date_resolve_at
stringlengths 10
10
| date_begin
stringlengths 10
10
| extracted_urls
stringlengths 2
7.19k
| question_type
stringclasses 3
values | community_predictions
stringlengths 45
72.7k
| url
stringlengths 34
126
| background
stringlengths 1
4.95k
| gpt_3p5_category
stringclasses 11
values | resolution_criteria
stringlengths 43
5.42k
| is_resolved
bool 1
class | date_close
stringlengths 10
10
| question
stringlengths 31
259
| data_source
stringclasses 5
values | resolution
float64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016-08-26 | 2016-04-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-23", 0.25], ["2016-04-23", 0.375], ["2016-04-23", 0.62], ["2016-04-23", 0.7], ["2016-04-23", 0.745], ["2016-04-23", 0.76], ["2016-04-23", 0.724], ["2016-04-23", 0.705], ["2016-04-23", 0.743], ["2016-04-23", 0.75], ["2016-04-24", 0.751], ["2016-04-24", 0.731], ["2016-04-24", 0.733], ["2016-04-24", 0.718], ["2016-04-24", 0.717], ["2016-04-25", 0.711], ["2016-04-25", 0.725], ["2016-04-25", 0.723], ["2016-04-26", 0.707], ["2016-04-26", 0.709], ["2016-04-26", 0.715], ["2016-04-26", 0.712], ["2016-04-26", 0.719], ["2016-04-26", 0.716], ["2016-04-26", 0.715], ["2016-04-27", 0.713], ["2016-04-29", 0.71], ["2016-04-30", 0.703], ["2016-05-01", 0.7], ["2016-05-05", 0.698], ["2016-05-05", 0.704], ["2016-05-05", 0.713], ["2016-05-06", 0.716], ["2016-05-10", 0.727], ["2016-05-10", 0.716], ["2016-05-15", 0.712], ["2016-05-21", 0.709], ["2016-05-27", 0.711], ["2016-06-07", 0.712], ["2016-06-07", 0.715], ["2016-06-08", 0.708], ["2016-06-11", 0.708], ["2016-06-17", 0.705], ["2016-06-19", 0.711], ["2016-06-20", 0.715], ["2016-06-21", 0.716], ["2016-06-21", 0.713], ["2016-06-22", 0.716], ["2016-06-22", 0.715], ["2016-06-26", 0.709], ["2016-06-27", 0.694], ["2016-06-28", 0.683], ["2016-06-28", 0.684], ["2016-06-29", 0.678], ["2016-06-29", 0.678], ["2016-06-30", 0.678], ["2016-06-30", 0.671], ["2016-06-30", 0.67], ["2016-07-01", 0.658]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/220/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The Zika Virus has emerged as a major health threat in recent months.
Spread primarily by the Aedes Mosquito, Zika can also be spread from mother to child, through sexual contact, and through blood transfusion.
Zika is currently being trasmitted person-to-person in 44 countries and territories, but as of writing not in the continental US; several cases have been reported in the US, but these infections apparently took place overseas.
Given large traffic between the US and Zika-active countries and territories (including US Territory Puerto Rico), it only seems like a matter of time before Zika is being transmitted person-to-person via mosquitos in the US. But how much time?
Will the US be on the CDC's list of counties in which Zika is being actively transmitted by the end of August 2016? | true | 2016-07-01 | Zapping Zika #2: active transmission in the U.S. by August 2016? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-04-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-29", 0.29], ["2016-04-29", 0.474], ["2016-04-30", 0.516], ["2016-04-30", 0.513], ["2016-05-01", 0.507], ["2016-05-02", 0.507], ["2016-05-02", 0.494], ["2016-05-03", 0.493], ["2016-05-03", 0.508], ["2016-05-05", 0.494], ["2016-05-05", 0.476], ["2016-05-07", 0.477], ["2016-05-12", 0.477], ["2016-05-15", 0.478], ["2016-05-16", 0.47], ["2016-05-23", 0.461], ["2016-05-23", 0.457], ["2016-05-28", 0.448], ["2016-06-02", 0.449], ["2016-06-02", 0.447], ["2016-06-05", 0.457], ["2016-06-20", 0.465], ["2016-06-21", 0.472], ["2016-06-21", 0.47], ["2016-06-28", 0.488], ["2016-06-30", 0.488], ["2016-07-03", 0.482], ["2016-07-07", 0.482], ["2016-07-07", 0.477], ["2016-07-23", 0.485], ["2016-07-25", 0.485], ["2016-07-26", 0.485], ["2016-07-27", 0.48], ["2016-07-27", 0.481], ["2016-07-27", 0.472], ["2016-07-27", 0.474], ["2016-07-29", 0.476], ["2016-07-31", 0.473], ["2016-07-31", 0.467], ["2016-08-01", 0.469], ["2016-08-01", 0.468], ["2016-08-03", 0.466], ["2016-08-04", 0.468], ["2016-08-06", 0.474], ["2016-08-06", 0.477], ["2016-08-06", 0.479], ["2016-08-08", 0.485], ["2016-08-10", 0.486], ["2016-08-11", 0.472], ["2016-08-11", 0.478], ["2016-08-13", 0.478], ["2016-08-14", 0.477], ["2016-08-14", 0.477], ["2016-08-17", 0.476], ["2016-08-24", 0.48], ["2016-08-24", 0.48], ["2016-08-28", 0.481], ["2016-08-29", 0.477], ["2016-09-03", 0.482], ["2016-09-05", 0.481], ["2016-09-05", 0.482], ["2016-09-12", 0.482], ["2016-09-12", 0.469], ["2016-09-13", 0.473], ["2016-09-13", 0.47], ["2016-09-14", 0.469], ["2016-09-14", 0.476], ["2016-09-15", 0.48], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-16", 0.472], ["2016-09-16", 0.477], ["2016-09-17", 0.484], ["2016-09-17", 0.485], ["2016-09-17", 0.489], ["2016-09-17", 0.486], ["2016-09-17", 0.481], ["2016-09-18", 0.478], ["2016-09-18", 0.478], ["2016-09-18", 0.477], ["2016-09-18", 0.481], ["2016-09-19", 0.477], ["2016-09-19", 0.471], ["2016-09-19", 0.472], ["2016-09-20", 0.472], ["2016-09-21", 0.478], ["2016-09-21", 0.478], ["2016-09-23", 0.48], ["2016-09-26", 0.48], ["2016-09-28", 0.476], ["2016-09-28", 0.472], ["2016-09-28", 0.472], ["2016-09-29", 0.464], ["2016-09-29", 0.465], ["2016-09-29", 0.464], ["2016-09-29", 0.46], ["2016-09-30", 0.463], ["2016-09-30", 0.462], ["2016-10-01", 0.459], ["2016-10-01", 0.459], ["2016-10-01", 0.458], ["2016-10-01", 0.456]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/221/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | In an effort to combat mosquito-borne Zika Virus, Oxitec, a UK-based synthetic biology company specializing in infectious vector control, developed a type of "self-limiting" GMO Aedes aegypti mosquito.
This organism has passed regulatory approval in several countries in central and South America, and has since shown significant efficacy in attenuating the population within targeted regions. Brazil has recently begun expanding Oxitec's vector control program, which they started in 2012.
In the US, a proof-of-concept experiment to show efficacy and environmental impact is being conducted in Key Haven, an island in the Florida Keys. An initial FDA report is open to comments until early April.
A previous question concerns whether the FDA will approve expanded use of Oxitec mosquitos for Aedes aegypti population control in the US. The US region most likely to be highly impacted by Zika first is Puerto Rico. Therefore we ask:
Will mosquitos engineered to reduce the Aedes aegypti population be released in Puerto Rico by January 2017?
For positive resolution, the release must be part of an official program, but need not necessarily be Oxitec's mosquitos (though that seems most likely), and be reported by a reliable media or official sources.
Note that this is probably contingent on a positive outcome of the previous question on GMO mosquito regulation, (since the FDA's jurisdiction includes Puerto Rico), but this is not an formal requirement for positive resolution. | true | 2016-10-01 | Zapping Zika #4: GMO Mosquitos in Puerto Rico? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-04 | 2016-04-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-26", 0.09], ["2016-04-26", 0.517], ["2016-04-26", 0.514], ["2016-04-26", 0.512], ["2016-04-26", 0.502], ["2016-04-26", 0.486], ["2016-04-26", 0.489], ["2016-04-26", 0.464], ["2016-04-27", 0.479], ["2016-04-27", 0.501], ["2016-04-27", 0.487], ["2016-04-29", 0.481], ["2016-04-30", 0.486], ["2016-05-01", 0.482], ["2016-05-02", 0.48], ["2016-05-05", 0.469], ["2016-05-06", 0.465], ["2016-05-07", 0.464], ["2016-05-15", 0.461], ["2016-05-15", 0.458], ["2016-05-28", 0.471], ["2016-06-06", 0.484], ["2016-06-07", 0.497], ["2016-06-11", 0.489], ["2016-06-18", 0.493], ["2016-06-20", 0.498], ["2016-06-28", 0.49], ["2016-06-28", 0.485], ["2016-06-30", 0.483], ["2016-07-06", 0.479], ["2016-07-06", 0.473], ["2016-07-07", 0.469], ["2016-07-11", 0.464], ["2016-07-12", 0.464], ["2016-07-21", 0.455], ["2016-07-21", 0.454], ["2016-07-23", 0.451], ["2016-07-23", 0.448], ["2016-07-26", 0.446], ["2016-07-26", 0.444], ["2016-07-26", 0.441], ["2016-07-27", 0.429], ["2016-07-28", 0.421], ["2016-07-29", 0.429], ["2016-08-01", 0.423], ["2016-08-02", 0.434], ["2016-08-03", 0.434], ["2016-08-04", 0.429], ["2016-08-04", 0.433], ["2016-08-05", 0.43], ["2016-08-06", 0.423], ["2016-08-08", 0.418], ["2016-08-10", 0.423], ["2016-08-13", 0.425], ["2016-08-14", 0.422], ["2016-08-17", 0.416], ["2016-08-19", 0.42], ["2016-08-24", 0.425], ["2016-08-27", 0.423], ["2016-08-28", 0.421], ["2016-08-31", 0.425], ["2016-09-01", 0.417], ["2016-09-02", 0.407], ["2016-09-02", 0.401], ["2016-09-05", 0.404], ["2016-09-08", 0.409], ["2016-09-12", 0.409], ["2016-09-14", 0.416], ["2016-09-15", 0.414], ["2016-09-16", 0.408], ["2016-09-16", 0.408], ["2016-09-16", 0.413], ["2016-09-16", 0.419], ["2016-09-17", 0.42], ["2016-09-18", 0.417], ["2016-09-19", 0.415], ["2016-09-21", 0.423], ["2016-09-21", 0.418], ["2016-09-26", 0.42], ["2016-09-27", 0.421], ["2016-09-28", 0.424], ["2016-10-22", 0.424], ["2016-10-23", 0.424], ["2016-10-23", 0.42], ["2016-10-24", 0.418], ["2016-11-09", 0.413], ["2016-11-11", 0.412], ["2016-11-12", 0.412], ["2016-11-13", 0.41], ["2016-11-14", 0.409], ["2016-11-14", 0.411], ["2016-11-15", 0.411], ["2016-11-15", 0.41], ["2016-11-16", 0.409], ["2016-11-17", 0.409], ["2016-11-18", 0.406], ["2016-11-20", 0.404], ["2016-11-23", 0.401], ["2016-11-24", 0.397], ["2016-11-25", 0.397], ["2016-11-26", 0.394]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/222/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The Zika Virus has emerged as a major global health threat in recent months.
Since the recognition in April 2015 of the initial outbreak in Brazil, Zika has quickly spread, with active transission in many countries in South and Central America as well as several in Southeast Asia
The habitat of its primary vector, the Aedes mosquito, includes (according to this map) tropical and temperate regions worldwide, including much of the Southeast US, parts of Africa and Southern Europe, swathes of India, Southeast Asia and Oceana, suggesting that the disease could spread much farther.
Current numbers are hard to come by, but as of Jan 22, this compendium showed an estimated 1.5M cases worldwide, dominated by Brazil but with thousands of cases each in Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Honduras.
This question concerns how quickly Zika will spread and grow during the next 1.5 years, and focuses on the US where reporting and projections by the CDC can be assumed to be relatively accurate.
A key question regards Puerto Rico, which currently has active Zika transmission along with a severe financial crisis. As of mid-April 2016, The CDC projects that 25% of Puerto Rico's 3.5M population could be come infected, with up to 80% eventually infected. High traffic between Puerto Rico (as well as Mexico) and the US suggests US mosquito-borne infection is just a matter of time.
Will there be CDC estimate that more than 1 million US citizens (including territories such as Puerto Rico) have been infected by Zika by the end of 2017? | true | 2016-12-01 | Zapping Zika #3: 1 million infections in US and its territories by 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-02-08 | 2016-04-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-27", 0.15], ["2016-05-01", 0.355], ["2016-05-06", 0.372], ["2016-05-10", 0.389], ["2016-05-14", 0.391], ["2016-05-17", 0.394], ["2016-05-22", 0.407], ["2016-05-28", 0.407], ["2016-06-01", 0.409], ["2016-06-06", 0.401], ["2016-06-11", 0.393], ["2016-06-13", 0.387], ["2016-06-18", 0.381], ["2016-06-21", 0.386], ["2016-06-26", 0.386], ["2016-06-29", 0.393], ["2016-07-03", 0.408], ["2016-07-06", 0.407], ["2016-07-11", 0.405], ["2016-07-17", 0.412], ["2016-07-23", 0.412], ["2016-07-26", 0.402], ["2016-07-29", 0.42], ["2016-08-01", 0.409], ["2016-08-04", 0.411], ["2016-08-07", 0.409], ["2016-08-10", 0.418], ["2016-08-13", 0.417], ["2016-08-18", 0.42], ["2016-08-20", 0.418], ["2016-08-23", 0.417], ["2016-08-27", 0.415], ["2016-09-01", 0.412], ["2016-09-05", 0.411], ["2016-09-07", 0.408], ["2016-09-10", 0.407], ["2016-09-13", 0.404], ["2016-09-16", 0.399], ["2016-09-21", 0.425], ["2016-09-23", 0.43], ["2016-09-26", 0.429], ["2016-10-01", 0.428], ["2016-10-05", 0.427], ["2016-10-08", 0.428], ["2016-10-12", 0.426], ["2016-10-17", 0.425], ["2016-10-21", 0.421], ["2016-10-23", 0.42], ["2016-10-26", 0.424], ["2016-10-31", 0.424], ["2016-11-03", 0.425], ["2016-11-05", 0.425], ["2016-11-09", 0.426], ["2016-11-12", 0.426], ["2016-11-18", 0.426], ["2016-11-19", 0.427], ["2016-11-24", 0.427], ["2016-11-30", 0.427], ["2016-11-30", 0.429], ["2016-12-06", 0.429], ["2016-12-09", 0.428], ["2016-12-11", 0.428], ["2016-12-15", 0.425], ["2016-12-21", 0.425], ["2016-12-21", 0.424], ["2017-01-01", 0.424], ["2017-01-06", 0.425], ["2017-01-07", 0.424], ["2017-01-24", 0.424], ["2017-01-26", 0.424], ["2017-02-02", 0.424], ["2017-02-06", 0.422], ["2017-02-09", 0.415], ["2017-02-13", 0.414], ["2017-02-18", 0.412], ["2017-02-21", 0.403], ["2017-02-24", 0.404], ["2017-02-28", 0.404], ["2017-03-02", 0.403], ["2017-03-08", 0.402], ["2017-03-11", 0.397], ["2017-03-15", 0.396], ["2017-03-22", 0.397], ["2017-03-27", 0.396], ["2017-03-31", 0.393], ["2017-04-02", 0.392], ["2017-04-10", 0.392], ["2017-04-12", 0.392], ["2017-04-15", 0.392], ["2017-04-25", 0.391], ["2017-05-01", 0.39], ["2017-05-03", 0.39], ["2017-05-14", 0.39], ["2017-05-20", 0.389], ["2017-05-25", 0.386], ["2017-05-27", 0.385], ["2017-05-31", 0.385], ["2017-06-03", 0.383], ["2017-06-09", 0.383], ["2017-06-14", 0.383], ["2017-06-15", 0.363]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/224/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | SpaceX has declared an intention to launch a "Red Dragon" spacecraft for a soft landing on Mars "as soon as 2018," per the initial announcement on twitter.
Per the more detailed article, this will be a joint effort with NASA, with NASA providing technical support in exchange for data taken by SpaceX's craft. The mission will employ SpaceX's "Falcon Heavy" for launch and a new version of the "Dragon 2" spacecraft for transit.
