I don't have a stake in this, since I haven't predicted, but it's very silly that correct predictors have earned only a measly few points

@xc Remember, the last report was in 2019. While that wasn't very long ago, the situation in Hong Kong has changed drastically recently, so it's not necessarily surprising to see Hong Kong ranked higher than you'd expect

@zc In the case of a schism with opposite positions, ambiguous resolution would seem justifiable

@jipkin I certainly hope it will still exist

— edited by ThirdEyeOpen

@Jgalt If this happened between the time the question was approved, and when it went live fit predictions, resolving ambiguous seems justified, since there's no meaningful predictions to be made here

I think one closely related question that I'd be interested in is if the wolfram physics project produces a model which leads to a falsifiable hypothesis beyond our current models, that later gets confirmed at a p-value below 0.01%

— edited by ThirdEyeOpen

It is not clear to me what does and does not count as a "space elevator" from the question. It is my view that we should always strive to make questions as specific as feasible to remove any ambiguity in resolution.

Are people still expecting a Super Heavy flight prior to an orbital flight? I was under the impression lately that the first SH flight would be orbital, and the community expects an orbital flight not until October

Just to confirm: this does not require attempting to actually land on Venus, right? A simple flyby (similar to the upcoming DearMoon flight) should be sufficient for positive resolution? Judging by the text of the question, this is correct, and I assume this is Jgalt's intention, I just want to confirm this.

@Jgalt I always appreciate all the effort you put in to share links and information, thanks for the consistent contributions!

I'm noticing that there's more predictions on this question than on this related question asking when Starship will land properly. If you haven't had a chance to predict on that one yet, get your predictions in!

I won't campaign to change this resolution, but in the future, I think it would make sense to flip a coin in the case of more than one colour, as was proposed previously. I will also belatedly note that wavelength is poorly defined in the case of purples and magentas, so I would hope to see hue (which is well-defined for all colours) used next time

Congratulations @michal_dubrawski! Thank you to the Metaculus team and the Metaculus community for providing this opportunity and for entrusting me with this position. I look forward to serving alongside Michal and the rest of the moderation team to help keep Metaculus the amazing bastion of rational judgement and constructive communication on the Internet that it is.

@akarlin Hasn't TBC already substantially increased the speed compared to the previous state of the art? That seems to be at odds with the narrative that current speeds are determined by physical constraints

— edited by ThirdEyeOpen


I'll probably favor being thorough over being speedy. I'll tend to want to look at a proposed question closely to make sure it's clean and has minimal ambiguity, which has upsides but could mean slower responses to proposed questions.

In my view this is a plus. It's better that we get a few high-quality questions than many questions that present problems down the road

@nagolinc America is closer and more livable than Mars, but 1600's Europe also commanded 1,000x less energy (and thereby resources) than the modern world

According to Wikipedia, there have been 7 polls featuring FG, starting in November. The lowest reported proportion was 0.0%, and the highest proportion was 0.6%, with a median of 0.2%.

This is well below the 2% threshold that is usually needed to receive seats, so they have a lot of promotion to do if they want any hope of success.

@Uncle Jeff Californians will be answering two seperate questions on the ballot: Should Newsom remain governor, and if not, who should replace him? Newsom only needs a majority on the first question, so he doesn't face much risk due to vote splitting, especially since voters can both vote to keep Newsom and vote for someone else if he does get recalled (due to prior court rulings).

There's no risk of another Democrat making the race harder for Newsom.

@michal_dubrawski Ambiguous seems justifiable in this case to me, it really just turns this question into a conditional question: "As long as Donetsk and Luhansk are part of Ukraine, will Ukraine fulfill Minsk II as regards them", which seems like the meat of the matter. Having negative resolution in the case of Russian annexation makes the question feel like it's tracking two different matters of interest - Russian annexation, plus Ukrainian treatment of the Oblast in the case they are still part of Ukraine.

I'm not on top of things on the matter of the ongoing war, but I get the impression that Putin is having a hard time in Ukraine, and is in a position where he needs to figure out how to maintain face. If he's bogged down in Ukraine, invading another country will spread Russia's resources thinner, and lead to higher casualties, which would make things even harder for Putin.

I imagine he'd just want to focus on getting an acceptable (to him) ending in Ukraine, rather than start another front in a war that's not going his way.