Reading the comments, it may be useful to clarify that the issue of an arrest warrant will constitute charges being brought, and trigger positive resolution. In other words, Putin does not need to be apprehended or arrested in order for him to be charged.

If the intention of this question is different, then please also clarify that.

I am extremely surprised by how high the community average is, noting in particular that: 1. Most NATO members would cross the 2% GDP target without increasing their spending by 25%. Also take into account the historical reluctance of NATO members to meet that 2% target to begin with. 2. Most NATO members (e.g. those in Western Europe) would not perceive an increased security risk from the Ukraine invasion. 3. In 2015 (the year following the Crimea invasion), only one country crossed the 25% threshhold. 4. Any post-COVID bump is likely to take place ...

Just a note that there are differences between NASA and NOAA calculation methodology. For example, NASA ranked June 2022 as warmest June on record (tied with 2020). By contrast, NOAA ranked June 2022 as only the sixth-warmest on record.

The question is resolved by reference to NASA, not NOAA. Most of the sources that commentors have linked to are NOAA.

That said, the macro analysis (around topics such as La Niña) is obviously relevant regardless of the source.

@admins FYI that the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre has released their data for 2022, setting the number of conflict IDPs at 5,914,000. You may of course choose to wait for the UNHCR to quote this figure, but I think the resolution criteria allows this question to be resolved now.

I'm interested in average global temperature at the 2030, 2040, and 2050 marks. To my knowledge, there aren't any questions that address these timeframes. These timeframes hold personal significance for forecasters as we will likely live through this period. I also believe that the questions are sufficiently complex for forecasting to be a meaningful exercise. The new "question groups" feature could be used to set this up. The background text can be copied from existing questions on global temperatures. We should measure average global temperature again...

Currently, when I forecast a question that is part of a tournament, I get asked to "enter" the tournament.

I would like to have the option NOT to enter the tournament, while still getting to forecast those questions.

If there is a way to do this, I have missed it - grateful if someone could clarify.

The website used for resolution, ForeignAssistance.gov, states on its "About" page that: "There can be up to a two year lag for the most recent complete year of data. This lag exists because foreign assistance data collection and reporting is approximately a year-long process from when the fiscal year ends. ForeignAssistance.gov may report more current data as agencies submit data, but while verified and accurate, the data cannot be considered complete and comprehensive until the publication of the Greenbook at the end of every calendar year. However, t...

2: Extremely unlikely, given that their current market cap is $183B. 4: Unlikely, given that: (i) no acquisition has yet been announced; (ii) the current economic environment makes acquisitions unlikely; and (ii) even if an acquisition is announced, it is unlikely that it will be completed within 3 months. 7: Referring to the PapersWithCode website, we see that the JAX framework is still at 1% of repos, and has been this way all year with no upward trend (https://paperswithcode.com/trends). On the basis of the above, I do not think that this question...

I would, if possible, like to see what the calibration graphs for other people look like - either anonymously or not. For anonymous viewing: possibly (i) aggregate the graphs of every user, (ii) also aggregate the graphs for the top 50 for comparison, (iii) give people the option to display their graph on their profile. For non-anonymous viewing: well, actually the same suggestions as above.

@exmateriae @MacGyver Putting aside whether internet is an essential service, I note that loss of service must be for at least a week, as per condition 3.3. To my knowledge, the article only specifies that the loss of service was for “a few days”. We would probably need to confirm by reference to other sources if the outage continued, at the same level of disruption, for longer than a week.

— edited by CastilianoVulgo

@wobblybobby Just a brief note that the 5,000 number for Incirlik appears to be from 2002, and so if the Incirlik question becomes relevant, a more up to date source would need to be used.

My view, for what it's worth, is fairly straightforwad: if official U.S. sources inform us that there are 100,000 troops in Europe, then the question should resolve 100,000.

@Baisius @andrmoe Up to 16351 now.

There are 6.2 million IDPs as of the end of September. The number of IDPs is falling and forecasters should update accordingly. The community average of 8.5 million is far too high.

Source: https://dtm.iom.int/ukraine (This website belongs to the IOM, which is a UN agency.)

Based on @casens ' recent comment, there are a number of paths to this question resolving ambiguously. For example: If Russian sources do not release any up-to-date estimates, then Ukrainian sources also cannot be used in support of resolution. The fallback requires 2 independent sources, which might not necessarily happen. If there is one Ukranian source and one independent source, this may not suffice for resolution based on @casens ' comment. Separately, there is a question of what should happen if there is significant divergence between Method 1 (a...

I think (3) sits in tension with the other resolution criteria, because one of the following two scenarios may occur:

(A) Welfare biology is taught, but without any discussion of the moral dimension (i.e. as to how humans should act).

(B) Welfare biology is taught, but all such courses unequivocally agree that there is no need to reduce animal suffering.

All the other criteria presuppose a moral claim that humans should act to reduce animal suffering, and that seems to be more in line with the basis of this question.

— edited by CastilianoVulgo

@admins - Grateful if you could please confirm that this will resolve as the number of IDPs as of 31 December 2022. It is clear from the other comments that this is a substantial issue.

The UNHCR's 19 August update states that "Within Ukraine, over 6.6 million people remain displaced by the war". This is down from the 7.7 M estimate in July.

@MacGyver Unknown if Condition 3 is met.

I currently have a slightly lower figure than the community estimate. Based on the latest UN figures, there are: 3m refugees (as of Mar 15) and 1.8m internally displaced (as of Mar 10). Lets assume that the internally displaced figure grows at the same percentage rate as the number of refugees. That implies 2.4m internally displaced as of Mar 15. If I assume that all internally displaced peoples eventually become refugees, that only gets us to 5.4m at the moment - and I don’t think we can make this assumption. For me to believe that there will be 5m...

@(fldnflncs) @admins Admins: Which of the above figures will be used for resolution? The answer cannot simply be "whichever the UNHCR chooses to publish". Firstly because the UNHCR may choose to publish all three figures, and secondly because it's outside the scope of what we were asked to forecast. My view personally is that it should be "figure as at end of 2022", and if the UNHCR does not publish that statistic, the question should then resolve ambiguously. This is the figure that I am currently forecasting in my prediction. However, I'm happy with...

How do people feel about the Imperial College Epidemiological Model, which places IFR in Africa alone at 0.24% - 0.28%?

As a whole, it seems that a notable proportion of experts place IFR below 0.4%, and reach this conclusion via a variety of different routes. (Of course, I acknowledge there are studies placing IFR higher.)

I'm not saying we should take the studies at face value, but as a non-expert, I am slower to dismiss the aggregated opinions of experts.