The biennial Mars low energy launch window is from April to May 2018.
Will SpaceX successfully launch a rocket towards Mars in this window?
This will resolve positive if SpaceX successfully launches a rocket towards Mars by June 15, 2018. "Successfully" here will mean that a spacecraft is on a Mars trajectory and in control as of time of completion of its last main engine burn to enter cruise phase. | true | 2017-06-16 | Will SpaceX launch for Mars in the 2018 window? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-16 | 2016-05-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-05-04", 0.69], ["2016-05-04", 0.795], ["2016-05-04", 0.81], ["2016-05-04", 0.815], ["2016-05-04", 0.77], ["2016-05-04", 0.807], ["2016-05-04", 0.806], ["2016-05-04", 0.778], ["2016-05-04", 0.789], ["2016-05-04", 0.777], ["2016-05-05", 0.777], ["2016-05-05", 0.769], ["2016-05-05", 0.762], ["2016-05-05", 0.778], ["2016-05-05", 0.786], ["2016-05-05", 0.779], ["2016-05-05", 0.783], ["2016-05-06", 0.789], ["2016-05-06", 0.78], ["2016-05-06", 0.77], ["2016-05-06", 0.769], ["2016-05-06", 0.772], ["2016-05-07", 0.775], ["2016-05-09", 0.77], ["2016-05-10", 0.762], ["2016-05-11", 0.762], ["2016-05-11", 0.762], ["2016-05-12", 0.764], ["2016-05-15", 0.764], ["2016-05-15", 0.761], ["2016-05-16", 0.765], ["2016-05-16", 0.771], ["2016-05-16", 0.775], ["2016-05-21", 0.771], ["2016-05-30", 0.776], ["2016-05-31", 0.776], ["2016-06-07", 0.777], ["2016-06-13", 0.758], ["2016-06-17", 0.761], ["2016-06-17", 0.762], ["2016-06-19", 0.761], ["2016-06-20", 0.762], ["2016-06-20", 0.764], ["2016-06-20", 0.766], ["2016-06-20", 0.759], ["2016-06-25", 0.758], ["2016-06-26", 0.747], ["2016-06-26", 0.751], ["2016-06-26", 0.751], ["2016-06-28", 0.751], ["2016-06-28", 0.738], ["2016-06-28", 0.737], ["2016-06-28", 0.74], ["2016-06-29", 0.746], ["2016-06-29", 0.752], ["2016-06-29", 0.748], ["2016-06-30", 0.745], ["2016-06-30", 0.745], ["2016-06-30", 0.746], ["2016-06-30", 0.746], ["2016-06-30", 0.736], ["2016-06-30", 0.735], ["2016-06-30", 0.739], ["2016-06-30", 0.735]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/225/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | A key observable (and important effect) of global climate change is the extent of the Arctic ice sheet, which varies seasonally but also has a significant downward secular trend, presumably tied to global temperature increase.
The total extent of the sheet as a function of time is tracked in detail via a combination of satellite data, and can be seen here as an image, and here as a function of time. (A second interactive chart is here.)
Arctic sea ice shrank to its smallest recorded extent in September of 2012. So far this year we are on track to beat that record. (See some discussion here, here, and here.)
Will the extent of the Arctic ice sheet reach its lowest yet recorded value in 2016?
Resolution will be positive if the 2016 curve dips below the lowest point on the 2012 curve at the ADS website. | true | 2016-07-01 | Will 2016 see the smallest extent of Arctic Sea ice in recorded history? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-09 | 2016-05-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-12", 0.4], ["2016-06-13", 0.706], ["2016-06-13", 0.733], ["2016-06-15", 0.743], ["2016-06-16", 0.679], ["2016-06-16", 0.689], ["2016-06-17", 0.707], ["2016-06-19", 0.704], ["2016-06-20", 0.711], ["2016-06-22", 0.718], ["2016-06-22", 0.72], ["2016-06-24", 0.728], ["2016-06-26", 0.73], ["2016-06-28", 0.697], ["2016-06-30", 0.722], ["2016-06-30", 0.731], ["2016-07-01", 0.736], ["2016-07-02", 0.742], ["2016-07-06", 0.747], ["2016-07-12", 0.747], ["2016-07-15", 0.75], ["2016-07-18", 0.751], ["2016-07-23", 0.758], ["2016-07-24", 0.758], ["2016-07-26", 0.756], ["2016-07-27", 0.774], ["2016-07-29", 0.776], ["2016-07-29", 0.781], ["2016-07-30", 0.768], ["2016-07-31", 0.771], ["2016-08-02", 0.778], ["2016-08-03", 0.775], ["2016-08-04", 0.782], ["2016-08-06", 0.777], ["2016-08-06", 0.78], ["2016-08-07", 0.77], ["2016-08-09", 0.773], ["2016-08-11", 0.777], ["2016-08-12", 0.776], ["2016-08-12", 0.776], ["2016-08-13", 0.778], ["2016-08-17", 0.778], ["2016-08-18", 0.784], ["2016-08-19", 0.78], ["2016-08-23", 0.781], ["2016-08-24", 0.778], ["2016-08-29", 0.77], ["2016-08-30", 0.772], ["2016-09-02", 0.773], ["2016-09-03", 0.776], ["2016-09-04", 0.778], ["2016-09-07", 0.781], ["2016-09-11", 0.78], ["2016-09-12", 0.779], ["2016-09-14", 0.779], ["2016-09-15", 0.784], ["2016-09-16", 0.786], ["2016-09-17", 0.784], ["2016-09-18", 0.786], ["2016-09-18", 0.789], ["2016-09-19", 0.778], ["2016-09-20", 0.783], ["2016-09-21", 0.783], ["2016-09-22", 0.786], ["2016-09-23", 0.786], ["2016-09-24", 0.783], ["2016-09-25", 0.786], ["2016-09-26", 0.787], ["2016-09-26", 0.786], ["2016-09-27", 0.787], ["2016-09-28", 0.788], ["2016-09-29", 0.787], ["2016-09-30", 0.778], ["2016-10-01", 0.776], ["2016-10-03", 0.775], ["2016-10-04", 0.775], ["2016-10-05", 0.776], ["2016-10-06", 0.776], ["2016-10-08", 0.776], ["2016-10-08", 0.777], ["2016-10-09", 0.777], ["2016-10-10", 0.778], ["2016-10-11", 0.778], ["2016-10-12", 0.777], ["2016-10-14", 0.776], ["2016-10-14", 0.778], ["2016-10-17", 0.778], ["2016-10-18", 0.777], ["2016-10-19", 0.781], ["2016-10-20", 0.776], ["2016-10-21", 0.782], ["2016-10-22", 0.782], ["2016-10-23", 0.782], ["2016-10-24", 0.783], ["2016-10-25", 0.785], ["2016-10-26", 0.786], ["2016-10-27", 0.788], ["2016-10-28", 0.789], ["2016-10-30", 0.789], ["2016-10-31", 0.789], ["2016-10-31", 0.789]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/226/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | The Adult use of Marijuana Act is an initiative for the legalization of marijuana legalization that is being proposed for the November, 2016 California ballot.
Per the summary here it would allow adults of age 21 or over to possess, use, and grow small quantities of marijuana.
According to this summary the act currently polls at a majority of support, and per this report has submitted enough signatures to be on the ballot.
Will the AUMA be on the ballot in the November 2016 California election, and pass?
Resolution is not dependent on any subsequent legislation or legal challenges around this issue. | true | 2016-11-01 | Will marijuana be voted legal in California in 2016? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-11-09 | 2016-05-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-02", 0.31], ["2016-06-03", 0.171], ["2016-06-03", 0.155], ["2016-06-04", 0.147], ["2016-06-04", 0.141], ["2016-06-06", 0.135], ["2016-06-06", 0.133], ["2016-06-07", 0.141], ["2016-06-07", 0.143], ["2016-06-09", 0.14], ["2016-06-09", 0.136], ["2016-06-11", 0.134], ["2016-06-20", 0.137], ["2016-06-21", 0.136], ["2016-06-28", 0.132], ["2016-06-29", 0.125], ["2016-06-29", 0.123], ["2016-06-30", 0.124], ["2016-07-04", 0.122], ["2016-07-05", 0.121], ["2016-07-06", 0.119], ["2016-07-07", 0.12], ["2016-07-10", 0.118], ["2016-07-11", 0.115], ["2016-07-11", 0.117], ["2016-07-23", 0.117], ["2016-07-24", 0.116], ["2016-07-24", 0.114], ["2016-07-26", 0.116], ["2016-07-27", 0.126], ["2016-07-28", 0.133], ["2016-07-28", 0.131], ["2016-07-29", 0.146], ["2016-07-29", 0.144], ["2016-07-30", 0.145], ["2016-07-31", 0.142], ["2016-07-31", 0.145], ["2016-08-01", 0.143], ["2016-08-01", 0.143], ["2016-08-02", 0.142], ["2016-08-03", 0.14], ["2016-08-03", 0.138], ["2016-08-04", 0.135], ["2016-08-04", 0.133], ["2016-08-06", 0.138], ["2016-08-06", 0.133], ["2016-08-07", 0.132], ["2016-08-07", 0.13], ["2016-08-08", 0.132], ["2016-08-09", 0.131], ["2016-08-10", 0.133], ["2016-08-11", 0.132], ["2016-08-11", 0.131], ["2016-08-12", 0.138], ["2016-08-13", 0.137], ["2016-08-14", 0.137], ["2016-08-18", 0.14], ["2016-08-19", 0.146], ["2016-08-20", 0.146], ["2016-08-23", 0.148], ["2016-08-25", 0.154], ["2016-08-25", 0.154], ["2016-08-29", 0.162], ["2016-08-29", 0.162], ["2016-08-30", 0.16], ["2016-08-30", 0.159], ["2016-09-07", 0.161], ["2016-09-11", 0.159], ["2016-09-12", 0.148], ["2016-09-14", 0.146], ["2016-09-15", 0.147], ["2016-09-15", 0.145], ["2016-09-16", 0.143], ["2016-09-16", 0.142], ["2016-09-17", 0.138], ["2016-09-18", 0.141], ["2016-09-18", 0.145], ["2016-09-19", 0.147], ["2016-09-19", 0.148], ["2016-09-21", 0.147], ["2016-09-21", 0.146], ["2016-09-21", 0.144], ["2016-09-24", 0.144], ["2016-09-26", 0.143], ["2016-09-26", 0.143], ["2016-09-27", 0.144], ["2016-09-27", 0.143], ["2016-09-28", 0.142], ["2016-09-28", 0.141], ["2016-09-29", 0.141], ["2016-09-29", 0.141], ["2016-09-30", 0.141], ["2016-09-30", 0.143], ["2016-10-01", 0.143], ["2016-10-01", 0.141], ["2016-10-03", 0.142], ["2016-10-03", 0.141], ["2016-10-04", 0.141], ["2016-10-04", 0.141], ["2016-10-05", 0.141], ["2016-10-06", 0.138]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/227/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | The 2016 Republican presidential primary election, and in particular the (presumed) appointment of controversial candidate Donald Trump as the party nominee has led to signs of apparent division within the Republican party. For example, some leading party members, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and former presidents George W and George H W Bush have refused to endorse Trump's candidacy.
Will significant fracturing/defections from the Republican party lead to large scale defection of voters from the party endorsed candidate, and the emergence of a conservative third candidate, not endorsed by either main party?
Will such a candidate gain significant following and votes?
Criterion for "Yes" if an independent or third party candidate self-identifying as conservative gains at least 15% of the national vote. | true | 2016-10-08 | Will an independent conservative candidate gain a significant number of votes in the 2016 US Presidential election? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-05-01 | 2016-05-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-05-13", 0.99], ["2016-05-13", 0.527], ["2016-05-13", 0.543], ["2016-05-14", 0.518], ["2016-05-14", 0.517], ["2016-05-15", 0.517], ["2016-05-15", 0.511], ["2016-05-16", 0.542], ["2016-05-16", 0.542], ["2016-05-16", 0.557], ["2016-05-16", 0.552], ["2016-05-17", 0.561], ["2016-05-17", 0.563], ["2016-05-18", 0.563], ["2016-05-18", 0.561], ["2016-05-18", 0.563], ["2016-05-19", 0.562], ["2016-05-19", 0.559], ["2016-05-20", 0.563], ["2016-05-22", 0.554], ["2016-05-22", 0.559], ["2016-05-31", 0.554], ["2016-06-02", 0.551], ["2016-06-06", 0.551], ["2016-06-06", 0.551], ["2016-06-07", 0.548], ["2016-06-09", 0.546], ["2016-06-13", 0.53], ["2016-06-13", 0.513], ["2016-06-20", 0.506], ["2016-06-30", 0.507], ["2016-07-05", 0.509], ["2016-07-23", 0.518], ["2016-07-26", 0.52], ["2016-07-26", 0.495], ["2016-07-27", 0.488], ["2016-07-29", 0.488], ["2016-07-31", 0.486], ["2016-08-01", 0.486], ["2016-08-02", 0.475], ["2016-08-02", 0.476], ["2016-08-02", 0.47], ["2016-08-03", 0.471], ["2016-08-05", 0.465], ["2016-08-06", 0.456], ["2016-08-07", 0.456], ["2016-08-07", 0.457], ["2016-08-10", 0.451], ["2016-08-10", 0.45], ["2016-08-13", 0.448], ["2016-08-28", 0.453], ["2016-08-31", 0.454], ["2016-09-01", 0.464], ["2016-09-01", 0.453], ["2016-09-02", 0.463], ["2016-09-12", 0.464], ["2016-09-12", 0.463], ["2016-09-15", 0.459], ["2016-09-16", 0.46], ["2016-09-17", 0.458], ["2016-09-17", 0.459], ["2016-09-18", 0.46], ["2016-09-19", 0.457], ["2016-09-21", 0.466], ["2016-09-27", 0.47], ["2016-09-28", 0.466], ["2016-09-29", 0.466], ["2016-09-29", 0.461], ["2016-10-04", 0.461], ["2016-10-10", 0.461], ["2016-10-12", 0.46], ["2016-10-13", 0.462], ["2016-10-19", 0.461], ["2016-10-20", 0.469], ["2016-10-20", 0.467], ["2016-10-23", 0.467], ["2016-10-24", 0.463], ["2016-10-24", 0.463], ["2016-10-27", 0.452], ["2016-10-30", 0.449], ["2016-10-31", 0.449], ["2016-10-31", 0.448], ["2016-11-04", 0.444], ["2016-11-04", 0.444], ["2016-11-04", 0.45], ["2016-11-05", 0.457], ["2016-11-05", 0.457], ["2016-11-05", 0.451], ["2016-11-09", 0.451], ["2016-11-11", 0.446], ["2016-11-14", 0.446], ["2016-11-14", 0.446], ["2016-11-15", 0.446], ["2016-11-15", 0.445], ["2016-11-17", 0.445], ["2016-11-23", 0.445], ["2016-11-25", 0.444], ["2016-11-26", 0.443], ["2016-11-26", 0.443], ["2016-11-27", 0.44], ["2016-11-28", 0.44]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/230/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | We live in a 3+1 dimensional world, meaning that to specify the location of some point in space-time requires four coordinates. But why? Fundamental laws of physics such as Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity can be consistently posed in any number of spatial dimensions (though more than one time dimension is generally problematic), and mathematically N dimensions are just about as easy to described as 3.
Relatively few compelling explanations have been put forth to explain this question. One explanation is the "anthropic" one: too few dimensions life is very difficult (e.g. a 2D lifeform can't have a digestive tract without bifurcating!), and in 4+ dimensions orbits and traditional atoms are unstable. (See Max Tegmark's paper for some details.) Another explanation, due originally to Brandenberger and Vafa, has to do with the dimensionality of N-dimensional "branes" interacting as a gas in a higher-dimensional space; see this recent work and this review article.
Recently a new preprint by Julian Gonzalez-Ayala and F. Angulo-Brown appeared making an argument for 3 spatial dimensions on rather general thermodynamic grounds.
Will this explanation prove to be influential?
Question will resolve as positive if (a) this paper appears in a refereed journal by May 1 2017 and (b) if there are at least ten citations on a Google Scholar Search by papers that do not include Gonzalez-Ayala or F. Angulo-Brown as authors.
