The House of Representatives has passed a bill federally decriminalizing cannabis. This made the headlines in a couple outlets and I can only imagine it to be a move intended to make senate republicans look like more of a villain. Decriminalizing marijuana is supported by the majority of the population. I even considered that the republican senate would allow the bill to pass just to avoid being attacked over this right before the GA runoffs. But it seems like the bill is packed with tons of details (expunging records, using the tax money for reparation...

Seems like there are two quite narrow spikes in the community predictions, one around June 17th and one around August 29th. Any idea what the significance of these dates is?

— edited by underyx

I get that this question is lifted from the reference directly, but I still find it confusing that a yes prediction means an answer of no.

Perhaps in lieu of a complete negation, which might be even more confusing if we still quote the same reference, some strategic rewording is possible, like "Will humanity be unable to compile a collection of medical interventions that […]"?

The questions sets resolution time as 11:00 GMT and at 19:05 GMT the site is still reporting 397 confirmed cases, so I think that should be our resolution number.

— edited by underyx

@Tamay As someone who worked on Twitter botnet identification, I think the cost would be absolutely trivial to maintain around a few hundred accounts making 10 predictions daily for, say, 250 days.

— edited by underyx

According to the NY Times, they finally started taking presidential-level precautions:

The White House has begun checking the temperatures of anyone in close contact with Mr. Trump or Mr. Pence. White House staff checked the temperatures of everyone arriving at the news conference.

A one percent point range around the Economist's prediction where this question resolves ambiguously should favor the "Trump chances will be higher on 538" prediction. I'm pretty sure there's diminishing losses the more extreme the prediction is, i.e. reaching 6.5% from the current 7% would take a larger sway in the input data, than a sway from 7.5% to 7% Perhaps this is better illustrated with a hypothetical ambiguous resolution criteria of not ±0.5%, but ±6% around the Economist's prediction. 538's forecast is very unlikely to be so extreme as to put ...

@j.m. I, on the other hand, feel like it wouldn't be in the spirit of the question if 33% were closed on Monday, and 33% on Tuesday, making this resolve as a no.

@PabloStafforini seems like we only assign an 8% probability to this scenario though. Is that an accurate prediction, or are people just too lazy to add a second component?

— edited by underyx

Updating upwards as the combination of tax return revelations and a bad debate might do it.

@juancambeiro1015

How about the following:

Resolution will be retroactive to 1 day before the earlier of when:

  • either an official announcement is made about when the ban will be terminated

  • or a credible news publication reports an at most 15-day window of when the ban will be terminated, which turns out to be correct. As such, a report of 'end of July' would trigger retroactive resolution, while 'sometime in July' would not.

— edited by underyx

@ninjaedit Or where their government is overthrown over failure to contain the outbreak?

Using Google Trends numbers feels really weird. The numbers in the source are normalized amongst all result series in a query. Assume that "fossil fuels" sees one million times the popularity it's ever had in 2020 August (but no other month). From this point onward, no matter how popular climate change is as an issue, all the phrases in the same query as "fossil fuels", including itself, will report a popularity of 1 at question resolution time. I used this hypothetical just to demostrate that some noise exists, but then I noticed that there's a real po...

@Jgalt regarding "pretty good condition", worth noting that at 1:04 there's a poorly done morph cut in the video, evidenced by the noise and grain pattern on the flag changing while Trump seems to rapidly jerk around a bit. The most likely explanation is that they edited a coughing fit out.

@NathanpmYoung rather than "debunk", this tweet from the thread describes it with more accurate phrasing:

you can't prove a negative, but there's simply not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that "shy Trump voters" are a major factor with what went wrong in 2016, including in places you'd expect to find that evidence

@Sylvain I still think that the leaderboard is probably wrong, the 3400-3500 range seems incorrect. I remember asking @Tamay a couple times to fix it while the contest was still underway, and he's always been able to do so, but then the scores just reverted to the inflated counts a day later.

— edited by underyx