@aphlac my model of him says he would disapprove your preferential treatment.

@nicidob I'm sorry to hear you were mislead. This is a stock question that I think we will ask on many future elections. Do you have suggestions to make it less misleading the next time we run it?

As you point out, the markets and 538 are systemically biased in opposite directions. This is something we should take into account in our forecasts. It does makes this question a lot less interesting/informative, which is unfortunate.

P.S.: please use the mods/admins ping sparingly.


The polling booths are closed! Here are the results:

NoUsernameSelected alwaysrinse RyanBeck
Approve 32 22 36
Disapprove 6 16 2
Total 38 38 38
Approval 84% 58% 95%

Congratulations to our two newly minted moderators: @NoUsernameSelected and @RyanBeck! I'll be in touch shortly to get you onboarded.

@predictors I clarified the question title to make it clear that this question is about all soldiers killed in 2022 and 2023. This means from 2022-01-01 to 2024-01-01, as already specified in the resolution criteria.

@rappatoni I hear your point. Metaculus users, Russian or not, are welcome to express their opinions while following our Rules and Etiquette. Civil discussions of Russian opinions have successfully happened on Metaculus before. This user has proven they were not able or willing to follow our rules. They are welcome to post their opinions on another site.

On the details: I believe "Ukros" is pejorative. "copium" is definitely pejorative.

@Natalia_Mendonca the resolve date only flags the question for resolution. We can then resolve whenever we want. We can also always extend the close date if we want.

@GameTheory your comments are in violation of our Etiquette and Moderation rules. In particular, your comment is:

  • Low quality.
  • Disrespectful.
  • Insulting.
  • Conflictual.
  • Strongly political.

Last time I banned you for a week as a warning, this second offense means a permanent ban.

@Jgalt fwiw, I'd much prefer some official statement.

@wobblybobby I think this would fulfill "real-world events subverted one of the assumptions of the question" (faq), so I'd say ambiguous.

@pranomostro, I think they're against lab-grown muscle tissue, not vegan meat replacements. Although since they seem to also be against "Reinforcing Meat Culture", they might turn on the Impossible Burger too.

Depressing detail: they say they're against clean meat, not because it hurts animals, but because it hurts their activism. It's not their only concern, but it's the first one they make explicit.

the Clean Meat Lobby is seriously damaging the animal advocacy movement

I'm slightly sad, now.

but can Metaculus do well at sports?

Apparently not.


With a single contender, and the rules guaranteeing they'll win, we can do away with the actual election this time.

Congratulations to @whaffner, our first Community Trader !

We'll be in touch shortly. I personnally can't wait to see where you'll help us take this idea.

@Sergio that's a good point. We're considering applying the change only to questions that have not closed yet.

@elspeth the points system is (under the hood) based on the log score, which is very punitive for predictions which are both extreme and wrong.

A novice predictor getting a 0.0001 prediction wrong could never recover from the absurd point loss. It could also happen to anybody by accident, which would be extremely annoying.

Limiting to 1-99% caps the maximum point loss to a couple hundred, which is bad but not terminal.

@(d_d) @Alex2637 @dvasya Metaculus is not the place to discuss the veracity of a particular video. @(d_d) the video you linked is unlikely to help anyone forecast better. Please remember that Metaculus is not a politics discussion board, but a place dedicated to forecasting. I ask all three of you to review our [Guidelines](https://www.metaculus.com/help/guidelines), in particular the [Etiquette](https://www.metaculus.com/help/guidelines/#etiquette) section. Rules 1., 6. and especially 4. are most relevant to this situation: > 1\. Aim for **high-quali...

@shibboleth just when I thought we'd settled on "Metaculite". =]

I don't think I had seen "Metaculusers" yet, even though it's rather obvious. (tbc I'm not a prescriptivist, you can use whatever words communicate your idea.)

@Zermelo @HadiKhan @CaptchaSamurai thank you all for your calm handling of this. In the future don't hesitate to use the "report" button in the three-dot menu.

@StevenSchkolne oh, I thought you meant just Metaculus staff on Metaculus-Itself questions.

For other kinds of insider info, I think it's fine? They'll move the median in the right direction, and the scoring rule is in large part positive sum, so they won't hurt other's scores much. I admit I haven't spent a huge amount of time thinking about it.

In general, the comment section is surprisingly collaborative, with people sharing info they could have kept to themselves to outperform others. It's great.

Baseline : the proportion of drugs entering phase 1 trials which eventually get FDA approved is ~15%. (article, blog)

On resolved questions, in the community stats, it would be interesting to have the points won by the Metaculus and Community predictions.

It would also be informative (and engaging), to have a statistic like "you got X points, which was better than Y% of predictors". (idem for the Metaculus and Community predictions points (see above) if those are implemented)