For reference, in the two papers mentioned above, Tegmark's 1997 paper has been cited 120 times, and Greene et al.'s 2010 paper has been cited 10 times, and the 2006 review has been cited 180 times. | true | 2016-12-01 | Progress in why the universe is 3+1 dimensional? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-01-03 | 2016-05-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-05-13", 0.84], ["2016-05-17", 0.594], ["2016-05-20", 0.565], ["2016-05-25", 0.58], ["2016-06-03", 0.585], ["2016-06-07", 0.588], ["2016-06-20", 0.589], ["2016-06-20", 0.592], ["2016-06-29", 0.591], ["2016-07-11", 0.597], ["2016-07-23", 0.605], ["2016-07-30", 0.599], ["2016-08-04", 0.635], ["2016-08-11", 0.62], ["2016-08-14", 0.622], ["2016-08-19", 0.611], ["2016-08-25", 0.612], ["2016-08-31", 0.611], ["2016-09-07", 0.611], ["2016-09-12", 0.61], ["2016-09-17", 0.639], ["2016-09-22", 0.647], ["2016-09-29", 0.649], ["2016-10-03", 0.648], ["2016-10-08", 0.649], ["2016-10-13", 0.65], ["2016-10-19", 0.656], ["2016-10-24", 0.656], ["2016-11-23", 0.656], ["2016-11-26", 0.655], ["2016-12-06", 0.652], ["2016-12-07", 0.65], ["2016-12-21", 0.65], ["2016-12-26", 0.65], ["2016-12-29", 0.65], ["2017-01-02", 0.652], ["2017-01-11", 0.65], ["2017-02-16", 0.651], ["2017-02-22", 0.651], ["2017-03-09", 0.651], ["2017-03-14", 0.649], ["2017-03-24", 0.651], ["2017-04-01", 0.652], ["2017-04-01", 0.652], ["2017-04-13", 0.651], ["2017-04-15", 0.652], ["2017-05-14", 0.648], ["2017-05-21", 0.648], ["2017-05-25", 0.645], ["2017-05-29", 0.645], ["2017-06-07", 0.645], ["2017-06-10", 0.645], ["2017-06-20", 0.647], ["2017-06-29", 0.647], ["2017-07-05", 0.65], ["2017-07-09", 0.651], ["2017-07-14", 0.648], ["2017-07-28", 0.648], ["2017-08-04", 0.647], ["2017-08-08", 0.635], ["2017-08-15", 0.627], ["2017-08-28", 0.626], ["2017-09-03", 0.625], ["2017-09-24", 0.625], ["2017-10-02", 0.624], ["2017-10-09", 0.623], ["2017-10-22", 0.622], ["2017-10-23", 0.622], ["2017-11-09", 0.622], ["2017-11-14", 0.629], ["2017-11-19", 0.629], ["2017-11-26", 0.628], ["2017-12-29", 0.628], ["2018-01-03", 0.628], ["2018-01-09", 0.626], ["2018-01-16", 0.625], ["2018-01-17", 0.625], ["2018-01-31", 0.625], ["2018-02-07", 0.626], ["2018-02-10", 0.626], ["2018-02-17", 0.626], ["2018-02-20", 0.627], ["2018-02-25", 0.627], ["2018-03-03", 0.626], ["2018-03-08", 0.626], ["2018-03-12", 0.628], ["2018-03-22", 0.629], ["2018-03-27", 0.63], ["2018-03-30", 0.628], ["2018-04-05", 0.627], ["2018-04-11", 0.629], ["2018-04-17", 0.627], ["2018-04-22", 0.626], ["2018-04-28", 0.624], ["2018-05-02", 0.623], ["2018-05-08", 0.623], ["2018-05-15", 0.623], ["2018-05-16", 0.621], ["2018-05-23", 0.621], ["2018-05-30", 0.616], ["2018-06-02", 0.604]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/231/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Apple has been significantly increasing its R&D spending of late, with no announcement or outside consensus as to what it has in development.
One possibility is an Apple Car, but another speculation is that Apple is looking to develop a major new Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality system. Is a good part of the R&D going in this direction? We ask:
Will Apple introduce a Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality headset and custom operating system, and sell over a million units before the end of 2020? | true | 2018-06-02 | Apple virtual/augmented reality by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-05-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-05-18", 0.08], ["2016-05-19", 0.22], ["2016-05-19", 0.291], ["2016-05-19", 0.301], ["2016-05-20", 0.316], ["2016-05-20", 0.316], ["2016-05-20", 0.317], ["2016-05-22", 0.317], ["2016-05-22", 0.336], ["2016-05-22", 0.336], ["2016-05-24", 0.335], ["2016-05-24", 0.354], ["2016-05-25", 0.348], ["2016-05-28", 0.355], ["2016-06-02", 0.36], ["2016-06-05", 0.354], ["2016-06-05", 0.355], ["2016-06-06", 0.356], ["2016-06-06", 0.348], ["2016-06-07", 0.35], ["2016-06-20", 0.36], ["2016-06-28", 0.365], ["2016-06-29", 0.365], ["2016-06-29", 0.371], ["2016-06-30", 0.372], ["2016-06-30", 0.374], ["2016-07-01", 0.381], ["2016-07-11", 0.379], ["2016-07-12", 0.38], ["2016-07-16", 0.378], ["2016-07-18", 0.382], ["2016-07-21", 0.382], ["2016-07-23", 0.391], ["2016-07-24", 0.397], ["2016-07-26", 0.413], ["2016-07-26", 0.398], ["2016-07-26", 0.401], ["2016-07-27", 0.392], ["2016-07-30", 0.397], ["2016-07-30", 0.395], ["2016-07-30", 0.395], ["2016-07-31", 0.396], ["2016-08-01", 0.388], ["2016-08-03", 0.381], ["2016-08-04", 0.393], ["2016-08-04", 0.386], ["2016-08-06", 0.395], ["2016-08-07", 0.389], ["2016-08-09", 0.398], ["2016-08-10", 0.402], ["2016-08-13", 0.401], ["2016-08-14", 0.405], ["2016-08-14", 0.409], ["2016-08-15", 0.412], ["2016-08-17", 0.413], ["2016-08-18", 0.414], ["2016-08-22", 0.412], ["2016-08-30", 0.412], ["2016-08-30", 0.42], ["2016-08-30", 0.426], ["2016-09-01", 0.43], ["2016-09-02", 0.43], ["2016-09-02", 0.424], ["2016-09-04", 0.429], ["2016-09-05", 0.43], ["2016-09-12", 0.43], ["2016-09-13", 0.428], ["2016-09-13", 0.433], ["2016-09-14", 0.427], ["2016-09-14", 0.425], ["2016-09-15", 0.43], ["2016-09-15", 0.437], ["2016-09-16", 0.445], ["2016-09-16", 0.438], ["2016-09-16", 0.441], ["2016-09-17", 0.448], ["2016-09-17", 0.448], ["2016-09-17", 0.45], ["2016-09-18", 0.45], ["2016-09-18", 0.452], ["2016-09-21", 0.452], ["2016-09-21", 0.458], ["2016-09-21", 0.463], ["2016-09-21", 0.464], ["2016-09-21", 0.464], ["2016-09-21", 0.467], ["2016-09-23", 0.467], ["2016-09-25", 0.467], ["2016-09-26", 0.471], ["2016-09-26", 0.475], ["2016-09-26", 0.472], ["2016-09-26", 0.473], ["2016-09-27", 0.474], ["2016-09-28", 0.47], ["2016-09-28", 0.476], ["2016-09-29", 0.479], ["2016-09-29", 0.472], ["2016-09-29", 0.481], ["2016-09-30", 0.482], ["2016-09-30", 0.484], ["2016-09-30", 0.484]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/232/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June 2012, fearing arrest and extradition to Sweden should he leave.
Recently a UN working group found he had been arbitrarily detained, suggesting that the UN or other bodies pressure for him to be allowed out.
This question asks whether he will still be in the embassy when 2018 begins (in London), resolving positively if he is alive and in the embassy on Jan 1, 2018, and he has not left (voluntarily or otherwise) in the intervening period. | true | 2016-09-30 | Will Julian Assange still be in the Ecuadorian embassy at the start of 2018? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-05-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-05-19", 0.58], ["2016-05-19", 0.57], ["2016-05-20", 0.71], ["2016-05-20", 0.636], ["2016-05-20", 0.54], ["2016-05-20", 0.586], ["2016-05-20", 0.577], ["2016-05-20", 0.561], ["2016-05-20", 0.553], ["2016-05-21", 0.567], ["2016-05-22", 0.543], ["2016-05-22", 0.517], ["2016-05-22", 0.496], ["2016-05-22", 0.496], ["2016-05-22", 0.476], ["2016-05-22", 0.474], ["2016-05-23", 0.448], ["2016-05-24", 0.448], ["2016-05-25", 0.452], ["2016-05-25", 0.458], ["2016-05-28", 0.451], ["2016-05-28", 0.436], ["2016-05-30", 0.432], ["2016-06-02", 0.434], ["2016-06-02", 0.43], ["2016-06-05", 0.442], ["2016-06-06", 0.444], ["2016-06-07", 0.43], ["2016-06-14", 0.429], ["2016-06-19", 0.426], ["2016-06-20", 0.412], ["2016-06-20", 0.404], ["2016-06-20", 0.397], ["2016-06-21", 0.395], ["2016-06-29", 0.392], ["2016-06-29", 0.391], ["2016-06-29", 0.386], ["2016-06-29", 0.381], ["2016-06-29", 0.381], ["2016-06-30", 0.376], ["2016-06-30", 0.378], ["2016-06-30", 0.379], ["2016-07-03", 0.382], ["2016-07-05", 0.379], ["2016-07-05", 0.378], ["2016-07-07", 0.378], ["2016-07-20", 0.375], ["2016-07-22", 0.374], ["2016-07-23", 0.374], ["2016-07-23", 0.371], ["2016-07-24", 0.371], ["2016-07-26", 0.372], ["2016-07-26", 0.364], ["2016-07-26", 0.363], ["2016-07-26", 0.361], ["2016-07-26", 0.363], ["2016-07-26", 0.361], ["2016-07-27", 0.359], ["2016-07-27", 0.356], ["2016-07-27", 0.357], ["2016-07-27", 0.352], ["2016-07-27", 0.355], ["2016-07-27", 0.351], ["2016-07-27", 0.348], ["2016-07-28", 0.344], ["2016-07-29", 0.339], ["2016-07-30", 0.336], ["2016-07-30", 0.331], ["2016-07-31", 0.331], ["2016-07-31", 0.334], ["2016-07-31", 0.333], ["2016-07-31", 0.328], ["2016-08-02", 0.332], ["2016-08-03", 0.327], ["2016-08-03", 0.325], ["2016-08-03", 0.324], ["2016-08-03", 0.324], ["2016-08-03", 0.322], ["2016-08-04", 0.32], ["2016-08-04", 0.315], ["2016-08-06", 0.315], ["2016-08-06", 0.32], ["2016-08-06", 0.327], ["2016-08-08", 0.324], ["2016-08-08", 0.326], ["2016-08-08", 0.322], ["2016-08-10", 0.32], ["2016-08-10", 0.318], ["2016-08-14", 0.319], ["2016-08-16", 0.319], ["2016-08-17", 0.315], ["2016-08-22", 0.306], ["2016-08-26", 0.306], ["2016-08-28", 0.305], ["2016-08-30", 0.3], ["2016-08-30", 0.297], ["2016-08-30", 0.295], ["2016-08-31", 0.295], ["2016-08-31", 0.286], ["2016-08-31", 0.286], ["2016-08-31", 0.282]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/233/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The National Ignition Facility (NIF), residing in Livermore, CA, is the largest laser and inertial confinement fusion (ICF) device in the world. It's mission is to provide high energy gain from the fusion of a hydrogen fuel pellet, ignited using an impressive array of 192 lasers (see how it works).
Development of the NIF has had a rocky history. Construction finished in 2009, and a campaign was launched that year to bring the laser system up to ignition specifications, which ended in 2012 at only a small fraction of its design goal. When the ignition campaign fell short, the success of the program to produce a positive yield in fusion energy was questioned, and not for the first time. Proposals have been made to entirely shift the NIF from a fusion energy facility to a research facility of different stripes, including weapons and materials research.
Currently, the fusion experiments at NIF are focused on optimizing different aspects of their ICF ignition process. In particular, increasing shot rate has been a key metric over the past years, with 356 shots fired in 2015 at experimental targets and more ongoing in 2016. However, it's unclear if the NIF will ever attempt or attain break-even fusion in the near future. By start of 2017, will the NIF announce plans to attempt a laser shot at a fusion pellet with the intent of achieving a positive net energy gain? | true | 2016-09-01 | Will the National Ignition Facility announce a shot at break-even fusion by start of 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-07-01 | 2016-05-23 | [] | binary | [["2016-05-25", 0.29], ["2016-05-25", 0.32], ["2016-05-25", 0.347], ["2016-05-25", 0.368], ["2016-05-25", 0.372], ["2016-05-25", 0.377], ["2016-05-25", 0.464], ["2016-05-26", 0.431], ["2016-05-26", 0.43], ["2016-05-26", 0.406], ["2016-05-26", 0.407], ["2016-05-26", 0.408], ["2016-05-26", 0.463], ["2016-05-26", 0.443], ["2016-05-27", 0.458], ["2016-05-28", 0.451], ["2016-05-28", 0.448], ["2016-05-28", 0.434], ["2016-05-29", 0.434], ["2016-05-29", 0.435], ["2016-05-31", 0.432], ["2016-06-03", 0.427], ["2016-06-05", 0.442], ["2016-06-06", 0.441], ["2016-06-07", 0.453], ["2016-06-10", 0.455], ["2016-06-20", 0.448], ["2016-06-30", 0.447], ["2016-07-23", 0.463], ["2016-07-26", 0.463], ["2016-07-26", 0.482], ["2016-07-26", 0.486], ["2016-07-26", 0.49], ["2016-07-26", 0.491], ["2016-07-26", 0.482], ["2016-07-27", 0.482], ["2016-07-27", 0.471], ["2016-07-28", 0.463], ["2016-07-28", 0.479], ["2016-07-31", 0.479], ["2016-08-01", 0.479], ["2016-08-02", 0.466], ["2016-08-06", 0.453], ["2016-08-07", 0.456], ["2016-08-11", 0.457], ["2016-08-13", 0.456], ["2016-08-14", 0.453], ["2016-08-18", 0.454], ["2016-08-27", 0.457], ["2016-09-05", 0.455], ["2016-09-11", 0.464], ["2016-09-11", 0.47], ["2016-09-15", 0.465], ["2016-09-15", 0.467], ["2016-09-16", 0.457], ["2016-09-16", 0.466], ["2016-09-16", 0.469], ["2016-09-17", 0.474], ["2016-09-19", 0.47], ["2016-09-21", 0.471], ["2016-09-28", 0.47], ["2016-09-29", 0.47], ["2016-09-29", 0.469], ["2016-10-12", 0.471], ["2016-10-20", 0.473], ["2016-10-20", 0.473], ["2016-10-20", 0.469], ["2016-10-23", 0.469], ["2016-10-23", 0.47], ["2016-10-24", 0.47], ["2016-11-01", 0.457], ["2016-11-01", 0.459], ["2016-11-01", 0.459], ["2016-11-01", 0.458], ["2016-11-01", 0.458], ["2016-11-12", 0.458], ["2016-11-14", 0.458], ["2016-11-15", 0.457], ["2016-11-15", 0.458], ["2016-11-26", 0.457], ["2016-12-02", 0.457], ["2016-12-02", 0.457], ["2016-12-05", 0.45], ["2016-12-05", 0.45], ["2016-12-05", 0.451], ["2016-12-06", 0.451], ["2016-12-06", 0.451], ["2016-12-06", 0.451], ["2016-12-07", 0.451], ["2016-12-07", 0.454], ["2016-12-07", 0.454], ["2016-12-07", 0.454], ["2016-12-07", 0.457], ["2016-12-08", 0.459], ["2016-12-09", 0.456], ["2016-12-09", 0.458], ["2016-12-10", 0.458]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/234/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | eLISA (Evolved Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is one of the leading projects in the newly born field of gravitational wave astronomy. Two key landmark successes came together in 2016 that have sparked great enthusiasm for the potential of the eLISA proposal; first, LIGO published in February the first detection of Einstein-gravity waves, and secondly, the LISA pathfinder probe, designed to test the technical challenges of the eLISA mission, found eLISA to be feasible. The advisory panel even encouraged the possibility of an earlier launch date, which would move the launch from the mid 2030s to 2029.
