@moderators if this question resolves true, we likely won’t be able to get the points (although there is a small chance that we will have ems that get them). You are asking us to ignore that fact. To avoid a bias, I think you should decide that no point will be given for thos question no matter how it resolves. I likely won’t care (or even exist) in 2100, but in case I do, I have at least stated my opinion 77 years prior!

Will we find out who are behind the sabotage of Nord Stream 1 and 2, and if so, who is it?

Unfortunately, it will be difficult to make these questions well-defined.

@Eharding Like many others on the site, I think this is way too high. Besides other arguments in the comment section, remember that April 1st is an arbitrary date that is important for the resolution of this question, but likely is completely insignificant to Putin. You should be careful not confuse the stated question with the question “would Putin control Kyiv by April 1st if that was his goal”. If Putin is making steady progress over the next weeks, we should not expect him to hurry up just to make the question resolve true.

@casens Sorry to nitpick, but I find it confusing that “Yes” is in bold, while “insufficient”, which really functions as a negation here, is not in bold. Is you skim, you will think that in case described, the question will resolve to “yes”.

It is quite posible that we will have cheap CO2 capture technology before 2122, which could result in people not worrying about CO2 emission. This would result in high CO2 emission compared to other scenarios, while the net CO2 emission would be low or even negative. It is not clear how this should be counted in the question. If the intention is that the question is to be used as input in climate models, we should use net emission, but if the intention is to give indication of the future economy, e.g. will we still be flying in CO2 emitting planes and ...

We should have a question about if/when the Kerch Bridge that connected Russia with Crimea will open again.

I think the answer is very likely an integer! And it seems that the format of the guesses is not made to handle small integers: you are better off making several guesses concentrated around the integers that one continuous guess (unless there is some tricks going on behind the scene that the graph does not capture). Furthermore, it seems that you cannot make a guess concentrated around 0.

At the leftmost end of the distribution, we are predicting the probability of less than 50 million people living in a liberal democracy, conditioned on the question not resolving as ambiguous. Currently the community prediction for this is 4% for both 2052 and 2122. I think this is too low, especially for 2122. I expect it is somewhat likely the we get powerful AI in these timeframes. If there is one dominant AI, democracy does not make much sense, since it can manipulate people to get the result it wants. If there is a power balance between different AI...

“The Crimean Bridge, also known as Kerch Bridge, connects the peninsula of Crimea with the Russian mainland.”

This first sentence of the question sounds like Crimea is part of Russia. I would replace “the Russian mainland” with simply “Russia”. Alternatively, you could describe Crimea at contested territory and the other side of the bridge as Taman, Russia.

A month ago I created a question asking if Putin’s symptoms are due to Parkinson. Please review: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/10786/put…

@casens that makes the effect on the tournament small, but it does not necessary make the effect on the answers to the question any smaller. In any case, this is only relevant on the short time scales, since there are no prizes on the predictions for 2032 and later. For these questions, the only bias comes from the usual issue that we might care more about getting internet point in a world were we are alive (and the internet and meticulous is alive) than in worlds where we are not.

According to the answers to the question about world population, https://www.metaculus.com/questions/12866/world-population/ there is only a 6% chance that the world population in 2122 is >20B. However, according to the current answers to this question, there is a 7% chance that more than 20B people will live in liberal democracies. Naively, this seems to be a contradiction. It’s not _exactly_ a contradiction, since this question will resolve as ambiguous if population drops to below 5% or “ceases to have a developed society” while the world population...
I believe the prediction for 2122 are way too low (currently 8.4k, 35k, 69k for 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile with only 4 predictors and 4 forcasters). In particular, I don't think the energy cost of training and running AIs were taken into account. In [Metaculus AI training cost] the current predictions for greatest number of FLOPs used to train any AI by 2122 is 8.5*10^44 for the 25th percentile, 4.9*10^51 for median and 4.8*10^65 for the 75 percentile with 11 predictions and 10 forcasters. I don't think there is a limitation on energy u...

For this to resolve true, would it be enough that e.g. the is an executive order that any particular type of government entity is not allowed to pay ransomware payments?

@Cato Did you remember to lower the prediction again, or do you still think the balloons are relevant?

@Sune Another related question: Will there be more (succesfull) attacks on infrastructure in the Baltic Sea and/or the North Sea. This could for example be on internet cables, power cables, oil/gas pipes or oil rigs. I would not count attacks on ships since they are mobile.

Natural end day for the question would be by end of 2023.

Is this question refering to stuff that has been in orbit, or could it include first stage of a rocket that has just been launched?

@Trunton I think this might be too volatile to be interesting. Maybe more interesting to ask about the ration of the 10th richest and 10th poorest? Or richest and 10th poorest?

@RyanBeck I guess that should be up to @crule

I would say that the immediate risk from a launch and the risk from the increasing amount of space junk are two very different problems, so it would make sense to focus on stuff that has been in space. On the other hand, if we want other answers than just 1% it would make sense to have a more including definition.

Possible definitions/proxies for orbiting: Has been at least once around the Earth at above 100km Has been above 100km for at least 90 minutes/a day.

What is the probability Russia will use a nuclear weapon on a capital that is not Kiev?

If Russia uses a nuclear weapon on a capital that is not Kiev, how many capitals will they hit within the first 24h?