.com/watch?v=dz8qoM… I couldn't resist including the Matrix quote because it is so incredibly rare to find a use for that quote. I would not be surprised if there are 3, but I am not that confident.

@MattSibson As Morpheus would say: "I do not believe in chance. When I see three pyramids, three Sphinx-size dirt mounds, three cardinal directions. I do not see coincidence. I see providence. I see purpose. I believe it our fate to be here. It is our destiny."

This is how I proved a Third Sphinx in 5 minutes on Photoshop. Now prove me wrong!

The shadows are different directions in the two photos. Perhaps that's why its not visible in the photo you found; the sun lines up perfectly hiding the mound. If I am wrong my fallback is erosion exposed it more; notice other terrain erodes too. If I am still wrong, idk, the scientist said he was only 80% confident, so maybe there just happens to be a Sphinx size mound at the correct location.

@brianleonard71 Bro great find! This may be proof that the mound was formed between 1929-1930! 🧐

🚨Second Sphinx buried on Giza Plateau Update: Before/After: The “mound” did not exist in 1929 This is undoubtedly a heap of earth from the clearing of sand/excavation dumps in the last 100 years. We all know they moved immense amounts of earth to clear Giza. However, I still advocate for digging a simple test-hole to establish if there is a “Second Sphinx” buried below. Although, I admit that I have significant doubts on this alleged discovery, and on the validity of the alleged capabilities of SARS scans itself, I also know that this will be debated all over the internet until it is definitively proven one way or the other. SO, I say DIG the test hole. Do we all really want to just debate online for the rest of our lives? Nah, let’s Dig 🪏- This is the quickest and easiest way to find out once and for all if Filippo Biondi’s alleged tech (including the supposed discovery of eight-648m pillars underneath the Great Pyramid) is the real deal not. I will keep it real with you all and share my honest opinion: It’s hard for me to imagine that a STILL IMAGE taken from a Satellite is capable of seeing 1,000+meters below the earth, including through the Giza water table! Then adding the fact that Biondi won’t share his alleged tech with others for independent verification is a major red flag. However, I also “know that I don’t know”, so enough debate: simply Drill a hole through the Giza Plateau and let’s see what we see? 📍With all of that said, the LAST THING the growing global interest in lost ancient civilizations needs is another fake BS discovery which will only hurt the credibility of this fascinating field. What are your thoughts?

@Megalithic12000 Lol, how was this missed. You can clearly see a hump of sand that is the same size, shape, and location as the other Sphynx on google maps. (hold control then click and drag to move the camera) @29.9788147,31.1241148,102a,35y,54.61h,69.7t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMyMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">google.com/maps/search/sp…

🚨 MASSIVE NEWS: A second Sphinx may have just been detected beneath the Giza Plateau. 🔹Team claims 80% confidence 🔹Buried under 180ft of hardened sand 🔹Italian researchers used satellite radar 🔹Dream Stele depicts two sphinx figures 🔹Vertical shafts match the original Sphinx 🔹Scans show a structure mirroring the Sphinx Filippo Biondi says the alignment from Khafre's Pyramid to the known Sphinx creates a geometric mirror line pointing to the buried location. Preliminary scans reveal passageways and dense vertical walls consistent with underground shafts. Beyond the second Sphinx, the team believes they're measuring something even larger. An underground megastructure beneath the entire plateau. Zahi Hawass dismissed this years ago, claiming the area has been dug by too many archaeologists. But satellite radar sees what shovels never could. If there really is a twin guardian buried under 180 feet of solidified sand, what else is down there?

I think its fine especially with quick access to AI, and think you are taking it too seriously but I want to respond for fun anyway. This setting is a mix of casual and formal. The casual people just decide to blindly trust either you (due to vibes) or your claims (due to fitting into their worldview). These people just want a headline takeaway conclusion bordering on oversimplified. They might complain if they don't get it. You could appeal to them if you want, but you don't have to. Its fine to just publish. FWIW I've seen TES intentionally write in ways to filter out this casual group. That said, if you don't already know, the process of trying to maximally simplify without introducing error often results in learning new things. Also IMO its good to introduce a complicated concept with a mental framework and conclusion even if its a little oversimplified; introducing context via implication slows comprehension even for informed readers. TY for helping.

@imkharn @AWFResearch @nobulart Well I'm a reasonably educated and I'd like to believe intelligent person. I have years of post graduate education. I've read technical papers in medical, geological, and economics fields. This just seems tedious and unnecessary. I've never seen anything like it. Why like this?