The following is a synopsis of the mission design - for more depth, see the whitepaper. Three satellites forming the vertices of an equilateral triangle (side length 1 million km!) will be launched into a heliocentric orbit, trailing the Earth by 20°. Like LIGO, eLISA is based on a Michelson interferometer design; two spacecrafts make up the endpoints of the interferometer arms and send and receive laser light to a source craft, which then measures the changing arm length through phase differences in the light. However, the core variable eLISA is measuring is the changing non-geodesic acceleration between a pair of test masses housed in free-fall in the source spacecraft. Combined with interferometric measurements on additional test masses housed in each arm, a signal and noise spectrum can be established on the contracting and expanding spacetime between the masses due to gravitational waves. eLISA can measure the frequency, phase, and polarity information of the incoming waves to identify high-magnitude gravitational events, such as inspiraling black hole binaries.
Formerly LISA, eLISA was intended to be a joint endeavor between NASA and ESA. In 2011, a lack of funding led to NASA removing itself from the efforts of the mission. The mission development is currently led by ESA with limited participation by NASA, but resource constraints on ESA's part may create a compelling need for more U.S. - European collaboration. Currently ESA permits a maximum of 20% contribution from NASA; will this change?
Will NASA rejoin as a larger partner in the eLISA mission, meeting or exceeding 20% contribution in funding?
Resolution is positive if by mid-September 2017, credible media report indicates that NASA has re-entered the eLISA collaboration as a significant partner, committing at least 20% of the project budget. | true | 2016-12-15 | Will NASA (re)join the (e)LISA space mission for detecting gravitational waves? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-20 | 2016-05-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-02", 0.4], ["2016-06-03", 0.242], ["2016-06-04", 0.263], ["2016-06-06", 0.272], ["2016-06-07", 0.269], ["2016-06-07", 0.275], ["2016-06-09", 0.281], ["2016-06-10", 0.279], ["2016-06-11", 0.279], ["2016-06-13", 0.277], ["2016-06-19", 0.28], ["2016-06-20", 0.276], ["2016-06-28", 0.276], ["2016-06-28", 0.286], ["2016-06-29", 0.298], ["2016-06-30", 0.3], ["2016-07-03", 0.294], ["2016-07-04", 0.294], ["2016-07-10", 0.3], ["2016-07-11", 0.295], ["2016-07-12", 0.297], ["2016-07-13", 0.299], ["2016-07-23", 0.298], ["2016-07-24", 0.304], ["2016-07-26", 0.297], ["2016-07-26", 0.321], ["2016-07-27", 0.322], ["2016-07-28", 0.314], ["2016-07-29", 0.309], ["2016-07-30", 0.307], ["2016-08-02", 0.304], ["2016-08-02", 0.299], ["2016-08-03", 0.298], ["2016-08-04", 0.307], ["2016-08-05", 0.305], ["2016-08-06", 0.3], ["2016-08-07", 0.292], ["2016-08-08", 0.293], ["2016-08-08", 0.29], ["2016-08-09", 0.284], ["2016-08-10", 0.277], ["2016-08-11", 0.281], ["2016-08-11", 0.289], ["2016-08-12", 0.291], ["2016-08-13", 0.291], ["2016-08-13", 0.294], ["2016-08-14", 0.299], ["2016-08-19", 0.304], ["2016-08-19", 0.3], ["2016-08-24", 0.296], ["2016-08-26", 0.296], ["2016-08-29", 0.3], ["2016-08-29", 0.3], ["2016-08-30", 0.296], ["2016-09-01", 0.299], ["2016-09-01", 0.3], ["2016-09-03", 0.298], ["2016-09-10", 0.299], ["2016-09-12", 0.299], ["2016-09-14", 0.297], ["2016-09-15", 0.3], ["2016-09-16", 0.296], ["2016-09-17", 0.299], ["2016-09-18", 0.304], ["2016-09-18", 0.304], ["2016-09-19", 0.304], ["2016-09-19", 0.302], ["2016-09-21", 0.299], ["2016-09-21", 0.298], ["2016-09-24", 0.298], ["2016-09-26", 0.299], ["2016-09-30", 0.299], ["2016-09-30", 0.301], ["2016-10-02", 0.301], ["2016-10-04", 0.301], ["2016-10-05", 0.298], ["2016-10-06", 0.3], ["2016-10-08", 0.3], ["2016-10-09", 0.301], ["2016-10-09", 0.301], ["2016-10-10", 0.301], ["2016-10-11", 0.303], ["2016-10-13", 0.303], ["2016-10-14", 0.307], ["2016-10-17", 0.306], ["2016-10-18", 0.305], ["2016-10-19", 0.308], ["2016-10-20", 0.307], ["2016-10-21", 0.303], ["2016-10-21", 0.298], ["2016-10-23", 0.299], ["2016-10-24", 0.294], ["2016-10-24", 0.294], ["2016-10-25", 0.298], ["2016-10-26", 0.297], ["2016-10-28", 0.297], ["2016-10-29", 0.297], ["2016-10-30", 0.296], ["2016-10-30", 0.294], ["2016-10-31", 0.294], ["2016-10-31", 0.294]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/237/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | The 115th United States Congress is set to convene on January 6, 2017. When it convenes, will the House of Representatives elect a speaker from the Democratic Party? | true | 2016-11-01 | Will the Democratic Party control the U.S. House of Representatives in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-20 | 2016-05-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-02", 0.4], ["2016-06-04", 0.42], ["2016-06-04", 0.425], ["2016-06-06", 0.428], ["2016-06-07", 0.427], ["2016-06-09", 0.425], ["2016-06-11", 0.424], ["2016-06-20", 0.418], ["2016-06-20", 0.431], ["2016-06-24", 0.43], ["2016-06-29", 0.432], ["2016-06-30", 0.433], ["2016-07-02", 0.432], ["2016-07-09", 0.43], ["2016-07-10", 0.444], ["2016-07-11", 0.453], ["2016-07-11", 0.447], ["2016-07-12", 0.455], ["2016-07-16", 0.451], ["2016-07-23", 0.448], ["2016-07-24", 0.45], ["2016-07-26", 0.445], ["2016-07-27", 0.466], ["2016-07-28", 0.471], ["2016-07-29", 0.483], ["2016-08-01", 0.487], ["2016-08-02", 0.476], ["2016-08-03", 0.477], ["2016-08-04", 0.477], ["2016-08-05", 0.475], ["2016-08-07", 0.488], ["2016-08-07", 0.488], ["2016-08-08", 0.49], ["2016-08-09", 0.489], ["2016-08-10", 0.484], ["2016-08-11", 0.489], ["2016-08-11", 0.492], ["2016-08-12", 0.494], ["2016-08-13", 0.498], ["2016-08-14", 0.504], ["2016-08-15", 0.5], ["2016-08-16", 0.501], ["2016-08-17", 0.514], ["2016-08-18", 0.517], ["2016-08-19", 0.519], ["2016-08-19", 0.513], ["2016-08-21", 0.506], ["2016-08-24", 0.506], ["2016-08-26", 0.506], ["2016-08-27", 0.506], ["2016-08-29", 0.502], ["2016-08-30", 0.496], ["2016-09-01", 0.495], ["2016-09-01", 0.498], ["2016-09-02", 0.5], ["2016-09-03", 0.508], ["2016-09-07", 0.51], ["2016-09-14", 0.512], ["2016-09-15", 0.512], ["2016-09-16", 0.507], ["2016-09-17", 0.51], ["2016-09-17", 0.511], ["2016-09-18", 0.511], ["2016-09-19", 0.511], ["2016-09-21", 0.506], ["2016-09-21", 0.506], ["2016-09-24", 0.506], ["2016-09-26", 0.506], ["2016-09-26", 0.504], ["2016-09-29", 0.505], ["2016-09-30", 0.509], ["2016-10-02", 0.509], ["2016-10-03", 0.509], ["2016-10-03", 0.509], ["2016-10-05", 0.509], ["2016-10-06", 0.511], ["2016-10-08", 0.511], ["2016-10-09", 0.511], ["2016-10-10", 0.511], ["2016-10-11", 0.513], ["2016-10-11", 0.513], ["2016-10-13", 0.514], ["2016-10-14", 0.515], ["2016-10-17", 0.515], ["2016-10-18", 0.514], ["2016-10-19", 0.515], ["2016-10-20", 0.522], ["2016-10-21", 0.528], ["2016-10-22", 0.528], ["2016-10-23", 0.535], ["2016-10-24", 0.545], ["2016-10-25", 0.543], ["2016-10-26", 0.541], ["2016-10-27", 0.543], ["2016-10-28", 0.542], ["2016-10-29", 0.542], ["2016-10-30", 0.543], ["2016-10-31", 0.543], ["2016-10-31", 0.543], ["2016-11-02", 0.542], ["2016-11-03", 0.542]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/238/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | The 115th United States Congress is set to convene on January 6, 2017. When it convenes, will the Senate elect a majority leader from the Democratic Party? | true | 2016-11-03 | Will the Democratic Party control the U.S. Senate in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-06-19 | 2016-05-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.58], ["2016-06-16", 0.479], ["2016-06-18", 0.404], ["2016-06-19", 0.389], ["2016-06-21", 0.403], ["2016-06-23", 0.399], ["2016-06-28", 0.393], ["2016-06-30", 0.376], ["2016-07-07", 0.367], ["2016-07-23", 0.35], ["2016-07-26", 0.343], ["2016-07-28", 0.339], ["2016-07-31", 0.345], ["2016-08-03", 0.376], ["2016-08-06", 0.364], ["2016-08-07", 0.376], ["2016-08-11", 0.371], ["2016-08-12", 0.376], ["2016-08-14", 0.384], ["2016-08-19", 0.387], ["2016-08-24", 0.38], ["2016-08-28", 0.379], ["2016-08-29", 0.387], ["2016-08-31", 0.381], ["2016-09-03", 0.373], ["2016-09-06", 0.372], ["2016-09-12", 0.372], ["2016-09-16", 0.372], ["2016-09-17", 0.377], ["2016-09-20", 0.372], ["2016-09-21", 0.364], ["2016-09-28", 0.371], ["2016-09-30", 0.36], ["2016-10-04", 0.36], ["2016-10-24", 0.358], ["2016-11-23", 0.347], ["2016-12-21", 0.349], ["2017-01-01", 0.347], ["2017-02-09", 0.347], ["2017-02-09", 0.344], ["2017-05-14", 0.344], ["2017-06-03", 0.344], ["2017-06-04", 0.349], ["2017-06-23", 0.345], ["2017-06-24", 0.341], ["2017-07-24", 0.344], ["2017-07-26", 0.342], ["2017-08-04", 0.341], ["2017-08-05", 0.339], ["2017-08-10", 0.339], ["2017-08-12", 0.345], ["2017-09-03", 0.339], ["2017-09-13", 0.339], ["2017-09-16", 0.337], ["2017-09-19", 0.336], ["2017-09-24", 0.337], ["2017-10-07", 0.334], ["2017-10-08", 0.331], ["2017-10-26", 0.33], ["2017-10-26", 0.33], ["2017-11-07", 0.331], ["2017-12-13", 0.331], ["2018-01-09", 0.332], ["2018-01-10", 0.329], ["2018-01-12", 0.33], ["2018-01-25", 0.33], ["2018-01-26", 0.331], ["2018-02-17", 0.327], ["2018-02-19", 0.325], ["2018-02-28", 0.325], ["2018-03-02", 0.325], ["2018-03-11", 0.324], ["2018-03-11", 0.319], ["2018-03-19", 0.319], ["2018-03-20", 0.315], ["2018-04-05", 0.315], ["2018-04-07", 0.317], ["2018-04-08", 0.317], ["2018-04-15", 0.315], ["2018-04-19", 0.315], ["2018-04-21", 0.312], ["2018-04-23", 0.312], ["2018-04-26", 0.301], ["2018-04-29", 0.299], ["2018-04-30", 0.295], ["2018-05-11", 0.295], ["2018-05-13", 0.294], ["2018-05-16", 0.294], ["2018-05-20", 0.292], ["2018-05-23", 0.291], ["2018-05-26", 0.291], ["2018-05-28", 0.298], ["2018-05-30", 0.297], ["2018-06-01", 0.295], ["2018-06-03", 0.291], ["2018-06-05", 0.289], ["2018-06-06", 0.288], ["2018-06-08", 0.285], ["2018-06-11", 0.282], ["2018-06-14", 0.273], ["2018-06-14", 0.272]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/239/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | It would be pleasant to believe that worldwide epidemics, such as the 1346-53 black death or the 1918-19 Spanish Influenza, are a thing of the past. There is, however, no good reason to believe this is the case. While medical countermeasures and sanitation are dramatically improved, global interconnectivity and human (and livestock) population density are much higher, creating favorable conditions for the emergence of natural pandemics.
Moreover, while national militaries have for some time had the capability of weaponizing pathogens, the advent of effective genetic engineering suggests that this capability — as well as the ability to generate qualitatively new pathogens — may become much more widely available to both nations and terror groups, increasing the risk of bioterror or bioerror incidents.
Perhaps the highest risk for a natural pandemic is posed by new versions of influenza. Per a 2008 paper:
Since 1500, there appear to have been 13 or more influenza pandemics[....]; in the past 120 years there were undoubted pandemics in 1889, 1918, 1957, 1968 and 1977. In 1918, the worst pandemic in recorded history caused approximately 546,000 excess deaths in the United States (675,000 total deaths) and killed up to 50 million people worldwide.
Previous survey indicate that experts assign significant probability to such pandemics recurring. For our first question we focus on this possibility:
Will the CDC, WHO, or a published scientific paper report that H5N1 or a similar influenza virus has become an efficient human-to-human transmitter (capable of being propagated through at least two epidemiological generations of affected humans) by mid-2019?
(Notes: Here, "similar" will be taken to mean an H5N1 strain, or a strain described in the literature as a "variant", "version", etc., of the current H5N1, and in particular be believed to have a similar fatality rate. This question concerns natural mutation/variation and does not concern engineered version of H5N1, which will be considered in separate questions.) | true | 2018-06-15 | Pandemic series: efficient human-to-human transmission of H5N1? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-06-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-02", 0.1], ["2016-06-03", 0.258], ["2016-06-04", 0.245], ["2016-06-06", 0.262], ["2016-06-06", 0.262], ["2016-06-07", 0.246], ["2016-06-09", 0.24], ["2016-06-10", 0.233], ["2016-06-11", 0.236], ["2016-06-12", 0.23], ["2016-06-16", 0.23], ["2016-06-19", 0.225], ["2016-06-20", 0.212], ["2016-06-22", 0.21], ["2016-06-26", 0.213], ["2016-06-27", 0.206], ["2016-06-30", 0.199], ["2016-06-30", 0.193], ["2016-07-06", 0.193], ["2016-07-08", 0.193], ["2016-07-11", 0.187], ["2016-07-14", 0.16], ["2016-07-23", 0.155], ["2016-07-26", 0.151], ["2016-07-27", 0.155], ["2016-07-29", 0.152], ["2016-07-30", 0.153], ["2016-07-31", 0.149], ["2016-07-31", 0.148], ["2016-08-02", 0.167], ["2016-08-03", 0.168], ["2016-08-04", 0.165], ["2016-08-04", 0.169], ["2016-08-06", 0.199], ["2016-08-07", 0.195], ["2016-08-08", 0.19], ["2016-08-10", 0.199], ["2016-08-10", 0.195], ["2016-08-11", 0.206], ["2016-08-11", 0.208], ["2016-08-13", 0.206], ["2016-08-14", 0.2], ["2016-08-17", 0.197], ["2016-08-18", 0.194], ["2016-08-19", 0.194], ["2016-08-28", 0.198], ["2016-08-30", 0.195], ["2016-09-01", 0.191], ["2016-09-02", 0.189], ["2016-09-03", 0.186], ["2016-09-06", 0.184], ["2016-09-06", 0.184], ["2016-09-12", 0.185], ["2016-09-15", 0.182], ["2016-09-16", 0.181], ["2016-09-17", 0.191], ["2016-09-18", 0.19], ["2016-09-18", 0.192], ["2016-09-19", 0.189], ["2016-09-21", 0.195], ["2016-09-21", 0.193], ["2016-09-24", 0.191], ["2016-09-26", 0.197], ["2016-09-26", 0.2], ["2016-09-27", 0.2], ["2016-09-29", 0.2], ["2016-10-01", 0.197], ["2016-10-02", 0.195], ["2016-10-03", 0.191], ["2016-10-04", 0.191], ["2016-10-05", 0.189], ["2016-10-11", 0.188], ["2016-10-11", 0.188], ["2016-10-14", 0.188], ["2016-10-19", 0.184], ["2016-10-20", 0.182], ["2016-10-20", 0.185], ["2016-10-22", 0.186], ["2016-10-22", 0.184], ["2016-10-24", 0.182], ["2016-10-24", 0.174], ["2016-10-27", 0.172], ["2016-10-29", 0.171], ["2016-10-29", 0.17], ["2016-10-31", 0.169], ["2016-11-02", 0.168], ["2016-11-03", 0.165], ["2016-11-11", 0.164], ["2016-11-11", 0.161], ["2016-11-12", 0.16], ["2016-11-13", 0.155], ["2016-11-14", 0.159], ["2016-11-15", 0.159], ["2016-11-16", 0.159], ["2016-11-17", 0.158], ["2016-11-19", 0.155], ["2016-11-23", 0.154], ["2016-11-25", 0.151], ["2016-11-26", 0.152], ["2016-11-30", 0.153], ["2016-11-30", 0.154]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/241/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Transplantation of tissue — including organs — from one human (or nonhuman) to another is an amazing advance in medicine that has now saved many lives. Complex organs including the heart and liver are now routinely transplanted, and in many cases even quite complex severed nerves can be reattached.
