NathanpmYoung Candidacy

I like forecasting and want to make it easy for people to do it. I spend 2-5 hours a week on here anyway and I think I could happily look over and moderate questions in that time. I run a weekly collaborative forecasting call on the discord.

Just wanted to throw a question out there for the community. Now that we’re seeing the whole world have hindsight bias and laugh at Joe Biden‘s prediction on July 6, I was just wondering, who here thought it was obvious in advance that the Taliban would win this quickly? I will admit that I got it wrong. I thought they would win but I didn’t know it would be nearly this quickly. I go through and look at the early predictions from here and GJOpen. I am not seeing anybody who thought it was obvious in advance. In mid July, GJO had it at 2% that the US E...

Nothing will count as a cancellation the way the question is asked currently, because their Terms of Use state this

We reserve the right to remove any content from Substack at any time, for any reason (including, but not limited to, if someone alleges you contributed that content in violation of these Terms), in our sole discretion, and without notice.

— edited by Aithir

@kievalet The problem is that the question resolved much much earlier than expected: it was only open for 2% of the original lifetime of the question, so only 2% of the question's points were made available. This is necessary to ensure that the scoring rules remain proper (that is, that they incentivize you to predict your true belief), but it's admittedly kind of unsatisfying in cases like this. We're working on a scoring rule update to fix it. Stay tuned!

##Some rough impeachment math ###State Assembly The NY state assembly has to pass articles of impeachment. **You need 76 out of 150 members** to do this. 40 Democrats and ~43 Republicans have said they're on board so far. This represents 83 achieved out of 76 required, although the Democratic leadership specifically would have to give the green light on this. ###State Senate and trial The jurors for impeachment in NY are made up of 62 state senators and seven court of appeal judges. Two thirds is required to convict, so **you need 46 yes votes**. ~38...

By the way:

We	now	have
markdown	tables	and
I	think	we
can	all	agree
that	is	pretty
cool	!

Markdown syntax:

We | now | have
---|-----|-----
markdown | tables | and
I | think | we
can | all | agree
that | is | pretty
cool | ! | 

@Sylvain I only got 26 points for 99% - possibly not retroactively closed?

Hereby pre-committing to analyse the results at a total of 3,500 combined predictions.

I find it ironic in the extreme that rootclaim makes repeated reference to the overconfidence of experts, but that their challenge requires you to "win a debate", meaning that if you think they are overconfident but not directionally wrong (e.g. assigning 90% to something which you think should be assigned a 60% probability) there is no way for you to win the bet.

I really wish there was an option for discrete answers, at least on numerical questions. The current method is kind of frustrating and I feel like the points system breaks down and responses become non-intuitive. For example, on [this question](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/7628/-va-4-yr-colleges-requiring-covid-vaccine/) there are 16 discrete possibilities, 0 through 15. If I were forecasting this I would put somewhere around 55% probability on 14, 40% on 15, and 1 to 2% or so on each of 11, 12, and 13. In trying to get somewhere close to that usi...

In tournament registration fields, the academic degree one forces me to pick an option, or "Other". I don't have any and never went to university. I know this hobby selects for an academic crowd but you should probably have a None field so blue-collar or non-academic people don't feel alienated.

Just putting this short video here for the sake of Biden's prediction track record.

Biden: "There's gonna be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a Embassy of the United States from Afghanistan."

Will there be an option to continue using the old design once the new one is rolled out, like how you can still use old reddit? I'm not a big fan of how narrow the new design is on desktop, but to be honest I think I just hate change.

For a base rate I looked at how often non-state groups win intra-state wars in the post World War II period in the Intra-State Wars data [here](https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/COW-war). Base rate of rebel groups against a non-major power state is 19% in 180 conflicts. The state wins outright 41% of the time, there is a compromise 19% of the time, there's a stalemate 8% of the time, and 7% of the time the conflict continues below what's deemed at a war level. The small remainder were either still ongoing at the end of the dataset or morphed into ano...

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to guilt anybody. But as a favor to me, a former naval officer, can we not comment on this thread for 24 hours. It was a bad day.

@kievalet I got 0 points as well for a final prediction of 99% yes, having been above the median for the lifetime of the question; I think the question was due to be open for about five years, but ended up resolving after just a few weeks, so presumably even people who had 99% for the whole lifetime of the question will only have won 1-5 points.

Is there a way to view the old version? I got so used to it and can't make heads or tails of this new one

This is even faster than south Vietnam

Can we have an option to keep the old design ?

— edited by FNORD

@johnnycaffeine Not trying to start an argument, but I was one of the people who downvoted you, and I didn't do so because you had a different opinion, but for labeling the alternative opinion a "rules cuck." I think that's the kind of language that makes it hard to have a civil discussion of alternative readings of the resolution criteria. Part of what makes this place so great is that it's several steps above the PredictIt comment level. Just my opinion!