@krtnu Excellent, thank you. I've updated substantially downwards.

It looks like I can no longer see any rankings below 100th place -- is that deliberate? I rather liked charting my own (substantially >100) rank.

@(Uncle Jeff) I don't think it creates any more of a pickle than that created by any of the retrocession plans I've seen. Specifically, I think most retrocession plans retain the same idea of a federal rump district right around the US Capitol building. That federal district retains the same 23rd amendment right to 3 EC votes as it would in a statehood plan. Of course if we are really concerned about the 3EC votes, you could declare that for 23A purposes the federal district is located in the cubic meter centered on a point directly between the top o...

@cd Either way, feels like time for a DC statehood question @moderators. I've submitted one, but I can't claim I'm thrilled with how it is worded. Tried to rule out retrocession (separate q?), and subsequently realized I don't have a brilliant working definition of 'state'. "Has two senators and a governor" was as close as I got, and that's not particularly good.

@FranekŻak I appreciate your comment -- its nice to have someone checking my work. I always worry that I've missed something.

I'm also a little surprised, and agree on the media coverage. I haven't paid much attention to the senate map since 2018 -- but it seems like the consensus is that the senate is very much up for grabs, and to my mind, that is the ballgame.

@alexlyzhov Good news in general -- though 20mil/year for 9 years isn't enough to hit this target.

Updating downwards. Covid has proven to be a much larger speedbump for these efforts than I expected in May. I do think that one takeaway is that the World Bank forecasts are overly confident, leaving a lot of room for more rapid improvement than expected. I still maintain that a major flaw in most forecasts is that they forecast the percentage and not the number of people in poverty. The number (and percentage) have moved in relative lockstep, so the distinction may seem odd to draw. But I think that this is about a labor supply/demand equilibrium. ...

699 arrested in Chicago on Sunday night

19 fatal shootings in Chicago over the weekend -- How do we attribute to riots vs other causes? — edited by cd

— edited by cd

@alexrjl I agree. Seems like deliberate sabotage should resolve ambiguous.

Edit: though I suppose there could claims of sabotage, and oh my god that could be mess. May even be likely if the CCP feels threatened.

— edited by cd

@(johnnycaffeine) Do you have a source for "most rapid decline of births of any country in the world"? AFAICT that source just gives the declines you cite, but not the comparator. Calling that a total decline over 4 years of 16.6%, ourworldindata.org shows 11 countries/regions experiencing larger 4 year declines at some point between 2000 and 2010. Table showing polity, final year, and four year declines below: ``` Entity Year Decline 1 Albania 2008 0.172 2 Costa Rica 2004 0.228 3 Cuba 2007 0.180 4 El Salvador 2005 ...
@(Linch) I believe they used to have really high percentages, ~95% sounds right. but they found some bugs in their code and also were convinced to include some additional uncertainty? Their model has changed since May when it was released. But I think a forecast consistently moving in one direction (your earlier comment) is pretty normal. If someone has a large lead in the polls, most of your uncertainty is not the sampling uncertainty in the polls, but rather the possibility of events causing that lead to evaporate. That uncertainty diminishes as we ap...

@jaszczur I'd be happy to, but I can't seem to edit it anymore. Mods?

@Uncle Jeff There is possibly another filter.

To clarify, the 82.1% is a number I backed out (1496500ish/1825000), and is not based on actual real world numbers of verifications. That is the ratio of the 'gathered' signatures that would need to be verified for the currently gathered signatures to be adequate -- regardless of how many filters there are.

@krtnu Jaisus that is much worse designed than I thought. I'll need to think about how that affects my use of numbers from their markets.

Perhaps you can address a related question I've had (since you're much better informed than I on the topic): this explains how there are markets where the odds sum to less than 1. But it doesn't explain the consistent sums to a larger amount. Do you have any sense of why that happens?

@Linch Appreciate your concern. I was more saying that things needed to get not much worse (less than double) to resolve positive, and trends look such that this is likely.