Much more audacious is the possibility of transplanting a human head. (Or should it be considered a full-body transplant?) The difficulties are obviously daunting: not just the spine, but major arteries, throat, etc., must all be reattached while keeping the brain alive.
Nonetheless, this procedure has been seriously proposed by Dr. Sergio Canavero, who currently claims that he will attempt a head transplant in 2017 on a Chinese man if he is given permission (and funding). See this summary for more details, as well as an additional piece on the (low) likelihood of the operation's success.
By the end of 2017, will a human head transplant operation be performed?
Resolution is positive regardless of the survival of the patient after the operation. (We may later launch a conditional sister question about the survival probability.) | true | 2016-12-01 | First human head transplant in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-01-03 | 2016-06-02 | [] | binary | [["2019-01-05", 0.2], ["2019-01-06", 0.139], ["2019-01-07", 0.138], ["2019-01-08", 0.144], ["2019-01-09", 0.145], ["2019-01-11", 0.145], ["2019-01-13", 0.142], ["2019-01-16", 0.14], ["2019-01-21", 0.137], ["2019-01-25", 0.135], ["2019-01-26", 0.135], ["2019-01-29", 0.134], ["2019-01-30", 0.13], ["2019-02-12", 0.128], ["2019-02-13", 0.126], ["2019-02-15", 0.123], ["2019-02-19", 0.123], ["2019-02-22", 0.123], ["2019-02-25", 0.121], ["2019-02-25", 0.121], ["2019-03-08", 0.12], ["2019-03-17", 0.118], ["2019-03-25", 0.118], ["2019-03-27", 0.122], ["2019-03-28", 0.121], ["2019-03-29", 0.119], ["2019-03-30", 0.117], ["2019-03-31", 0.114], ["2019-04-01", 0.114], ["2019-04-02", 0.113], ["2019-04-03", 0.113], ["2019-04-04", 0.112], ["2019-04-05", 0.112], ["2019-04-06", 0.111], ["2019-04-08", 0.11], ["2019-04-09", 0.107], ["2019-04-12", 0.107], ["2019-04-24", 0.107], ["2019-05-05", 0.107], ["2019-05-07", 0.106], ["2019-05-08", 0.105], ["2019-05-09", 0.106], ["2019-05-12", 0.105], ["2019-05-14", 0.099], ["2019-05-15", 0.098], ["2019-05-17", 0.094], ["2019-05-17", 0.093], ["2019-05-19", 0.093], ["2019-05-21", 0.092], ["2019-05-22", 0.092], ["2019-05-24", 0.091], ["2019-05-25", 0.09], ["2019-06-08", 0.09], ["2019-06-08", 0.09], ["2019-06-09", 0.09], ["2019-06-18", 0.089], ["2019-06-29", 0.088], ["2019-07-07", 0.088], ["2019-07-20", 0.087], ["2019-07-23", 0.086], ["2019-07-30", 0.086], ["2019-08-01", 0.084], ["2019-08-02", 0.084], ["2019-08-05", 0.083], ["2019-08-08", 0.083], ["2019-08-08", 0.082], ["2019-08-27", 0.082], ["2019-08-29", 0.081], ["2019-08-29", 0.083], ["2019-09-04", 0.081], ["2019-09-09", 0.082], ["2019-09-13", 0.082], ["2019-09-16", 0.082], ["2019-09-17", 0.08], ["2019-09-19", 0.078], ["2019-09-20", 0.077], ["2019-09-22", 0.077], ["2019-10-06", 0.077], ["2019-10-07", 0.077], ["2019-10-15", 0.076], ["2019-10-16", 0.076], ["2019-10-21", 0.078], ["2019-10-23", 0.077], ["2019-10-23", 0.078], ["2019-10-28", 0.077], ["2019-11-05", 0.077], ["2019-11-07", 0.077], ["2019-11-08", 0.077], ["2019-11-12", 0.077], ["2019-11-15", 0.077], ["2019-11-17", 0.077], ["2019-11-17", 0.076], ["2019-11-19", 0.075], ["2019-11-22", 0.075], ["2019-11-23", 0.075], ["2019-11-24", 0.075], ["2019-11-25", 0.075], ["2019-11-26", 0.075], ["2019-11-27", 0.075], ["2019-11-29", 0.075], ["2019-11-30", 0.073]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/1694/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Transplantation of tissue — including organs — from one human (or nonhuman) to another is an amazing advance in medicine that has now saved many lives. Complex organs including the heart and liver are now routinely transplanted, and in many cases even quite complex severed nerves can be reattached.
Much more audacious is the possibility of transplanting a human head. (Or should it be considered a full-body transplant?) The difficulties are obviously daunting: not just the spine, but major arteries, throat, etc., must all be reattached while keeping the brain alive.
Recently, the media has been abuzz with news that Sergio Canavero and his colleague Xiaoping Ren of China plan to transplant a human head from a living person onto a donor cadaver. The two surgeons — who portray themselves as pioneers defying a stodgy medical establishment but are considered reckless renegades by many peers — say the head donor will be someone with a degenerative disease, whose body is wasting away while his or her mind remains active.
The body donor, meanwhile, will likely be a someone who died of severe head trauma but whose body was left unscathed. The researchers claim to have been perfecting the technique on mice, a dog, a monkey, and, recently, a human cadaver. Originally, they predicted a fall 2017 transplant but now just say it is “imminent.”.
This same question was asked for 2017, which most then correctly predicted to be unlikely.
By the end of 2020, will a human head transplant operation be performed?
Resolution is positive regardless of the survival of the patient after the operation. Positive resolution requires the patient who provides the donor head to be alive right before the procedure: the patient providing the donor head should not be declared legally dead 48 hours or more before the transplant occurs. | true | 2019-12-01 | First attempted human head transplant by end of 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-03-25 | 2016-06-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.58], ["2016-06-15", 0.785], ["2016-06-15", 0.657], ["2016-06-15", 0.5], ["2016-06-15", 0.498], ["2016-06-15", 0.457], ["2016-06-15", 0.427], ["2016-06-16", 0.43], ["2016-06-16", 0.421], ["2016-06-16", 0.389], ["2016-06-16", 0.368], ["2016-06-17", 0.358], ["2016-06-20", 0.36], ["2016-06-21", 0.389], ["2016-06-23", 0.404], ["2016-06-23", 0.413], ["2016-06-29", 0.394], ["2016-06-30", 0.384], ["2016-06-30", 0.389], ["2016-06-30", 0.394], ["2016-07-23", 0.375], ["2016-07-24", 0.371], ["2016-07-26", 0.388], ["2016-07-26", 0.388], ["2016-07-26", 0.378], ["2016-07-27", 0.382], ["2016-07-28", 0.382], ["2016-07-28", 0.377], ["2016-08-01", 0.377], ["2016-08-02", 0.399], ["2016-08-03", 0.398], ["2016-08-04", 0.398], ["2016-08-04", 0.41], ["2016-08-06", 0.404], ["2016-08-07", 0.392], ["2016-08-09", 0.388], ["2016-08-11", 0.391], ["2016-08-11", 0.401], ["2016-08-13", 0.404], ["2016-08-14", 0.413], ["2016-08-17", 0.422], ["2016-08-30", 0.413], ["2016-09-01", 0.408], ["2016-09-01", 0.398], ["2016-09-08", 0.405], ["2016-09-15", 0.413], ["2016-09-16", 0.42], ["2016-09-16", 0.42], ["2016-09-17", 0.411], ["2016-09-17", 0.413], ["2016-09-18", 0.419], ["2016-09-18", 0.413], ["2016-09-19", 0.413], ["2016-09-20", 0.416], ["2016-09-21", 0.417], ["2016-09-26", 0.424], ["2016-09-28", 0.429], ["2016-09-29", 0.429], ["2016-10-01", 0.418], ["2016-10-02", 0.417], ["2016-10-19", 0.422], ["2016-10-19", 0.417], ["2016-10-20", 0.417], ["2016-10-22", 0.431], ["2016-10-24", 0.418], ["2016-10-24", 0.418], ["2016-10-24", 0.416], ["2016-11-12", 0.412], ["2016-11-17", 0.411], ["2016-11-23", 0.411], ["2016-12-21", 0.413], ["2016-12-31", 0.413], ["2017-01-01", 0.415], ["2017-01-02", 0.42], ["2017-03-20", 0.42], ["2017-03-30", 0.416], ["2017-05-14", 0.416], ["2017-05-31", 0.416], ["2017-06-01", 0.417], ["2017-06-08", 0.416], ["2017-06-09", 0.416], ["2017-06-10", 0.414], ["2017-06-13", 0.412], ["2017-06-14", 0.407], ["2017-06-14", 0.407], ["2017-06-14", 0.406], ["2017-06-14", 0.404], ["2017-06-14", 0.403], ["2017-06-14", 0.406]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/243/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Airborne pathogens pose a high pandemic threat because they can so easily spread from person to person, making effective quarantine very difficult. A number of such pathogens in both viral (e.g. Flu, Smallpox, and of course the Common Cold) and bacterial (e.g. Tuberculosis, Whooping Cough) form are well known, and new ones are periodically discovered.
Both transmissibility and fatality rates vary significant across such diseases. The cold is generally highly transmissible but very rarely fatal. The relatively new MERS coronavirus is fatal in of order 40% of cases, though its transmissibility is currently low.
Most worrisome are pathogens combining high transmissibility with a relatively high fatality rate: the Spanish Flu, with a 5-10% fatality rate and very easy airborne transmission, was a tragic example. How likely is the emergence of another possible example in the next few years?
By 2019 will the CDC, WHO, or a published scientific paper report cases of a naturally-occurring qualitatively new airborne pathogen with a mortality rate of > 5%?
We'll consider a pathogen "qualitatively new" if it is given a unique new name or official nomenclature and widely described as "new." We define a "potential death rate of X" as being fulfilled by any report of > 100 cases in which > X death occurs, or in which > 1 death is reported in a number of reported cases exceeding 100/X. We will consider a pathogen airborne if the CDC, WHO, or a published scientific article verifies that it can in at least some cases be spread without direct contact between people and without contact with bodily fluids or via an intermediate vector. | true | 2017-06-15 | Pandemic series: how likely is emergence of a deadly new airborne pathogen? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-31 | 2016-06-06 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.53], ["2016-06-15", 0.76], ["2016-06-15", 0.64], ["2016-06-15", 0.507], ["2016-06-15", 0.504], ["2016-06-15", 0.487], ["2016-06-15", 0.453], ["2016-06-16", 0.456], ["2016-06-16", 0.452], ["2016-06-16", 0.412], ["2016-06-16", 0.397], ["2016-06-17", 0.39], ["2016-06-20", 0.424], ["2016-06-20", 0.417], ["2016-06-21", 0.449], ["2016-06-21", 0.466], ["2016-06-23", 0.456], ["2016-06-28", 0.487], ["2016-06-28", 0.473], ["2016-06-30", 0.477], ["2016-06-30", 0.48], ["2016-06-30", 0.482], ["2016-07-07", 0.482], ["2016-07-23", 0.505], ["2016-07-26", 0.526], ["2016-07-26", 0.532], ["2016-07-26", 0.538], ["2016-07-28", 0.525], ["2016-08-02", 0.543], ["2016-08-04", 0.543], ["2016-08-04", 0.543], ["2016-08-07", 0.524], ["2016-08-13", 0.523], ["2016-08-22", 0.539], ["2016-08-28", 0.541], ["2016-08-30", 0.534], ["2016-09-01", 0.525], ["2016-09-01", 0.509], ["2016-09-01", 0.492], ["2016-09-09", 0.489], ["2016-09-14", 0.501], ["2016-09-15", 0.508], ["2016-09-15", 0.495], ["2016-09-16", 0.503], ["2016-09-16", 0.508], ["2016-09-16", 0.511], ["2016-09-16", 0.513], ["2016-09-16", 0.505], ["2016-09-17", 0.517], ["2016-09-17", 0.509], ["2016-09-17", 0.509], ["2016-09-18", 0.501], ["2016-09-19", 0.497], ["2016-09-19", 0.491], ["2016-09-21", 0.491], ["2016-09-26", 0.496], ["2016-09-26", 0.501], ["2016-09-28", 0.5], ["2016-09-29", 0.502], ["2016-09-29", 0.502], ["2016-09-30", 0.499], ["2016-10-07", 0.501], ["2016-10-14", 0.498], ["2016-10-20", 0.494], ["2016-10-24", 0.481], ["2016-10-24", 0.481], ["2016-11-23", 0.486], ["2016-11-24", 0.486], ["2016-12-21", 0.486], ["2016-12-31", 0.48], ["2017-03-09", 0.48], ["2017-03-09", 0.48], ["2017-03-10", 0.478], ["2017-03-15", 0.478], ["2017-03-21", 0.478], ["2017-03-27", 0.48], ["2017-03-30", 0.474], ["2017-03-30", 0.474], ["2017-03-31", 0.474], ["2017-03-31", 0.474], ["2017-03-31", 0.474], ["2017-03-31", 0.474], ["2017-04-25", 0.472], ["2017-04-28", 0.468], ["2017-05-01", 0.467], ["2017-05-01", 0.467], ["2017-05-01", 0.467], ["2017-05-01", 0.466], ["2017-05-12", 0.469], ["2017-05-14", 0.469], ["2017-05-25", 0.469], ["2017-05-31", 0.465], ["2017-06-03", 0.464], ["2017-06-08", 0.464], ["2017-06-09", 0.465], ["2017-06-09", 0.465], ["2017-06-11", 0.464], ["2017-06-14", 0.464], ["2017-06-14", 0.461], ["2017-06-14", 0.458], ["2017-06-14", 0.458]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/244/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Among their many irritating qualities, mosquitos act as highly efficient carriers of disease. Malaria, caused by the plasmodium protozoa, is the prime and widespread example, with approx. 200M cases in 2014 leading to approx. 440K fatalities in 2015, according to the WHO. Mosquito-borne viral illnesses include Yellow Fever, Dengue Fever, Japanese Encephalitis, West Nile virus, and a host of others.
Many mosquito-borne illnesses are have been known since ancient times, but some new ones are regularly discovered. The Zika virus, first isolated in the 1950s in humans, has recently become a major health threat, and is the subject of several other questions. While Zika has an even lower mortality rate than malaria (its larger threat being to the as-yet-unborn), other recently-emerged pathogens could be worse. For example, Eastern Equine Encephalitis discovered in the 1930's, has a much higher fatality rate of ~30% (fortunately its prime carrier mosquito feeds almost exclusively on birds.)
An illness that spreads like Zika or Malaria but with a relatively high fatality rate could be a huge public health threat.
By 2018 will the CDC, WHO, or a published scientific paper report that a naturally-occurring qualitatively new mosquito-borne pathogen with a potential death rate of > 2% has been discovered?
