The real issue is still what’s meant by “fully reconstructed?” Does it mean 100% of the extinct creature’s own dna or does resolution allow for interposing of missing dna from a surviving related species, such as elephants for woolly mammoths, or simply a phenotypical resemblance? Anthony’s clarifications are too vague and the question is a moving target. Prior to the clarifications I predicted a 5% chance, assuming 100% dna reconstruction was highly unlikely. Now it appears the question is closer to “if it looks like a woooly mammoth, it is.”

Some say we’re still in a “state of civil war” - the one that putatively ended in 1865. It’s quite possible for a reputable news organization to declare that we are again in a “state of civil war” should disunity worsen with a minimal amount of violence. Without further elaboration on what a “state of civil war” entails I’ll hold my prediction.

The killer for this question is not the consequence, but the time frame. There's about a zero chance that an SEC investigation would close by the end of 2018, much less result in an imposed adverse action. So do we vote for a 0% on the time frame, 99% on the consequence or walk away.

Maybe a minor concern or just quibbling. The resolution date of 12/31/2020 will not likely represent the true estimate of deaths and infections for 2020. The number on that date will be the cumulative score of known cases. There will be a lag time of some indeterminate length before 2020 numbers are definitively known/estimated. Perhaps the resolution date should be pushed deeper into January or alternately concede the last given estimate by WHO will serve as the proxy numbers for 2020.

The risk of microbial infection of Mars and/or Earth should there be Mars microbes ought to be enough to stop this nonsense. Of course if it’s a one way trip I suppose this objection is half irrelevant. On the other hand who precisely will fund this project? Ambition is hardly a guarantor of success, particularly when the reason for a Mars landing and follow up colony is so flaky. The whole thing is the silly hubris of one man and the lemmings who call him “genius.”

— edited by durbanus

It seems likely that the mutability of the virus will not necessarily drive revaccination. Instead it will be waning immune protection. The end will be the same, but the rationale different. If mutability is secondary (just mentioned), will the question resolve positively?

Does correctly predicting, even if only a few days in advance of the resolution date, actually win zero points? Or is there some delay in recognizing the prediction or voiding predictions within a certain time frame. I believe my prediction was made January 10th or 11th, certainly in advance of Booker's announcement. This certainly discourages predictions close to a resolution date, if there is some time delay. And absolutely penalizes those who make a positive point prediction just before an early close.

“Invoked” … as a consequence of an actual attack? Or as a consequence of a perceived threat which is construed as a de facto attack?

It would appear Estonians have little fear. In part because Putin is an aging tyrant and the Russian people have little interest in the kind of confrontation that annexing would bring.…