X -> Y is the frequency of a charity that has a comprehensive review in 2020 transitioning from review status X to review status Y in a single year.

  • Top -> Top: 82%
  • Top -> Standout: 6%
  • Top -> Comprehensive: 12%
  • Standout -> Top: 7%
  • Standout -> Standout: 80%
  • Standout -> Comprehensive: 13%
  • Comprehensive -> Top: 4%
  • Comprehensive -> Standout: 4%
  • Comprehensive -> Comprehensive: 92%
  • Unreviewed -> Top: 17%
  • Unreviewed -> Standout: 57%
  • Unreviewed -> Comprehensive: 26%
@(KrisMoore) His best guesses, listed at the start of Chapter 6, are: Existential catastrophe via: Asteroid or comet impact Chance within next 100 years: ∼ 1 in 1,000,000 Existential catastrophe via: Supervolcanic eruption Chance within next 100 years: ∼ 1 in 10,000 Existential catastrophe via: Stellar explosion Chance within next 100 years: ∼ 1 in 1,000,000,000 Existential catastrophe via: Total natural risk Chance within next 100 years: ∼ 1 in 10,000 Existential catastrophe via: Nuclear war Chance within next 100 years: ∼ 1 in 1,000 Ex...

Slate Star Codex is back under the name Astral Codex Ten. Notably for this question, Scott publicly posted his full name there, so it does seem like pseudonymity will be much less of an issue if the NYT plans another post on the blog.

— edited by holomanga

Linear fit to the data given (done in MATLAB) gives 4.8% to 6.0% in 2019.

@gjm Another issue with the literal reading is that if the patient sticks to a healthy sleep schedule, it will resolve negative because at some time in any 24-hour period they'll be unconscious.

@casens Unless I’ve messed up the formulation of the question, the relevant TIME person of the year is announced in December after the election in November - so barring an election irregularity the editorial board would already know who the president-elect is

— edited by holomanga

Chaos! Chaos! It's down to 96%!

— edited by holomanga

I really hope the attorney general isn't planning anything tonight.

@holomanga What percentage of people would be included if he went forth with the $150,000 threshold?

A note to the people putting spikes at 2036: because the boundary is not open, you’re literally putting a very narrow prediction that SLS will land people on the moon in exactly the first half of 2036 (if they land by 2036 at all).

— edited by holomanga

For this to resolve positively, [When will the first humans land successfully on Mars?](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3515/when-will-the-first-humans-land-successfully-on-mars/) must resolve prior to 2030 (current community median is 24%). [Who will first land a person on Mars?](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3214/who-will-first-land-a-person-on-mars/) predicts a ~37% chance that SpaceX will be the first to land humans on Mars by 2100, though the distribution is probably different for the next 10 years vs the next 80 years. *— edited by holo...

I had a dream last night that the community prediction on this question had dropped to 60%. I hope that it was not prophetic.

HARR.DNOM20 is at 20¢ and SAND.DNOM20 is at 17¢ on PredictIt.

Interesting to see that the Metaculus prediction matched the PredictIt ~18% as far back as October last year!

I calculated the transition probabilities between different review statuses of charities from ACE: https://i.imgur.com/d8q8ykd.png. So far, about four new charities are reviewed to comprehensive status or above each year, and of those, 1/21 have been ones working on reducing wild animal suffering (i.e. one of them).

Running a monte carlo simulation of this gives at least one WAS charity at top status at the end of 2023 in 21% of cases.

— edited by holomanga

When posting a Metaculus link to social media, the thumbnail only shows the distribution of predictions, though most of the time what I want to show off is the median of predictions.