What fraction of active users will switch back to dark mode?

@(alexlyzhov) If anyone is interested in calculating this for themselves, they can look at prices [from Deribit](https://www.deribit.com/main#/options?tab=BTC-31DEC21). The quick and dirty calculation would be to look at the 80k/120k call spread (divided by 40k). Currently this is: * (14,700 - 9,750)/(40,000) = 4,950/40,000 = 12.4% A barely more sophisticated way to do this would be to calculate a tight call spread using Black-Scholes around 100k. To avoid worrying about (fairly confusing) interest rates, we can use the forward from Deribit: 54,400 an...
I've struggled to get my "prediction" in the right format, but I think this is about as close as I'm going to get. My prediction isn't as much "my" prediction as "what I think the market probabilities are" and my view is "the market is broadly sensible". I thought this question was going to be pretty sensitive to kurtosis, so rather than modelling it as a lognormal random walk, I fitted a [Heston model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heston_model) to the Deribit option prices. Having spent a bunch of time collecting the prices and fitting the model. My...
@(PeterHurford) Of course. The probability of a random walk starting at 0 reaching a point \(x\) after time \(t \) with volatility \( \sigma \) is [given by](https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/12797/12046): \[ \mathrm{erfc}\left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{2t \sigma^2}} \right) \] To calculate \(\sigma\), I downloaded data from [CoinDesk](https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin) and looked at the daily closes. I then took the 0-mean standard deviation of the daily log returns: \[ \sigma^2 = \frac{1}{\text{num days}} \sum_{\text{all days}} \left ( \textrm{log} \le...

There's something fairly nasty about predicting maximums on Metaculus. The "correct" distribution is a mixture of discrete (probability we've already had the maximum) and continuous (probability the maximum is yet to come). (The distribution also tends to be very not-symmetric, which is always quite hard to predict using the Metaculus input).

The Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases.

SCOTUS FAQ

That's a pretty brutal base rate

@clearthis

"Did people simply fail to update their prediction?"

is usually the explanation

This is crazy volatile and I think @2e10e122 is correct to flag up crypto as a significant factor. (In the last crypto bull run, 60% of their donations were in crypto, and it remains their biggest year)

  • 2019, $2,683,611, (~3.5% crypto)
  • 2018, $2,436,573, (~40% crypto)
  • 2017, $7,871,530, (~59% crypto)
  • 2016, $2,701,563
  • 2015, $1,578,488
  • 2014, $1,829,946
  • 2013, $1,807,197
[This website](https://www.wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#name1=Carlsen%2C+Magnus&name2=Nepomniachtchi%2C+Ian&first_move=player1&formula=logistic&best_of=14) gives a 77% chance to Carlsen for the first 14 games, 12% to Nepo and 10% chance of a tie (and hence tiebreakers). (Using current Elo ratings) Using the same odds (per game) for the tiebreaks, Carlsen has an ~75% chance of winning the tiebreak. So call this 85% chance of retaining the title. I think this method drastically underestimates the number of draws in World Championship matches. The last...
@(PeterHurford) @admins I agree with your original analysis. This has been resolved incorrectly The question text is: "This will resolve in the positive if the NASA GISS global average temperature for 2020 is published *above that of 2016*, the current record holder." Emphasis mine. The [data](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) shows the temperature for both are the same. 1.02. The question also asks: "Will 2020 again set a new record?". It seems clear to me this isn't a "new record" if it's tied. Disclosure: I lose 69 p...
Current probabilities from PI & 538 for Biden \( \begin{array}{l|c c} State && PI && 538 \\ \hline AK && 0.139 && 0.197 \\ AL && 0.045 && 0.021 \\ AR && 0.065 && 0.017 \\ AZ && 0.559 && 0.678 \\ CA && 0.926 && 0.998 \\ CO && 0.887 && 0.956 \\ CT && 0.944 && 0.999 \\ DC && 0.955 && 1.0 \\ DE && 0.935 && 1.0 \\ FL && 0.475 && 0.704 \\ GA && 0.393 && 0.497 \\ HI && 0.93 && 0.992 \\ IA && 0.363 && 0.484 \\ ID && 0.045 && 0.006 \\ IL && 0.935 && 0.999 \\ IN && 0.075 && 0.049 \\ KS && 0.094 && 0.046 \\ KY && 0.045 && 0.014 \\ LA && 0.065 && 0.057 \\ MA && 0....
Current probabilities from 538 & Economist for Biden \( \begin{array}{l|c c} State && 538 && Economist \\ \hline AK && 0.197 && 0.068 \\ AL && 0.021 && 0.0 \\ AR && 0.017 && 0.0 \\ AZ && 0.678 && 0.667 \\ CA && 0.998 && 1.0 \\ CO && 0.956 && 0.99 \\ CT && 0.999 && 1.0 \\ DC && 1.0 && 1.0 \\ DE && 1.0 && 1.0 \\ FL && 0.704 && 0.767 \\ GA && 0.497 && 0.487 \\ HI && 0.992 && 1.0 \\ IA && 0.484 && 0.375 \\ ID && 0.006 && 0.0 \\ IL && 0.999 && 1.0 \\ IN && 0.049 && 0.001 \\ KS && 0.046 && 0.003 \\ KY && 0.014 && 0.0 \\ LA && 0.057 && 0.004 \\ MA && 1.0 && 1...
@(Sylvain) I think a good case against negative likes can be made: * Negative likes don't necessarily mean "bad" - in my experience in other forums people often end up using them to express disagreement. Hopefully Metaculus can retain good norms, but I don't think this is guaranteed. * (Personal view) Good Metaculus comments don't receive enough upvotes as it is already. * They can have a cooling effect on conversation. It's much cheaper to downvote than to express in detail why you disagree with someone's position. I felt more strongly about this on t...
@(elifland_ought) [This comment](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/2783/at-the-end-of-2023-will-animal-charity-evaluators-recommend-a-charity-working-on-reducing-wild-animal-suffering-as-a-top-charity/#comment-48378) ``` Top -> Top: 82% Top -> Standout: 6% Top -> Comprehensive: 12% Standout -> Top: 7% Standout -> Standout: 80% Standout -> Comprehensive: 13% Comprehensive -> Top: 4% Comprehensive -> Standout: 4% Comprehensive -> Comprehensive: 92% Unreviewed -> Top: 17% Unreviewed -> Standout: 57% Unrevie...

I just want to make sure I understand correctly - we're interested in money raised rather than implied IPO valuation?