Very interesting question. A naive assumption is that Scott is very likely to eventually see this question, and would probably consider it *worthy* of mentioning. But of course, he could find it worthy of mentioning and yet deliberately choose not to. My next assumption is that Scott will be probably biased in favour of helping Metaculus "be right", so he's likely to mention it if the median prediction were close to 100%, but likely not to mention it if it were close to 0%. I suspect Scott would be interested in seeing how the Metaculus prediction cha...

@fianxu I have little doubt that an Omicron-specific booster could be rmade, the question is whether it will be necessary. It may turn out that it doesn't outcompete Delta after all, or that existing booster shots are just as good as a variant-specific one. (I believe this was the case for Delta).

Difficult to come up with a good reference class, but my sense is that the majority of just about *anything* fails to last 100 years. An example with companies: [Only 60 out of the Fortune 500 companies from 1955 remained on the list in 2017]( Now, falling outside of the Fortune 500 doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt - maybe it merged, maybe it's merely in top 1000 now. Still, it's reasonable to a...
There are two questions on Trump contesting or conceding the election. Should there perhaps be equivalent questions for Biden? To my knowledge, Biden hasn't made any comments indicating plans to contest a possible Trump victory. Yet, I suspect it is highly likely that a hypothetical Trump victory would be considered illegitimate by a large proportion of his opponents. Note that every Presidential election since 2000 has had significant levels of the opposition disputing its legitimacy (2000-4 had close and disputed elections in FL and OH respectively, ...

"Kind of sad that I had to say ex cathedra it had happened; I was hoping to make them debate whether it counted or not.

I also hadn't realized that betting had closed in September; otherwise I would have done it then so that the people who noticed could profit off their perceptiveness."

- Scott Alexander, commenting on a Reddit submission about this question.

I was talking to Scott Alexander on AIM, and he promised me that he was going to let this question resolve as "No". Furthermore, he promised me that he'd give every user who made a prediction here $10 for every percentage point below 50% that they put in their final prediction. Furthermore, to show he was serious, we made a legally binding agreement that he would sign over all parental rights to his first-born child to me if he reneged on any of this.

What are you waiting for? It's free money!

Some reasons why I think Labour will likely do worse than its current polling suggests, and probably not win an absolute majority of seats: - No party has won a majority of seats since proportional representation was introduced in 1996. - No party has won a majority of the vote since 1951, a first-past-the-post election where there was no significant third party. - This has been in spite of a number of polls in previous elections where the leading party scored over 50%. For example, in the run-up to the 2011 election, National was over 50% in nearly eve...
I think it's useful to consider other situations where Trump lost in some way or another. Some examples of Trump conceding include the 2016 Iowa Caucuses, where he was ["gracious in defeat"](, as Politico put it. When it comes to defeats in his administration, he may have complained but his administration has (as far as I'm aware) accepted court rulings and the like. He spun the 2018 midterms [as a Republican success](

@SimonM I don't think base rates are particularly valid for a question that depends so much on the deliberate behaviour of one individual who knows about the question.

A really simple "clueless" model of Scott might be that he's equally likely to let the question resolve positively, negatively or ambigiously, or 33% for each. 26% is not too far off that.


I think you're letting your personal preferences significantly influence your prediction about what will actually happen.


The markets have been consistently bullish on Trump - pre-election it looked maybe prescient, but they also went ~80% Trump when that just wasn't reasonable given the information available at the time. I'm inclined to 99% write this off as "dumb money".

I'd be interested in knowing the base rates of website survival. e.g. what percentage of all websites last 15 years? Given a website has been around 6 years, how likely is it to last another 9? And so on, as specific as we could get.

My guess is that the base rate of website survival would be a lot less than the current median prediction of 85%. Though it's possible that Metaculus has a number of factors that make it a lot more likely to survive.

For a few minutes I thought Trump might explicitly endorse the protestors, but now it looks like he'll get accused of failing to condemn them sufficiently, which is wishy-washy enough that I think, like impeachment, opinions on this question will fall sharply down partisan lines (and thus, it almost certainly won't happen).

ā€” edited by honeypuppy

Sceptical of the 64% median prediction on efficient market hypothesis grounds (i.e. it implies the market price of Bitcoin is considerably undervalued at the moment (unless you expect high inflation) because it implies Bitcoin is worth at least $64k at the moment purely on the ability to sell at $100k).

Of course, expecting "efficient markets" with Bitcoin might seem unreasonable, given its history. Still, the Metaculus median implies that Bitcoin is a really good buy right now, and I'm sceptical of that.

This seems incredibly unlikely. Of course he's going to say that's an interesting idea to a radio host who's so complimentary of him. But I just can't see Trump ever running for an office that isn't President.

Nate Silver:

I have non-public version of our paths-to-270 interactive where I can enter in provisional ratings instead of calling states outright. If you treat NV, AZ and WI as "likely Biden", NC as "likely Trump", and GA, PA and MI as "toss-up", then Biden is 83% to win eventually.ā€¦

Looks like Biden is closing strong in late counted ballots (e.g. now ahead in WI). I'm going to update to Silver's 17% + 3% for shenanigans.

ā€” edited by honeypuppy

Many rich countries will likely reach herd immunity this year, but Covid-19 will still likely still be a notable news story for some time to come, as vaccination drives in developing countries continue, concerns about variants persist, and the aftermath lingers. One day, however, it will likely be something that most people in the developed world rarely think about, even if it still kills a lot of people. AIDS is an example of this, still killing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, but is rarely front-page news, even though it was a big story back...
[The only two polls to date have Yang leading the field, but with only 17-20% of the vote]( I feel that Yang is more a niche candidate who may find it hard to draw upon his loyal base to assemble a winning coalition. (Though, smart pundits like Nate Silver once erroneously believed that about Trump, so we shouldn't lean too much into it). I also note in my earlier comment about how it seems that prediction markets have a tendency to overrate "popular on the internet" candidates l...

There's a bunch of Omicron questions, but few really capture "How bad is it going to get?"

Maybe it could be: Covid-19 deaths and/or hospitalisations in January 2022 worldwide, or in one country (e.g. the US or UK).