Interviewer: Have you heard from the NYT since the conversation with [reporter] Cade [Metz] described in the farewell post?
Scott: No, but I know Cade is still interviewing people for the article, which I take to mean he’s still expecting to publish it.
@Jgalt wrote:
@trevorandersen wrote:
Betfair price implies ~6%.
Not looking great so far for Senator Warren, but of course Trump initially had far worse odds than that...
This line of reasoning seems bad: "Previously a ~6% event happened, thus future ~6% events are more likely than 6% to happen." (unless you want to make an argument about systemic biases in the PredictIt price, which seem way less plausible than the price being driven down by substantial uncertainty due to the long timeline left + a large number of possible contenders.)
Out of all the previous cases that have had >=41 deaths (current death toll), 70% have also had >=100 deaths: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/deta…
I'm adjusting that upwards to 80% since the fact that the outbreak happens in a war-zone seems rare (this wasn't the case for previous 9 cases in DRC). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05921-4
This should not still be open, or close retroactively.
Bezos says the decision will be announced "before the end of the year" (but not as his next public appearence September 20). https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/jeff-bezos-sp…
I compiled some data on gender and past winners: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TDpS3…
I didn't learn much, apart from there being a sudden shift from no solo female winners, to three in a row since 2015. Since this time there's also been a notable increase in the proportion of female nominees.