It’s not just “extended” flavours of Markdown that allow embedding HTML. The original reference implementation supports this too.[0]
> For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags.
However, there is no way to switch back to Markdown inside HTML, so if, say, you want to have an <article> tag around your article, you need to write it entirely in HTML.
It doesn’t matter whether the US actually has control, only that the military action was taken with intent to establish control.
>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
What the military actually did was a raid which captured Maduro and his wife, and likely took out some of Venezuela’s anti-air capabilities—for all the good they did them—in the process. As far as we know, that was the intent. Actually establishing control is an occupational effort.
I see your argument, and I think it is even defensible but I think it falls short. An actual resolution to this question may require a judge to weigh in on the contract.
"Actually establishing control is an occupational effort."
Not quite.
They're trying to establish control by threatening to kill or imprison the leaders and by blockade.
Venezuela apparently handed over a lot of oil, it seems like they've been able to do something.
That said - we don't really know how much 'control' that is.
If I were Polymarket, I wouldn't say that the US has control either, but, it's entirely plausible.
We'll see.
This could go the way of DOGE or the Trade War aka just a trailing mess of ongoing concerns that people forget about, though to play my own devil's advocate, ICE is consistently ramping up.
I understand that he made that claim, but until we see something that effectively substantiates that claim, it’s just words. Right now Maduro is in custody and being tried for the charges, but the regime he built is still in place, and as far as we know, not feeling any warm feelings about cooperating with us.
Now realistically no one in that regime is any safer than Maduro was, but it’s also a possibility they resist and carry on without Maduro. It’s only been since Saturday. I’m not saying there’s no world where Trump & Rubio are correct today or when they said it over the weekend, I’m saying that there is no public information substantiating those claims. Near as I can tell, it’s a “listen to us or else” kinda deal, which could be enough, but then we would see the effects of that through cooperation with the Trump Administration.
The claim doesn’t need to be substantiated, because it doesn’t matter whether they actually will control Venezuela, it only matters that it was their intent to do so, which Rubio and Trump have both admitted.
Like I said, I think your position is defensible but I think it falls short so I still disagree. If the people who bought into this contract can get it in front of a judge though, the judge might agree with you.
I am prepared to be wrong on this one, but I just don’t think that Trump & Rubio’s words after the fact are enough.
Except neither Trump or Rubio are credible sources. Their actions and words are notoriously unreliable.
In fact, citing them as an authority leads to the transitive property applying to credibility in an argument.
All of us here know Trump is an unreliable person, why is he being cited to support definitive claims? And Yes His unreliably most certainly extends to his own aims, there is no question on that.
You can for the most part evaluate intent based on actions. There are some actions which can have multiple possible intents behind them, where things get trickier. But in most situations, there is one primary consequence of something, and the action needs to be taken with deliberation, hence you can state with high certainty what the intention was, based purely on what was done. Consversely, if a person has complete freedom to complete some action, but chooses not to, then we can say their intention wasn't to do that thing.
The Chavez Museum was also destroyed...but no it wasn't an invasion. It didn't control land which is the definition in this case. The blockade provides de facto control which is what Trump is referring to.
> This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
The US attack had no intent to control territory. It was to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.
1. Attack intent to control did not happen.
2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not happen.
Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.
The way I read it, the second paragraph serves as the definition of territory ("any portion of Venezuela"), not as a condition for resolving the bet. The invasion doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to have the intent you specified in 1.
...which makes the entire bet like quicksand, because it relies on the public statements from a regime known for its "inaccurate" messaging.
The more interesting question for rules lawyers is whether the president itself classifies as "any portion of Venezuela" -- the claim doesn't explicitly limit itself to only geographical portions.
The widespread acceptance of Postel’s Law also encourages poor authorship, because if you know clients have to be liberal in what they accept, there is no incentive to be conservative in what you send.
If authored files had to be valid in order to work, how would the author have sold you an invalid file in the first place? They would have seen that it didn’t work when they were making it, and fixed it. If they’d sold you a book that didn’t open, you’d be entitled to a refund.
Imagine two file formats competing to be "the web":
* In file format A, the syntax is narrowly specified and any irregularity causes it to be not rendered at all.
* In file format B, there are many ways to express the same thing and many syntactic forms are optional and can be omitted while leaving a page that still renders.
Now imagine millions of non-technical users are trying to make websites. They randomly pick A or B. Which ones do you think are more likely to get to a point where they have a page that renders that they can put online? It's B.
Even though the file format of B offends our software engineer sensibilities, in an evolutionary sense it is much more robust and able to thrive because more fallible users are able to successfully write working files using it. It will completely dominate once network effects get involved.
> The Economist recently had a piece on word usage of British Parliament members. They are adopting words and phrases commonly seen in AI.
Many of the speeches given by MPs are likely to have been written beforehand, in whole or in part. Wouldn’t the more likely explanation be that they, or their staff, are using LLMs to write their speeches?
People who end up leading successful companies are often able to do so not because they’re more willing to take risks than others, but rather because they have experienced more good luck than others. Take Bill Gates, for example. His parents sent him to an exclusive private school, which afforded him regular access to computers from an early age, giving him valuable experience that most others his age could not access, through no fault of their own. Microsoft was able to make a crucial business deal with IBM because Gates’ mother knew the CEO. Someone else with equal skill and appetite for risk would have found it much more difficult to be as successful as Gates was, because their parents were likely not rich and not connected to the right people.
Luck is always going to play a role. No one has ever said that life is fair, and no system is based on life being fair. One of the many reasons that progressive taxation is justified.
One of the best software design books I've read is "Domain Modelling Made Functional", from Scott Wlaschin.
It's about F#, but it remains a good read for any software programmer, whatever your language.
And it's easily understandable, you can almost read it like a novel, without focusing too much.
Though what may need some brains is applying the functional concepts of this book with your favourite language...
> For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags.
[0] https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html