Nobody is protecting digital children and it's almost always disingenuous when this argument is claimed to be made. The effort is to stop the normalization of the sexualization children. Lolicon is exclusively about romancing or sexualizing children. Deluded adults who think what happens in lolicon material is ok are potential risks to real children. Allowing such a risk to children for the pleasure of these adult is absurd.
What is wrong with it? That's exactly what he shows in the video. When betting it all, equal wins and losses is a net loss. The point is betting some fraction such that the gains overtake the losses
This is true if you're betting everything you have. By not having shrinking bets after losses you can tap into the net gains. Compare 1 win followed by 1 loss with $100 start:
The key is not letting your losses affect your bet amount. With the gain being only 80% instead of 100%, betting your bank means 1 win and 1 loss leaves you with less than you started. Making your bet amount fixed between flips means 1:1 will instead give you a net gain. The Kelly Criterion says there is an optimal proportion of bank you can bet that will maximize this gain over many flips
The article says the private sector is building less because of higher interest rates. They ARE purposely limiting the money they can make because the risk of that interest is a potentially greater loss.
Nobody is protecting digital children and it's almost always disingenuous when this argument is claimed to be made. The effort is to stop the normalization of the sexualization children. Lolicon is exclusively about romancing or sexualizing children. Deluded adults who think what happens in lolicon material is ok are potential risks to real children. Allowing such a risk to children for the pleasure of these adult is absurd.