We'll consider a pathogen "qualitatively new" if it is given a unique new name or official nomenclature and widely described as "new." We define a "potential death rate of X" as being fulfilled by any report of > 100 cases in which > X death occurs, or in which > 1 death is reported in a number of reported cases exceeding 100/X. We will consider a pathogen mosquito-borne if the CDC, WHO, or published scientific article verifies that it can be spread from human-to-human via a type of mosquito for which humans are a major food source. | true | 2017-06-15 | Pandemic Series: new mosquito-borne pathogen by 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2020-06-01 | 2016-06-06 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-07", 0.4], ["2016-06-09", 0.492], ["2016-06-09", 0.479], ["2016-06-11", 0.486], ["2016-06-16", 0.487], ["2016-06-20", 0.472], ["2016-06-21", 0.499], ["2016-06-28", 0.524], ["2016-06-30", 0.517], ["2016-07-06", 0.505], ["2016-07-19", 0.497], ["2016-07-23", 0.507], ["2016-07-26", 0.504], ["2016-07-27", 0.495], ["2016-07-31", 0.487], ["2016-08-02", 0.475], ["2016-08-03", 0.478], ["2016-08-07", 0.466], ["2016-08-07", 0.467], ["2016-08-12", 0.471], ["2016-08-14", 0.467], ["2016-08-28", 0.466], ["2016-08-28", 0.469], ["2016-09-07", 0.467], ["2016-09-15", 0.462], ["2016-09-16", 0.463], ["2016-09-18", 0.489], ["2016-09-19", 0.491], ["2016-09-21", 0.491], ["2016-09-26", 0.491], ["2016-09-28", 0.483], ["2016-09-29", 0.471], ["2016-10-23", 0.474], ["2016-10-24", 0.464], ["2016-10-27", 0.464], ["2016-10-31", 0.458], ["2016-11-02", 0.452], ["2016-11-07", 0.452], ["2016-11-07", 0.452], ["2016-11-21", 0.454], ["2016-12-21", 0.453], ["2016-12-22", 0.453], ["2017-02-24", 0.454], ["2017-02-27", 0.455], ["2017-05-14", 0.454], ["2017-05-25", 0.454], ["2017-05-31", 0.451], ["2017-07-01", 0.449], ["2017-07-01", 0.447], ["2017-07-28", 0.447], ["2017-08-04", 0.447], ["2017-08-06", 0.44], ["2017-08-12", 0.438], ["2017-08-12", 0.438], ["2017-09-01", 0.435], ["2017-09-02", 0.434], ["2017-09-22", 0.434], ["2017-10-07", 0.436], ["2017-12-21", 0.431], ["2017-12-22", 0.431], ["2017-12-29", 0.423], ["2017-12-30", 0.42], ["2018-01-03", 0.42], ["2018-01-05", 0.421], ["2018-01-15", 0.418], ["2018-01-21", 0.418], ["2018-01-30", 0.418], ["2018-02-03", 0.416], ["2018-03-02", 0.416], ["2018-03-07", 0.416], ["2018-03-09", 0.416], ["2018-03-11", 0.415], ["2018-03-12", 0.413], ["2018-03-16", 0.413], ["2018-03-16", 0.413], ["2018-03-21", 0.411], ["2018-03-21", 0.411], ["2018-03-24", 0.411], ["2018-03-24", 0.407], ["2018-03-28", 0.405], ["2018-03-29", 0.405], ["2018-04-05", 0.405], ["2018-04-06", 0.404], ["2018-04-19", 0.404], ["2018-04-21", 0.404], ["2018-04-22", 0.399], ["2018-04-23", 0.398], ["2018-04-29", 0.398], ["2018-05-01", 0.397], ["2018-05-09", 0.397], ["2018-05-09", 0.396], ["2018-05-14", 0.395], ["2018-05-14", 0.395], ["2018-05-20", 0.395], ["2018-05-21", 0.395], ["2018-05-23", 0.39], ["2018-05-25", 0.389], ["2018-05-26", 0.39], ["2018-05-28", 0.392], ["2018-05-30", 0.392], ["2018-05-31", 0.386]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/245/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Although the majority of funding on development of nuclear fusion is governmental, a number of significant private efforts have been launched in recent years as well. General Fusion, based in British Columbia, is a privately funded company pursuing magnetized target fusion (MTF), backed by venture capital funds as well as individual backers including Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Paul Allen (Microsoft) and Peter Thiel (PayPal).
MTF works by heating a gaseous fusion fuel into a plasma, coercing it into magnetic confinement, and then uniformly compressing the plasma until it reaches fusion-capable densities and temperatures. In General Fusion's case, an array of pneumatic impact pistons in a "Spheromak" design serve as acoustic drivers for the compression stage, delivering a high impulse but requires extreme timing precision.
General Fusion is currently in the midst of the testing and development phase of the individual subsystems for their prototype MTF reactor, and the next goal is to build a full scale device to achieve net-gain fusion. However, they currently face a great challenge in keeping the plasma thermally well insulated in order to meet design temperatures before compression.
General Fusion's reactor design specifies plasma temperatures of T = 10
KeV/
k
b
(over 100 million Kelvin) after 10:1 radial compression. A milestone before this is the 4:1 compression stage in subsystem testing, at which they have been able to heat the plasma to 200
eV/
k
b
but hope to exceed temperatures of 600
eV/
k
b
.
By June 1st, 2020, will General Fusion heat a plasma to at least 600
eV/
k
b
at 4:1 compression in their injector subsystem or in a full sized prototype MTF reactor?
We will consider an official company statement or credible media report to be sufficient evidence of success. | true | 2018-06-01 | Will General Fusion meets its plasma temperature targets by mid-2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-01-03 | 2016-06-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.39], ["2016-06-15", 0.69], ["2016-06-15", 0.613], ["2016-06-15", 0.475], ["2016-06-15", 0.478], ["2016-06-15", 0.465], ["2016-06-15", 0.42], ["2016-06-16", 0.425], ["2016-06-16", 0.423], ["2016-06-16", 0.401], ["2016-06-16", 0.383], ["2016-06-17", 0.377], ["2016-06-19", 0.367], ["2016-06-20", 0.384], ["2016-06-21", 0.384], ["2016-06-21", 0.421], ["2016-06-23", 0.43], ["2016-06-23", 0.419], ["2016-06-30", 0.432], ["2016-06-30", 0.444], ["2016-06-30", 0.443], ["2016-07-02", 0.452], ["2016-07-23", 0.46], ["2016-07-26", 0.468], ["2016-07-26", 0.465], ["2016-07-26", 0.454], ["2016-07-27", 0.452], ["2016-07-27", 0.439], ["2016-07-28", 0.441], ["2016-07-31", 0.434], ["2016-08-01", 0.433], ["2016-08-02", 0.451], ["2016-08-03", 0.437], ["2016-08-04", 0.446], ["2016-08-06", 0.432], ["2016-08-07", 0.432], ["2016-08-13", 0.434], ["2016-08-24", 0.427], ["2016-08-28", 0.429], ["2016-09-01", 0.421], ["2016-09-01", 0.418], ["2016-09-02", 0.433], ["2016-09-08", 0.433], ["2016-09-14", 0.44], ["2016-09-15", 0.448], ["2016-09-16", 0.454], ["2016-09-16", 0.455], ["2016-09-17", 0.452], ["2016-09-17", 0.456], ["2016-09-17", 0.457], ["2016-09-18", 0.464], ["2016-09-18", 0.463], ["2016-09-21", 0.462], ["2016-09-28", 0.461], ["2016-09-29", 0.447], ["2016-09-29", 0.447], ["2016-10-03", 0.458], ["2016-10-06", 0.46], ["2016-10-12", 0.463], ["2016-10-24", 0.472], ["2016-10-24", 0.472], ["2016-10-24", 0.457], ["2016-10-27", 0.46], ["2016-12-21", 0.46], ["2017-01-01", 0.465], ["2017-03-20", 0.462], ["2017-05-14", 0.462], ["2017-05-20", 0.463], ["2017-05-20", 0.458], ["2017-05-20", 0.458], ["2017-05-20", 0.457], ["2017-05-31", 0.457], ["2017-06-01", 0.457], ["2017-06-04", 0.451], ["2017-06-07", 0.449], ["2017-06-09", 0.449], ["2017-06-14", 0.449], ["2017-06-14", 0.446], ["2017-06-14", 0.44], ["2017-06-14", 0.44], ["2017-06-14", 0.434], ["2017-06-14", 0.434]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/246/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Some of the least pleasant diseases humans have dealt with are those transmitted by direct person-to-person contact via blood, saliva, or other bodily fluids. Hepatitis, HIV/AIDs, and hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola and Marburg are key examples.
While this transmission method is much less efficient than an airborne mode, it can be very dangerous. AIDs/HIV, due to its long quiet incubation period, spread quite widely before even being identified. The recent Ebola outbreak caused of order 30,000 cases and grew very rapidly for a while before being brought under control.
By Jan. 1, 2019 will the CDC, WHO, or a published scientific paper report that a naturally-occurring qualitatively new pathogen spreadable via person-to-person contact (but not mosquito-transmitted or airborne) with a potential death rate of > 10% has been discovered
We'll consider a pathogen "qualitatively new" if it is given a unique new name or official nomenclature and widely described as "new." We define a "potential death rate of X" as being fulfilled by any report of > 100 cases in which > X death occurs, or in which > 1 death is reported in a number of reported cases exceeding 100/X. | true | 2017-06-15 | Pandemic series: how likely is emergence of a deadly new blood-borne pathogen? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-12-30 | 2016-06-08 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.37], ["2016-06-15", 0.431], ["2016-06-16", 0.404], ["2016-06-16", 0.376], ["2016-06-17", 0.387], ["2016-06-20", 0.392], ["2016-06-21", 0.433], ["2016-06-21", 0.417], ["2016-06-23", 0.41], ["2016-06-24", 0.394], ["2016-06-30", 0.383], ["2016-06-30", 0.386], ["2016-07-11", 0.386], ["2016-07-23", 0.38], ["2016-07-23", 0.388], ["2016-07-26", 0.372], ["2016-07-27", 0.386], ["2016-07-28", 0.374], ["2016-08-03", 0.366], ["2016-08-04", 0.363], ["2016-08-06", 0.351], ["2016-08-13", 0.361], ["2016-08-17", 0.362], ["2016-08-28", 0.359], ["2016-09-01", 0.349], ["2016-09-01", 0.341], ["2016-09-05", 0.339], ["2016-09-06", 0.346], ["2016-09-08", 0.347], ["2016-09-12", 0.347], ["2016-09-14", 0.363], ["2016-09-16", 0.36], ["2016-09-17", 0.382], ["2016-09-17", 0.373], ["2016-09-19", 0.371], ["2016-09-21", 0.373], ["2016-09-26", 0.372], ["2016-09-28", 0.375], ["2016-09-29", 0.368], ["2016-10-06", 0.368], ["2016-10-20", 0.366], ["2016-10-24", 0.364], ["2016-11-05", 0.348], ["2016-11-23", 0.35], ["2016-11-30", 0.359], ["2016-12-01", 0.359], ["2016-12-20", 0.363], ["2016-12-20", 0.363], ["2016-12-21", 0.363], ["2016-12-29", 0.365], ["2017-01-01", 0.365], ["2017-01-01", 0.374], ["2017-02-05", 0.37], ["2017-03-03", 0.374], ["2017-04-21", 0.374], ["2017-04-21", 0.374], ["2017-05-12", 0.374], ["2017-05-14", 0.371], ["2017-05-25", 0.371], ["2017-05-28", 0.368], ["2017-06-09", 0.368], ["2017-06-12", 0.366], ["2017-07-08", 0.366], ["2017-07-08", 0.365], ["2017-07-11", 0.365], ["2017-07-13", 0.363], ["2017-07-20", 0.362], ["2017-07-29", 0.362], ["2017-08-04", 0.361], ["2017-08-04", 0.355], ["2017-08-06", 0.353], ["2017-08-07", 0.351], ["2017-08-08", 0.351], ["2017-08-10", 0.347], ["2017-08-10", 0.344], ["2017-08-12", 0.341], ["2017-08-27", 0.338], ["2017-08-29", 0.338], ["2017-08-30", 0.331], ["2017-09-04", 0.331], ["2017-09-06", 0.338], ["2017-09-07", 0.336], ["2017-09-11", 0.332], ["2017-10-04", 0.332], ["2017-10-07", 0.325], ["2017-10-23", 0.326], ["2017-11-15", 0.324], ["2017-11-15", 0.323], ["2017-11-16", 0.321], ["2017-11-24", 0.32], ["2017-11-29", 0.32], ["2017-12-03", 0.319], ["2017-12-13", 0.321], ["2017-12-18", 0.321], ["2017-12-20", 0.317], ["2017-12-21", 0.317], ["2017-12-22", 0.311], ["2017-12-23", 0.31], ["2017-12-27", 0.308], ["2017-12-31", 0.307], ["2017-12-31", 0.307]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/248/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | The potential for the deliberate release of a human pathogens for purposes of war or terrorism is well known. Here we look at one of the precursors to such a release.
In the US, medical research on potentially human-harmful viral and bacterial pathogen and other "select agents" generally takes place in Biosafety level 3 and level 4 labs.
The US select agents program regulates the identification, acquisition, use, transfer, and disposal of select agents. Certain labs are designated as "select agent labs" and are part of this program (though apparently even the CDC is not entirely clear which labs are in the program; see the rather disturbing investigative report by USA today.)
A significant concern is theft of these select agents, which could potentially be used in a bioterror attack or as raw materials for a more sophisticated attack.
By 2020 will a credible journalist or government source disclose that a viable sample of a Select Agent has been stolen from a (or during transport to/from) a US Select Agent lab?
Here we will leave a relatively low burden-of-proof as to whether a lab is a designated Select Agent lab, and assume that a reasonably sophisticated university, government or industry lab doing research with Select Agents is such a lab. (Note that it is entirely unclear whether such a theft, if it occurred, would be reported or disclosed; we shall include theft events up to two years prior to question launch as long as no public disclosure has taken place prior to question launch.) | true | 2018-01-01 | Pandemic series: reported theft of a potential bioterror agent in US by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-01-11 | 2016-06-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.68], ["2016-06-15", 0.532], ["2016-06-15", 0.543], ["2016-06-16", 0.511], ["2016-06-16", 0.51], ["2016-06-16", 0.474], ["2016-06-16", 0.463], ["2016-06-17", 0.443], ["2016-06-20", 0.448], ["2016-06-20", 0.441], ["2016-06-21", 0.459], ["2016-06-21", 0.448], ["2016-06-23", 0.436], ["2016-06-24", 0.422], ["2016-06-28", 0.44], ["2016-06-30", 0.429], ["2016-06-30", 0.436], ["2016-07-23", 0.448], ["2016-07-26", 0.455], ["2016-07-27", 0.463], ["2016-07-27", 0.472], ["2016-07-27", 0.464], ["2016-07-29", 0.464], ["2016-08-02", 0.462], ["2016-08-04", 0.463], ["2016-08-06", 0.48], ["2016-08-07", 0.466], ["2016-08-11", 0.47], ["2016-08-13", 0.475], ["2016-08-14", 0.479], ["2016-08-16", 0.472], ["2016-08-17", 0.478], ["2016-08-17", 0.476], ["2016-08-22", 0.487], ["2016-08-28", 0.489], ["2016-09-02", 0.489], ["2016-09-05", 0.487], ["2016-09-12", 0.487], ["2016-09-13", 0.486], ["2016-09-15", 0.475], ["2016-09-15", 0.481], ["2016-09-16", 0.477], ["2016-09-16", 0.472], ["2016-09-17", 0.473], ["2016-09-17", 0.475], ["2016-09-18", 0.461], ["2016-09-19", 0.46], ["2016-09-21", 0.47], ["2016-09-26", 0.475], ["2016-09-29", 0.475], ["2016-09-29", 0.46], ["2016-10-02", 0.46], ["2016-10-03", 0.476], ["2016-10-05", 0.48], ["2016-10-07", 0.478], ["2016-10-07", 0.472], ["2016-10-18", 0.471], ["2016-10-20", 0.463], ["2016-10-22", 0.472], ["2016-10-22", 0.469], ["2016-10-24", 0.458], ["2016-10-24", 0.458], ["2016-11-05", 0.453], ["2016-11-23", 0.453], ["2016-11-29", 0.449], ["2016-12-21", 0.449], ["2016-12-21", 0.446], ["2017-01-01", 0.449], ["2017-02-14", 0.449], ["2017-03-04", 0.452], ["2017-03-05", 0.446], ["2017-03-05", 0.446], ["2017-03-06", 0.445], ["2017-03-09", 0.439], ["2017-03-10", 0.439], ["2017-03-10", 0.439], ["2017-03-11", 0.436], ["2017-03-28", 0.435], ["2017-03-30", 0.434], ["2017-03-30", 0.436], ["2017-05-03", 0.436], ["2017-05-06", 0.43], ["2017-05-06", 0.429], ["2017-05-12", 0.429], ["2017-05-13", 0.427], ["2017-05-14", 0.427], ["2017-05-18", 0.427], ["2017-05-18", 0.426], ["2017-05-18", 0.426], ["2017-05-20", 0.424], ["2017-05-28", 0.424], ["2017-05-28", 0.42], ["2017-06-01", 0.42], ["2017-06-02", 0.421], ["2017-06-02", 0.42], ["2017-06-05", 0.419], ["2017-06-11", 0.416], ["2017-06-13", 0.416], ["2017-06-14", 0.407], ["2017-06-14", 0.407], ["2017-06-14", 0.395]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/250/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Like nuclear terrorism, bioterror presents possibility of an attack orders of magnitude larger than those using conventional means (or even unconventional but direct physical attacks such as the 9/11 attacks.)
