@(jabowery) > Poll "corrections" as election approaches matches 2016. What are you referring to? [/u/ajoerich](https://www.reddit.com/user/ajoerich/)'s [last version of his Everything Chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/comments/jj34su/its_oct_27_2020_and_heres_a_snapshot_of_the/) compares key metrics of the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections, and Biden's lead over Trump right now happens to both be higher than Clinton's lead in 2016 and not be decreasing nearly as steeply as Clinton's was around one week before the 2016 election. Fu...

From the San Francisco Chronicle: “In the 15 years before Floyd’s death, 110 officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter for on-duty fatal shootings [...] Just five have been convicted of murder, while 37 have been found guilty of lesser crimes”

— edited by Natalia_Mendonca

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that an AI has already managed to score about average in the math section of the gaokao, China's national college entrance exam. According to [this page](http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/2017-06/07/c_136347963.htm), it scored 105 out of 150, and according to [this page](https://qz.com/998424/millions-of-chinese-students-and-a-robot-will-be-sitting-the-gaokao-chinas-most-gruelling-academic-exam/), 106 is the average for Chinese high schoolers (in a different version of the test). Also, according to the first link, i...

@HadiKhan I'd recommend not putting too much weight on any one particular poll. Poll aggregators, like FiveThirtyEight and PollyVote, have a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

— edited by Natalia_Mendonca

@holomanga It could be one single user putting all of their probability mass in August — perhaps in order to troll, perhaps not.

Wisconsin, which voted for Donald Trump in 2016, has been called by the AP for Biden.

@j.m. @casens Notice that this question does not resolve based on whether 2020 was warmer than 2016. It resolves based on whether the NASA GISS global average temperature for 2020 is published above that of 2016. Those are two different things, and the latter one is false. (Unless you average the reported average temperatures for each month, act as if you know the month figures to 5 s.f., and treat that as the NASA GISS global average temperature for 2020 instead of the number they themselves report.)

— edited by Natalia_Mendonca

@PeterHurford Many of us have — the community median in this question dropped from 30-35% before Trump announced he tested positive for COVID-19 to around 23% afterwards.

— edited by Natalia_Mendonca

@(olliebase22) Something I've heard before — I can't recall exactly where — that attempts to explain that discrepancy is what I'd call the "Trump insurance hypothesis": the hypothesis that many people bet that Trump will win not necessarily because they think that's likely, but because they *value money more* in worlds in which Trump wins. Perhaps they expect some disaster to happen if he does, or perhaps the emotional pain they would experience in that scenario is great enough that they feel the need to offset it with the joy of winning a bet. If there ...
@(casens) > if there ends up being evidence of a secret pardon, we might revisit the question and reresolve as ambiguous. Why shouldn't it resolve positively in that situation? I think that if we wanted to take the resolution criteria for this question literally, it would make sense to resolve it ambiguously now, and then resolve it positively if there ever ends up being evidence of a secret pardon. And if we wanted to go by a more holistic approach and avoid creating an incentive for people to just predict 99%, it would make sense to resolve it nega...

@Tamay Do you happen to mean the 117th United States Congress? If so, yes.

I entered all forecasts for Q1 and Q2 GDP growth I found in [this Bloomberg article](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-23/economists-see-u-s-facing-worst-ever-quarterly-contraction?srnd=premium) into [a spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dky8VGhZsGWRgqnuaoJarfzLK3QFanVGJTiOhZCqfx0/edit?usp=sharing) and calculated a weighted average for Q2 GDP growth forecasts, weighting by how accurate each source's Q1 GDP growth prediction was. The weighted average is -26.55%. All of those predictions are from no later than early April, h...
@(Roko) > Also this is a very unusual election so we should move more towards 50/50 and trust polling less. [Polling for this year's Democratic Party presidential primaries](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/) seems to have predicted [the results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) no worse than [the average for primary polls](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/), and life is arguably no more unusual now for the average American than i...
It makes sense to me to resolve this negatively if you account for the margin of error and resolve it positively if you don't. Personally, I don't see the need for an ambiguous resolution if we take the margin of error into account, since 2020 and 2016 tying naturally implies that the criterium for a positive resolution hasn't been met and thus that it's natural to infer that this should resolve negatively. It isn't as if we don't have NASA GISS global average temperature data for 2020, and an ambiguous resolution is more suitable if that or something ...
@(JohnMcConnaughey) If what in fact happened was, very clearly, the negation of the condition for the question to resolve positively, then IMO it makes more sense for the question to resolve negatively. From the [Metaculus FAQ](https://www.metaculus.com/help/faq/): > An ambiguous resolution generally implies that there was some inherent ambiguity in the question, that real-world events subverted one of the assumptions of the question, or that there is not a clear consensus as to what in fact occurred. It seems to me that, if we can’t find any report...

@j.m. There might be (although I'm not that sure). As KnowName explains in a few comments here (e.g. this one), unlike what McConnell once claimed, it is possible that the Senate trial can begin before the inauguration without unanimous consent from the Senators.