@Jgalt We should create a question along the lines of "Will the cause of the mysterious bumps in so many recent questions be known by 2021?"

[Ukraine War Sets Off Europe’s Fastest Migration in Decades](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-war-migration-wave.html), *New York Times* (March 1, 2022): > The war in Ukraine has set off the fastest mass migration in Europe in at least three decades, prompting comparisons with the Balkan wars of the 1990s and providing echoes of the vast population displacement that followed World War II. > At least 660,000 people, most of them women and children, fled Ukraine for neighboring countries to the west in the first five days of Russia...

@nostream All the prediction markets give Trump much higher chances than the models do. I don't think the discrepancy can so easily be dismissed as resulting from manipulation, unless there's concrete evidence in favor of that hypothesis. Do you know of any such evidence?

I personally give Trump ~35% chances of winning the election, and in line with that belief I have made several bets for Biden totalling $7,000.

Sadly, Maria Giuseppa Robucci is dead. Kane Tanaka and Lucile Randon are the only two left.

It's not a "really, really obvious mistake to make". More importantly, your argument implies that pollsters would have been at least as prone to making these mistakes in all elections prior to 2016, so the historical polling error is the best estimate we have of the error we should expect in the coming election. But the FiveThirtyEight model adjusts its confidence intervals so that they reflect this historical error rate. (That's why, in 2016, it got closer to the actual result than a naive interpretation of the polls would have suggested, and in fact th...

This spreadsheet computes the chances of a positive resolution from the current eurovisionworld.com betting odds.

— edited by PabloStafforini

Via the Ought Slack workspace, I learn about @beala's excellent analysis of this question, which as far as I can tell has not been mentioned in this thread.

(This also provides a good example of how the current scoring system fails to reward users who put a lot of effort into a few questions, relative to users (like me) who put little effort into lots of questions.)

@kale I wouldn't read too much into it. The volume is extremely low (because the market is new), so the behavior of just a couple of traders might explain the discrepancy. I moved the probability of 'No' from 38% to 58% by buying $450 worth of 'No' shares.

— edited by PabloStafforini

This New York Times article suggests the vaccine will likely take significantly longer than the community predicts.

[This spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bsMo3K9qi-pN16GoF--cT2u5eD74XHpWczRqQxj3Zt4/) tries to systematize @SimonM's approach and extend it to a few additional conflicts. This is a very crude analysis and I don't feel it should inform our estimates very much, though it does look like the current estimate (10%) is, sadly, still too low. Note that the question says that about 14,000 people have died so far in the [Russo-Ukrainian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War), which corresponds to the sum of combatants and civi...

@Jgalt Proposed question: What fraction of questions will resolve according to information first provided by jgalt?

@notany A question on whether Trump will leave the country would be interesting.

Remarkably, this FTX market currently assigns a 11% chance to the proposition that Trump will be president on February 1, 2021.

@(alexrjl) Yes, sorry, I didn't meant to imply the criticism was directed at me. >The thing to criticise is that choice, not specific instances in a way that implies that the scoring mechanism isn't working as designed. Agreed. I guess one could read the criticism as using the example as a way of criticizing the underlying choice. I think my main issue with the criticism is that it fails to appreciate that there are multiple *desiderata* for a scoring rule, and that no rule can satisfy them all fully. It's like noticing that a voting rule violates the...

@notany I don't find the "a lot of work is involved" explanation plausible, since much of that work could be parallelized and/or outsourced, especially given that the FDA knew for months that such work would be required and that it could therefore have prepared accordingly. Given what we know about humanity in general and the FDA in particular, I find "insufficient rationality/poor epistemics" to be a more credible explanation.

I personally think it's pretty unlikely that the NYT will doxx Scott. Both morality and self-interest provide them with strong reasons against disclosing his true identity. What could they possibly gain from doing this, other than upholding a rule that doesn't seem very sensible to begin with, and which may create similar problems for them in the future?

— edited by PabloStafforini