We've rather luckily avoided bioterror attacks in the past, which have primarily been attempted using anthrax, a deadly but non-communicable pathogen. Attacks in the US in 2001 were successful but small-scale. (It has been asserted but not proved by the US government that these were carried out by a microbiologist and biodefense researcher.) A large-scale attempt in Tokyo by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in 1993 might have been disastrous, but it appears that the cult accidentally used an attenuated vaccinating strain and inadvertently but fortunately immunized rather than killed a large number of Tokyo's citizens with anthrax.
A terror group combining the resources of the Aum Shinrikyo cult with professional-level expertise and viable samples of bioterror agents could lead to truly terrifying results. A number of pathogens and biologically-created toxins have been evaluated for use as bioweapons (see this publications for a list and some background.) Some of these agents, as well as some others, have been more highly weaponized in previous bio-warfare programs of which the Soviet Union's was a prime example.
By 2019 will a credible journalist or government source report that a designated terror group has acquired a viable sample of any of the viral or bacterial agents listed in Table 1 of this publication or this list or obtained any of the weaponized agents from this listing, or created/obtained a usable supply of any of the toxins listed in the former table.
A viable sample would be one that could be used to generate more of the pathogen in the lab (e.g. with Anthrax) or could provide human-to-human transmission (e.g. for Smallpox). For positive resolution, the report must take place after question opening time, and the acquisition must take place at a time reasonable inferred to be not earlier than one year prior to opening time.
Update 6/27: added an additional list of potential agents. | true | 2017-06-15 | Pandemic series: will a terrorist group reportedly obtain viable bioweapon sample? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-12-27 | 2016-06-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.4], ["2016-06-17", 0.376], ["2016-06-20", 0.384], ["2016-06-23", 0.397], ["2016-06-27", 0.385], ["2016-06-30", 0.372], ["2016-07-07", 0.372], ["2016-07-13", 0.365], ["2016-07-23", 0.355], ["2016-07-26", 0.36], ["2016-07-28", 0.34], ["2016-07-30", 0.339], ["2016-08-03", 0.371], ["2016-08-06", 0.366], ["2016-08-10", 0.373], ["2016-08-13", 0.377], ["2016-08-19", 0.379], ["2016-09-04", 0.376], ["2016-09-05", 0.374], ["2016-09-12", 0.374], ["2016-09-15", 0.372], ["2016-09-16", 0.368], ["2016-09-19", 0.348], ["2016-09-21", 0.349], ["2016-09-28", 0.346], ["2016-09-30", 0.334], ["2016-10-06", 0.336], ["2016-10-24", 0.322], ["2016-12-15", 0.322], ["2016-12-21", 0.322], ["2017-01-01", 0.336], ["2017-02-09", 0.333], ["2017-05-01", 0.328], ["2017-05-14", 0.328], ["2017-05-31", 0.339], ["2017-06-03", 0.349], ["2017-06-05", 0.345], ["2017-07-01", 0.338], ["2017-07-01", 0.338], ["2017-07-11", 0.338], ["2017-07-14", 0.328], ["2017-07-26", 0.329], ["2017-07-28", 0.327], ["2017-08-04", 0.327], ["2017-08-08", 0.324], ["2017-08-10", 0.326], ["2017-08-12", 0.32], ["2017-08-19", 0.32], ["2017-08-27", 0.317], ["2017-09-03", 0.314], ["2017-09-14", 0.31], ["2017-10-02", 0.307], ["2017-10-07", 0.307], ["2017-10-21", 0.303], ["2017-10-23", 0.3], ["2017-10-25", 0.299], ["2017-11-17", 0.296], ["2017-11-20", 0.297], ["2018-01-05", 0.297], ["2018-01-09", 0.297], ["2018-01-12", 0.294], ["2018-01-15", 0.274], ["2018-01-19", 0.267], ["2018-01-22", 0.267], ["2018-01-26", 0.256], ["2018-02-13", 0.254], ["2018-02-16", 0.252], ["2018-02-19", 0.252], ["2018-02-22", 0.252], ["2018-03-02", 0.251], ["2018-03-03", 0.249], ["2018-03-08", 0.249], ["2018-03-10", 0.246], ["2018-03-13", 0.246], ["2018-03-17", 0.246], ["2018-03-24", 0.244], ["2018-03-24", 0.244], ["2018-03-30", 0.24], ["2018-04-03", 0.24], ["2018-04-05", 0.238], ["2018-04-08", 0.238], ["2018-04-10", 0.238], ["2018-04-13", 0.238], ["2018-04-17", 0.237], ["2018-04-19", 0.237], ["2018-04-22", 0.234], ["2018-04-27", 0.231], ["2018-04-30", 0.229], ["2018-05-05", 0.23], ["2018-05-10", 0.23], ["2018-05-13", 0.226], ["2018-05-15", 0.225], ["2018-05-18", 0.22], ["2018-05-20", 0.22], ["2018-05-23", 0.219], ["2018-05-27", 0.219], ["2018-05-30", 0.215], ["2018-06-03", 0.213], ["2018-06-06", 0.21], ["2018-06-10", 0.206], ["2018-06-14", 0.199]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/251/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Although the intended target of biological weapons of war or terror is generally human, there is a history of development of bioweapons against agricultural crops or livestock going back up to a century. See This comprehensive article. As a particularly scary example, part of the Soviet Union's extensive bioweapons program was a secret division code-named "ecology" that targeted livestock by developing variants of foot-and-mouth, rinderpest, swine fever, and psittacosis to infect cows, pigs, and chickens.
The scale and effect of such attacks could easily increase in the future. As for human pathogens, agricultural or livestock-oriented pathogens might be improved by selective "breeding" or by genetic engineering (and without quite as much danger to the human scientists!) Moreover, many of todays crops and livestock are monocultures or clones with very little genetic diversity, raising the concern that a single pathogen could spread unchecked and potentially destroy an entire industry. (See for example the past and future of the banana.) Finally, modern factory farming and high-intensity agriculture make an ideal environment for a quickly spreading pathogen.
With this in mind:
By 2020 will a credible journalist or government source report that a non-human pathogen (affecting livestock or crops but not humans) has been deliberately released by a designated terror group?
For positive resolution, the report must take place after question opening time, and the release must take place at a time reasonable inferred to be not earlier than one year prior to opening time. | true | 2018-06-15 | Pandemic series: a bioterror attack against crops or livestock by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-06-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-09", 0.18], ["2016-06-09", 0.336], ["2016-06-09", 0.289], ["2016-06-09", 0.27], ["2016-06-10", 0.273], ["2016-06-10", 0.264], ["2016-06-11", 0.271], ["2016-06-11", 0.263], ["2016-06-13", 0.249], ["2016-06-16", 0.254], ["2016-06-17", 0.245], ["2016-06-19", 0.237], ["2016-06-19", 0.237], ["2016-06-20", 0.239], ["2016-06-24", 0.243], ["2016-06-29", 0.238], ["2016-06-30", 0.242], ["2016-06-30", 0.243], ["2016-07-08", 0.234], ["2016-07-08", 0.233], ["2016-07-21", 0.23], ["2016-07-23", 0.226], ["2016-07-23", 0.221], ["2016-07-24", 0.216], ["2016-07-26", 0.234], ["2016-07-26", 0.236], ["2016-07-26", 0.236], ["2016-07-26", 0.244], ["2016-07-28", 0.241], ["2016-07-28", 0.241], ["2016-07-28", 0.256], ["2016-07-29", 0.254], ["2016-07-29", 0.248], ["2016-07-30", 0.258], ["2016-07-31", 0.27], ["2016-08-01", 0.272], ["2016-08-01", 0.272], ["2016-08-03", 0.289], ["2016-08-04", 0.284], ["2016-08-04", 0.287], ["2016-08-05", 0.284], ["2016-08-07", 0.278], ["2016-08-07", 0.286], ["2016-08-09", 0.28], ["2016-08-10", 0.283], ["2016-08-12", 0.283], ["2016-08-13", 0.283], ["2016-08-15", 0.288], ["2016-08-17", 0.292], ["2016-08-19", 0.29], ["2016-08-25", 0.291], ["2016-08-30", 0.286], ["2016-09-02", 0.281], ["2016-09-05", 0.279], ["2016-09-05", 0.276], ["2016-09-06", 0.272], ["2016-09-12", 0.272], ["2016-09-12", 0.257], ["2016-09-13", 0.258], ["2016-09-13", 0.256], ["2016-09-13", 0.255], ["2016-09-14", 0.252], ["2016-09-14", 0.249], ["2016-09-15", 0.257], ["2016-09-15", 0.259], ["2016-09-15", 0.255], ["2016-09-16", 0.251], ["2016-09-16", 0.259], ["2016-09-16", 0.26], ["2016-09-17", 0.259], ["2016-09-17", 0.263], ["2016-09-17", 0.266], ["2016-09-18", 0.27], ["2016-09-18", 0.278], ["2016-09-18", 0.28], ["2016-09-18", 0.284], ["2016-09-18", 0.284], ["2016-09-18", 0.285], ["2016-09-19", 0.286], ["2016-09-19", 0.285], ["2016-09-20", 0.292], ["2016-09-21", 0.288], ["2016-09-21", 0.297], ["2016-09-26", 0.299], ["2016-09-27", 0.298], ["2016-09-27", 0.297], ["2016-09-27", 0.297], ["2016-09-28", 0.294], ["2016-09-28", 0.291], ["2016-09-28", 0.287], ["2016-09-28", 0.287], ["2016-09-29", 0.287], ["2016-09-29", 0.287], ["2016-09-29", 0.286], ["2016-09-29", 0.295], ["2016-09-29", 0.304], ["2016-09-29", 0.301], ["2016-09-30", 0.299], ["2016-09-30", 0.299], ["2016-09-30", 0.3], ["2016-09-30", 0.301]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/252/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In Janurary 2016 Physical Review Letters published a paper by a Hungarian research group reporting anomalous results in the decays of excited beryllium-8 atoms. A careful analysis posted in an April paper suggests that this anomaly is consistent with the existence of a hitherto unknown light (17 MeV) vector boson.
Since April, interest in this potential new physics has grown, though it is tempered by concern about the experimental group and its previous work; see this story for a nice summary.
As discussed in this story, several ongoing or proposed experiments may be able to independently test the possibility of a new vector boson in this mass range in the next year or two, and it is possible that another team could independently reproduce the original nuclear physics experiment. So we ask:
By beginning of 2019, will an independent group publish or post to the archive a paper adducing additional experimental evidence for a new vector boson in the mass range of 10-50 MeV?
By independent, we mean that the paper will not share authors with either the PRL experimental paper or the Feng et al. theoretical paper; by "adduce experimental evidence" we will include both new experiments providing evidence at > 3-sigma or equivalent, or a new theoretical analysis of data other than that of the Hungarian group providing at least 4-sigma or equivalent evidence. | true | 2016-10-01 | Will possible evidence for a new light particle be independently confirmed? | metaculus | 0 |
2020-01-04 | 2016-06-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.91], ["2016-06-15", 0.95], ["2016-06-15", 0.793], ["2016-06-15", 0.607], ["2016-06-15", 0.584], ["2016-06-15", 0.553], ["2016-06-15", 0.51], ["2016-06-16", 0.507], ["2016-06-16", 0.496], ["2016-06-16", 0.476], ["2016-06-16", 0.455], ["2016-06-17", 0.446], ["2016-06-19", 0.435], ["2016-06-20", 0.424], ["2016-06-21", 0.412], ["2016-06-23", 0.41], ["2016-06-23", 0.404], ["2016-06-24", 0.398], ["2016-06-29", 0.393], ["2016-06-29", 0.382], ["2016-06-29", 0.378], ["2016-06-30", 0.377], ["2016-06-30", 0.368], ["2016-06-30", 0.37], ["2016-06-30", 0.37], ["2016-07-23", 0.382], ["2016-07-26", 0.367], ["2016-07-26", 0.356], ["2016-07-26", 0.347], ["2016-07-26", 0.343], ["2016-07-27", 0.342], ["2016-07-27", 0.332], ["2016-07-27", 0.327], ["2016-07-31", 0.327], ["2016-07-31", 0.324], ["2016-08-01", 0.326], ["2016-08-03", 0.337], ["2016-08-06", 0.328], ["2016-08-10", 0.32], ["2016-08-13", 0.322], ["2016-08-27", 0.327], ["2016-08-28", 0.33], ["2016-08-28", 0.337], ["2016-08-30", 0.33], ["2016-09-01", 0.324], ["2016-09-12", 0.325], ["2016-09-14", 0.337], ["2016-09-15", 0.335], ["2016-09-16", 0.329], ["2016-09-16", 0.335], ["2016-09-16", 0.328], ["2016-09-17", 0.326], ["2016-09-18", 0.327], ["2016-09-18", 0.333], ["2016-09-18", 0.336], ["2016-09-18", 0.329], ["2016-09-19", 0.329], ["2016-09-19", 0.33], ["2016-09-21", 0.333], ["2016-09-21", 0.327], ["2016-09-27", 0.336], ["2016-09-28", 0.348], ["2016-09-29", 0.348], ["2016-09-29", 0.348], ["2016-09-29", 0.336], ["2016-10-01", 0.33], ["2016-10-07", 0.326], ["2016-10-13", 0.332], ["2016-10-19", 0.329], ["2016-10-20", 0.339], ["2016-10-23", 0.345], ["2016-10-24", 0.334], ["2016-10-24", 0.334], ["2016-10-27", 0.333], ["2016-11-05", 0.338], ["2016-12-07", 0.341], ["2016-12-21", 0.341], ["2016-12-31", 0.342], ["2017-01-01", 0.345], ["2017-01-01", 0.34], ["2017-01-24", 0.339], ["2017-03-21", 0.338], ["2017-05-03", 0.338], ["2017-05-13", 0.336], ["2017-05-14", 0.336], ["2017-05-18", 0.336], ["2017-05-20", 0.339], ["2017-06-01", 0.339], ["2017-06-03", 0.338], ["2017-06-12", 0.334], ["2017-06-12", 0.334], ["2017-06-14", 0.338], ["2017-06-14", 0.338], ["2017-06-14", 0.336], ["2017-06-14", 0.335]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/253/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Given the dramatic advances in our ability to understand and modify the genome of organisms, the idea of a pathogen that has been genetically engineered (rather than artificially selected) to increase its virulence, transmissibility, or scope of effect is a rapidly growing concern.
As discussed in this question, researchers have successfully "upgraded" H5N1 to be airborne, using techniques that could also be applied to MERS and SARs — all pathogens with high virulence but low transmissibility. One could also imagine increasing the virulence of highly-transmissible flus or other illnesses. Techniques used by these groups have been published and are thus available to other researchers with sufficient expertise.
Bioweapons research on large scales is outlawed by the Bioweapons Convention, but this did not prevent the Soviets from following a massive program into the 1980s and perhaps 1990s, and it is quite possible that clandestine programs exist today using more modern techniques.
Genetic engineering also opens up possibilities that do not exist in nature or earlier research efforts. For example, pathogens could be engineered to attack people with genetic markers strongly correlated with particular races or types of ancestry (as so-called "ethnic bioweapon"). An agent might even target an individual person's genome.
As these techniques grow more powerful and accessible, we ask how likely is such an attack, which would combine ability to genetically engineer pathogens with intent to cause harm (or at least act without consent):
By 2020 will a human be deliberately infected (without their consent) by a pathogenic virus genetically engineered to increase its virulence, transmissibility, or scope of effect?