1/ Inspired by Craig Stone's groundbreaking work with MACH I have made huge strides with IGOR development. Credit to @nobulart — this work builds directly on the MACH framework you developed. (MACH paper here: nobulart.com/media/shear.pdf)

@AWFResearch @favunc42052634 @nobulart I'm guessing they mean: Sharing enough key trees for the informed to infer the forest instead of just describing the forest.

@favunc42052634 @nobulart Please expand on what you mean?

I think there is >60% chance permissionless prediction markets overall reduce dispair. I started to explain why but it takes too long. Its one of those situations where there is a freedom with uncountable tiny benefits vs one measurable downside that seems simple to regulate but that regulation comes with uncountable tiny downsides.

Here's the question that haunts me as someone who helped create this category: if you built a prediction market on deaths of despair conditional on Kalshi and Polymarket scaling sports betting without guardrails — what would it say? That's the kind of question these tools were actually designed to answer.

I co-founded Augur, the first decentralized prediction market, and was founding CSO of Gnosis, the second. Polymarket still runs on Gnosis contracts. I'm glad prediction markets finally broke through. But I'm not going to pretend that what's being scaled right now is what we built these systems to do.

@nobulart TY for sending the full map, I have converted it to 3D. Also I came up with an even more oversimplified explanation: The redness of every point is how bumpy your ride would be if you started on a waterless Earth at that location and spiraled outward very slowly.

Are you looking for a way to protect traders or to probabilistically detect insider trading? Regarding protecting traders, prediction markets require alpha to predict. How strong does alpha have to be before it is "insider trading" so it qualifies for ban or insurance claim? Seems arbitrary and impossible to stop in a pseudonymous setting. Regarding detecting, this requires discovering the odds that some threshold of subjective judgement is surpassed and announcing that a trade was probably an insider. Not sure if this info is usable.

Is anyone working on "market protection/integrity" companies for prediction markets to detect fraud/insider trading across all market types? Feels like an interesting category that extends on what co's like Sportsradar do for sports

Neat ty. I have some comments: I am surprised how exactly it matches. You state that “No secondary basin of comparable magnitude is observed.” and that if you hill climb that basin the exact center is 0°, 59°W? Like its a perfect match to the hypothesis, not one degree off? Does it also match Np' exactly? Like if you best fit a line to the red maximum does it exactly cross that location? If so, I feel like this has to be the second most powerful confirmed prediction after "ancient buildings worldwide are very often Np' aligned." I want to suggest that you might get a much cleaner signal (less local minima) if you weight the variance for each considered point proportional to distance from that point. As in, if you are considering movement about this location, places that are twice as far from the considered point would receive twice as much movement, which is the source of the signal. Grok says you can do it if you "multiply every surface point’s local variance term by its perpendicular distance" so the equator of that axis is at maximum weighting. Do you have the full map? The one in the article crops off part of Alaska and Russia. The 3d version I made above is missing this part of the Earth. It seems like the color distribution in the picture is heavily towards blue, perhaps try logarithmic when coloring and it might visually show the basins more clearly. :-)

@imkharn Took me a while mysef. Essentially correct. The gradient tells us the "bumpiness" of the divider samples as measured when rotation is around that Euler point. Not your regular geospatial map.

Just want to drop some fun facts I recently learned: Sky Rock used to be worth 8 times its weight in gold and 40 times its weight in silver. It was the only way to get iron tools and weapons in the copper age. They had not yet figured out carbon monoxide + heat turns the rocks they used for red dye into low quality sky rock. An iron dagger from 1327 BC Egypt:

@0xashensoul @Polymarket @PolymarketTrade I suggest looking into the inelasticity of oil demand on short time horizons. See what happens when you input a 5% supply decrease to that formula.

if oil hits $200 in the next 12 days, we are in nuclear ww3 and money doesnt matter anyway if it doesnt, i get paid a 48% annualized yield on polymarket the market: "will oil hit $200 by march 31?" my bet: NO. oil is at $96 to hit the strike price in 12 days, a multi-trillion dollar commodity needs to move like a low-cap memecoin (+108%). why this is a structural impossibility: > oil has never hit $200. at $150, the global economy simply stops working > exchanges will literally freeze trading if it pumps too fast > you need a literal world war or destroyed oil rigs for this to happen $16 on $1004 in 12 days = ~48% apy. 10x better than your bank account, just for betting the world won't end.