An article I read from this week’s Economist has the hilarious take that a part of why Big Tech is ramping up the censorship now is because a Democratic sweep in government seems likely, whereas before it wasn’t clear whether red or blue was going to win.

Basically the idea is that Left and Right are both unhappy with Big Tech but want different things, and tech is eager to placate the winning side.

— edited by kale

@JosephLamps not everyone necessarily wants rid of him. His elites probably enjoy the positions they are in and would benefit from continued stability of his regime.

I'm not a fan of the title question; I think should be closer to the resolution criterion. Something like "Will the number of foreign nationals in Mainland China fall between 2010 and 2030"?

There's lots of ways that the number of foreign nationals could drop in a country that don't have to do with "openness". For example, a country's economy could crash and then international folks just don't want to work there any more.

For resolution, it probably won't be enough for news organizations say that the some conflict in the United States is "like a civil war".

Because being in a state similar to (or metaphorically like) a civil war is different from actually "being in a state of civil war".

Toby Ord and "The Precipice" were given about 4 paragraphs of space in this Economist article, a cover story on catastrophic risk: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/06/25…

Also a 1 paragraph blurb on Effective Altruism and long-termism.

— edited by kale

@Lysander

If anything the ruling strengthens NPVIC, as electors who vote in defiance of state laws mandating NPVIC are faithless electors.

CGP Grey has a good video explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COmW6r23zas

There was a MSNBC article posted earlier that appeared confused about how NPVIC works, reporting that the SCOTUS ruling is a major blow to NPVIC's legality. I wonder if they were genuinely confused or trying to spread politically motivated misinformation...

— edited by kale

@anonymous_8765 Taxes, fees, and betting caps probably make it unprofitable to change to bet lower on Clinton right now.

@1point7point4 I suspect that part of the difference is that the people who use Polymarket are more skeptical of institutions like the NY Times than people on Metaculus on average.

Investors usually use 7% as a ballpark figure for average annual return on stock, IIRC.

To the tenth power, that’s roughly one doubling per 10 years. As a previous comment posted, a positive resolution would require more than a tripling of the S&P in 10 years.

Of course, stock index changes have high variance year to year. Less variance, but still a lot, over a 10 year period however.

— edited by kale

I'm much more pessimistic on this than the community average. China is a rising power and hopes to keep North Korea in its sphere of influence as a nondemocratic buffer state. Most pathways to democracy seem hard in N. Korea: (1) Internal unrest and revolution: It would be in the interest of the CCP to step in and prop up the N. Korean government, just as they are doing right now. China is also developing/exporting surveillance technology that will make it easier to track dissent. (2) Foreign invasion followed by regime change: Unlikely to happen bec...

China has regarded stability on the Korean Peninsula as its primary interest. Its support for North Korea ensures a buffer between China and the democratic South, which is home to around twenty-nine thousand U.S. troops and marines.

“While the Chinese certainly would prefer that North Korea not have nuclear weapons, their greatest fear is regime collapse,” writes Jennifer Lind, a professor at Dartmouth University.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-north-…

@Jgalt Biden is looking and sounding more senile by the day. Seems like Trump would run circles around Biden in debates.

From the resolution criteria:

a typical American will not be able to download the TikTok phone app from the Google Play Store and iOS App Store (at least without some sort of technical circumvention), or use it if it was previously downloaded there.

To clarify, this means that this resolves positive if both downloading TikTok is harder AND previously downloaded TikTok apps are disabled?

Flashbacks to effing De Morgan's laws here

— edited by kale

@Reprisal actually NOT (A OR B) = (NOT A) AND (NOT B)

E.g A typical American can’t fly to London or dine in at McDonalds.

So under this (standard) interpretation, this isn’t actually an error in specification. Though phrasing still leaves room for doubt.