The question resolves as positive whether or not the attack is successful, but should be termed an attack: deliberate and unfriendly. Resolution is by report from a credible media, government or other source. | true | 2017-06-15 | Pandemic series: attack using a genetically engineered virus by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-05-16 | 2016-06-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.34], ["2016-06-15", 0.665], ["2016-06-15", 0.703], ["2016-06-15", 0.65], ["2016-06-15", 0.638], ["2016-06-15", 0.632], ["2016-06-15", 0.613], ["2016-06-16", 0.604], ["2016-06-16", 0.592], ["2016-06-16", 0.593], ["2016-06-16", 0.584], ["2016-06-17", 0.577], ["2016-06-20", 0.553], ["2016-06-21", 0.599], ["2016-06-23", 0.585], ["2016-06-24", 0.584], ["2016-06-30", 0.579], ["2016-06-30", 0.58], ["2016-06-30", 0.576], ["2016-07-23", 0.579], ["2016-07-26", 0.569], ["2016-07-26", 0.555], ["2016-07-26", 0.553], ["2016-07-26", 0.557], ["2016-07-27", 0.559], ["2016-07-28", 0.559], ["2016-08-03", 0.557], ["2016-08-06", 0.557], ["2016-08-07", 0.537], ["2016-08-13", 0.534], ["2016-08-28", 0.536], ["2016-08-28", 0.538], ["2016-09-02", 0.548], ["2016-09-03", 0.536], ["2016-09-05", 0.532], ["2016-09-13", 0.531], ["2016-09-15", 0.538], ["2016-09-15", 0.523], ["2016-09-16", 0.526], ["2016-09-17", 0.526], ["2016-09-20", 0.515], ["2016-09-21", 0.515], ["2016-09-29", 0.515], ["2016-09-29", 0.506], ["2016-10-01", 0.507], ["2016-10-06", 0.506], ["2016-10-12", 0.506], ["2016-10-24", 0.506], ["2016-10-24", 0.51], ["2016-10-24", 0.495], ["2016-10-24", 0.498], ["2016-10-25", 0.498], ["2016-10-25", 0.498], ["2016-10-25", 0.498], ["2016-10-25", 0.498], ["2016-10-25", 0.498], ["2016-11-24", 0.498], ["2016-12-21", 0.498], ["2017-01-01", 0.494], ["2017-01-03", 0.496], ["2017-01-04", 0.496], ["2017-01-31", 0.496], ["2017-01-31", 0.5], ["2017-01-31", 0.5], ["2017-02-14", 0.5], ["2017-02-18", 0.498], ["2017-02-21", 0.498], ["2017-02-23", 0.5], ["2017-02-23", 0.5], ["2017-02-23", 0.502], ["2017-02-23", 0.5], ["2017-02-27", 0.5], ["2017-02-27", 0.501], ["2017-02-28", 0.501]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/256/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | In an effort to better understand the pathways by which H5N1 (and other flue), MERS, SARS, etc., may become more dangerous, several research groups have begun to deliberately engineer viruses to increase their virulence, transmissibility, or other qualities.
This "gain of function" (GoF) research may help prepare use for naturally-occuring variants of these diseases and enhance our ability to generate better vaccines, etc. However, there are obvious potential dangers as well: an accidental release, or deliberate theft of such organisms could create a potential pandemic; even the information published about such efforts could increase the probability of bioterror or bioerror events.
In October 2014, the White House issued a funding pause on such experiments involving influenza and coronaviruses, partly in response to a statement by the Cambridge Working Group that called for a curtailment of experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens in the laboratory, pending a risk and benefit assessment. The White House charged the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB) with commissioning such a report.
After the completion of this report and several high-level meetings, the NSABB composed a set of recommendations; see the draft report here.
These recommendations do not call for a moratorium on the funding of any particular types of research, but for various levels of additional oversight in the funding of "gain of function research of concern," (GoFRoC) which they define as a subset of GoF research that is
highly transmissible and likely capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in human populations; and
highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans.
The report calls for "additional, multidisciplinary review, prior to determining whether they are acceptable for funding. If funded, such projects should be subject to ongoing oversight at the Federal and institutional levels" and calls for "An external advisory body that is designed for transparency and public engagement should be utilized as part of the U.S. government’s ongoing evaluation of oversight policies for GOF research of concern."
Many elements of this whole issue (and see here for a good summary) could form the basis of questions. Here we focus on the bottom line:
By the end of 2018 will US federal funding go to 2 or more research projects performing GOF research of concern?
Resolution is positive if two of more distinct federal grants have been fully approved that fund GoFRoC research, i.e. have been identified in review as this type of research, received (we can hope) additional levels of scrutiny, and received approval. This may be identified by media report, by presence in an accessible research grant database, or other credible source. | true | 2017-03-01 | Pandemic series: federal funding of "gain of function research of concern" in 2016-18? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-14 | 2016-06-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-15", 0.68], ["2016-06-15", 0.835], ["2016-06-15", 0.71], ["2016-06-15", 0.695], ["2016-06-15", 0.654], ["2016-06-15", 0.645], ["2016-06-15", 0.624], ["2016-06-16", 0.614], ["2016-06-16", 0.612], ["2016-06-16", 0.616], ["2016-06-16", 0.605], ["2016-06-17", 0.588], ["2016-06-19", 0.576], ["2016-06-20", 0.577], ["2016-06-21", 0.598], ["2016-06-21", 0.601], ["2016-06-23", 0.596], ["2016-06-23", 0.598], ["2016-06-30", 0.607], ["2016-06-30", 0.606], ["2016-06-30", 0.604], ["2016-07-23", 0.615], ["2016-07-26", 0.603], ["2016-07-26", 0.601], ["2016-07-26", 0.606], ["2016-07-28", 0.614], ["2016-08-01", 0.6], ["2016-08-07", 0.578], ["2016-08-08", 0.571], ["2016-08-13", 0.569], ["2016-08-15", 0.573], ["2016-08-16", 0.576], ["2016-08-19", 0.574], ["2016-09-05", 0.572], ["2016-09-12", 0.572], ["2016-09-15", 0.555], ["2016-09-16", 0.561], ["2016-09-16", 0.556], ["2016-09-16", 0.546], ["2016-09-17", 0.552], ["2016-09-17", 0.538], ["2016-09-17", 0.531], ["2016-09-18", 0.53], ["2016-09-19", 0.529], ["2016-09-21", 0.529], ["2016-09-26", 0.53], ["2016-09-26", 0.529], ["2016-09-29", 0.531], ["2016-09-29", 0.531], ["2016-09-29", 0.522], ["2016-10-01", 0.513], ["2016-10-24", 0.513], ["2016-10-24", 0.506], ["2016-12-07", 0.503], ["2016-12-21", 0.503], ["2016-12-31", 0.492], ["2017-01-01", 0.491], ["2017-01-01", 0.484], ["2017-02-22", 0.484], ["2017-02-23", 0.488], ["2017-02-27", 0.487], ["2017-03-10", 0.487], ["2017-03-10", 0.48], ["2017-03-20", 0.478], ["2017-03-27", 0.478], ["2017-05-12", 0.478], ["2017-05-13", 0.473], ["2017-05-14", 0.472], ["2017-05-18", 0.472], ["2017-05-18", 0.468], ["2017-05-18", 0.468], ["2017-05-25", 0.461], ["2017-06-01", 0.46], ["2017-06-01", 0.458], ["2017-06-04", 0.454], ["2017-06-07", 0.454], ["2017-06-09", 0.45], ["2017-06-12", 0.45], ["2017-06-14", 0.443], ["2017-06-14", 0.443], ["2017-06-14", 0.44], ["2017-06-14", 0.44]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/257/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Education & Research | Published research on pathogens is overwhelmingly aimed at preventing the creation and spreading of disease. (Bioweapons programs, if they exist despite international treaty, are secret and/or classified.)
Nonetheless, some research and research publication have encountered criticism for potentially increasing the risk of accidental pandemic, or deliberate bioweapon attack. In a prominent example, in 2012 a Dutch research group published a description of a lab-modified strain of H5N1 influenza virus capable of airborne transmission between ferrets. This came after intense controversy including a recommendation-then-reversal by the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) that the research not be published. See here for summary and an update on the story.
Gain-of-function research of the type described in these publications has been under a funding moratorium in the US since 2014; however as detailed in a separate question, the research may be "allowed" in some cases in the US, and can continue elsewhere or using alternative funding.
This raises questions about the publication of such information, and the responsibility of journals (if any) in deciding whether it should be published. We ask:
By 2018 will an event occur in which a credible media source reports that a major medical journal has declined to publish an otherwise-publishable scientific paper on human pathogens due to concerns that it constitutes an information hazard?
We will consider any journal in this top 100 list to be a major medical journal. The question resolves as positive even if the paper is published after resubmission to a second (or third...) journal, as long as it is rejected for information-hazard rather than research quality reasons. The rejection may be at the journal's discretion or by request (or requirement) from an external party. | true | 2017-06-15 | Pandemic series: pathogen research rejected for publication as an information hazard? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-09-20 | 2016-06-13 | [] | binary | [["2019-01-12", 0.16], ["2019-01-12", 0.28], ["2019-01-12", 0.302], ["2019-01-12", 0.262], ["2019-01-12", 0.262], ["2019-01-12", 0.277], ["2019-01-12", 0.284], ["2019-01-12", 0.329], ["2019-01-13", 0.364], ["2019-01-13", 0.364], ["2019-01-14", 0.368], ["2019-01-14", 0.353], ["2019-01-14", 0.342], ["2019-01-16", 0.335], ["2019-01-21", 0.319], ["2019-01-21", 0.306], ["2019-01-30", 0.288], ["2019-01-31", 0.288], ["2019-01-31", 0.294], ["2019-01-31", 0.3], ["2019-02-03", 0.3], ["2019-02-09", 0.288], ["2019-02-15", 0.283], ["2019-02-15", 0.285], ["2019-02-15", 0.29], ["2019-02-15", 0.292], ["2019-02-15", 0.292], ["2019-02-16", 0.287], ["2019-02-16", 0.287], ["2019-02-16", 0.281], ["2019-02-16", 0.277], ["2019-02-21", 0.277], ["2019-02-26", 0.277], ["2019-03-03", 0.277], ["2019-03-04", 0.279], ["2019-03-04", 0.279], ["2019-04-09", 0.271], ["2019-04-12", 0.271], ["2019-05-27", 0.277], ["2019-05-31", 0.277], ["2019-06-18", 0.276], ["2019-07-04", 0.276], ["2019-07-13", 0.287], ["2019-07-13", 0.287], ["2019-07-14", 0.286], ["2019-07-20", 0.281], ["2019-07-28", 0.28], ["2019-07-31", 0.28], ["2019-08-08", 0.277], ["2019-08-08", 0.277], ["2019-08-15", 0.277], ["2019-08-16", 0.277], ["2019-08-18", 0.275], ["2019-08-22", 0.278], ["2019-09-03", 0.279], ["2019-09-17", 0.279], ["2019-10-22", 0.273], ["2019-11-07", 0.276], ["2019-11-08", 0.276], ["2019-11-18", 0.276], ["2019-11-24", 0.275], ["2019-11-25", 0.271], ["2019-11-27", 0.271], ["2019-11-27", 0.273], ["2019-11-27", 0.274], ["2019-11-27", 0.274], ["2019-11-28", 0.274], ["2019-11-28", 0.274], ["2019-11-29", 0.274], ["2019-11-30", 0.274], ["2019-11-30", 0.273], ["2019-11-30", 0.272], ["2019-11-30", 0.268], ["2019-11-30", 0.27]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/1687/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Published research on pathogens is overwhelmingly aimed at preventing the creation and spreading of disease. (Bioweapons programs, if they exist despite international treaty, are secret and/or classified.)
Nonetheless, some research and research publication have encountered criticism for potentially increasing the risk of accidental pandemic, or deliberate bioweapon attack. In a prominent example, in 2012 a Dutch research group published a description of a lab-modified strain of H5N1 influenza virus capable of airborne transmission between ferrets. This came after intense controversy including a recommendation-then-reversal by the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) that the research not be published. See here for summary and an update on the story.
Gain-of-function research of the type described in these publications has been under a funding moratorium in the US since 2014; however as detailed in a separate question, the research may be "allowed" in some cases in the US, and can continue elsewhere or using alternative funding.
This raises questions about the publication of such information, and the responsibility of journals (if any) in deciding whether it should be published. Following up to a previous question from 2016, which resolved negatively, we again ask:
By Jan 1, 2021 will an event occur in which a credible media source reports that a major medical journal has declined to publish an otherwise-publishable scientific paper on human pathogens due to concerns that it constitutes an information hazard?
We will consider any journal in this top 100 list to be a major medical journal. The question resolves as positive even if the paper is published after resubmission to a second (or third...) journal, as long as it is rejected for information-hazard rather than research quality reasons. The rejection may be at the journal's discretion or by request (or requirement) from an external party. | true | 2019-12-01 | Pathogen research rejected for publication as an information hazard by 2021? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-24 | 2016-06-16 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-19", 0.33], ["2016-06-19", 0.335], ["2016-06-19", 0.357], ["2016-06-19", 0.33], ["2016-06-19", 0.342], ["2016-06-19", 0.335], ["2016-06-20", 0.289], ["2016-06-20", 0.346], ["2016-06-20", 0.341], ["2016-06-20", 0.274], ["2016-06-20", 0.274], ["2016-06-20", 0.294], ["2016-06-20", 0.294], ["2016-06-20", 0.299], ["2016-06-20", 0.308], ["2016-06-20", 0.308], ["2016-06-20", 0.295], ["2016-06-20", 0.304], ["2016-06-20", 0.302], ["2016-06-20", 0.302], ["2016-06-20", 0.317], ["2016-06-20", 0.308], ["2016-06-20", 0.319], ["2016-06-20", 0.319], ["2016-06-20", 0.318], ["2016-06-20", 0.318], ["2016-06-20", 0.318], ["2016-06-20", 0.318], ["2016-06-20", 0.322], ["2016-06-20", 0.321], ["2016-06-20", 0.325], ["2016-06-20", 0.325], ["2016-06-20", 0.335], ["2016-06-20", 0.338], ["2016-06-20", 0.338], ["2016-06-20", 0.338], ["2016-06-20", 0.338], ["2016-06-20", 0.338], ["2016-06-20", 0.337], ["2016-06-20", 0.339], ["2016-06-20", 0.343], ["2016-06-20", 0.34], ["2016-06-20", 0.328], ["2016-06-20", 0.331], ["2016-06-20", 0.331], ["2016-06-20", 0.334], ["2016-06-20", 0.333], ["2016-06-20", 0.328], ["2016-06-20", 0.33], ["2016-06-20", 0.327], ["2016-06-20", 0.323], ["2016-06-21", 0.314], ["2016-06-21", 0.335], ["2016-06-21", 0.336], ["2016-06-21", 0.336], ["2016-06-21", 0.336], ["2016-06-21", 0.339], ["2016-06-21", 0.339], ["2016-06-21", 0.339], ["2016-06-21", 0.339], ["2016-06-21", 0.338], ["2016-06-21", 0.338], ["2016-06-21", 0.332], ["2016-06-21", 0.331], ["2016-06-21", 0.333], ["2016-06-21", 0.331], ["2016-06-21", 0.331], ["2016-06-22", 0.331], ["2016-06-22", 0.332], ["2016-06-22", 0.332], ["2016-06-22", 0.326], ["2016-06-22", 0.326], ["2016-06-22", 0.326], ["2016-06-22", 0.325], ["2016-06-22", 0.322], ["2016-06-22", 0.319], ["2016-06-22", 0.321], ["2016-06-23", 0.323], ["2016-06-23", 0.32], ["2016-06-23", 0.318], ["2016-06-23", 0.314], ["2016-06-23", 0.316], ["2016-06-23", 0.316], ["2016-06-23", 0.316], ["2016-06-23", 0.314], ["2016-06-23", 0.313], ["2016-06-23", 0.316], ["2016-06-23", 0.316]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/258/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | After getting some interesting results from our first "Metaknowledge" experiment, we're running another, this time on Brexit.
As briefly summarized by the by the BBC here, on June 23 there will be a referendum in the UK as to whether the UK will remain part of the EU.
The referendum will be decided by a straight majority vote of UK voters, and the results announced at some point after polls close on the 23rd.
In this "Part A" of the metaknowledge experiment, we ask in the standard way:
With what probability will the UK vote to leave the EU (i.e. "yes" on Brexit)?
In part B we ask you to predict what other predictors are currently predicting; you're encouraged to answer both to make the experiment more illuminating. | true | 2016-06-23 | Metaknowledge Experiment Part A: Will the UK vote for Brexit? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-07-23 | 2016-06-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-17", 0.53], ["2016-06-17", 0.6], ["2016-06-17", 0.49], ["2016-06-17", 0.443], ["2016-06-17", 0.408], ["2016-06-17", 0.376], ["2016-06-17", 0.355], ["2016-06-17", 0.326], ["2016-06-17", 0.316], ["2016-06-18", 0.324], ["2016-06-18", 0.313], ["2016-06-18", 0.31], ["2016-06-18", 0.317], ["2016-06-19", 0.308], ["2016-06-20", 0.304], ["2016-06-20", 0.308], ["2016-06-20", 0.301], ["2016-06-20", 0.305], ["2016-06-20", 0.309], ["2016-06-20", 0.287], ["2016-06-21", 0.292], ["2016-06-21", 0.276], ["2016-06-22", 0.278], ["2016-06-22", 0.275], ["2016-06-22", 0.297], ["2016-06-24", 0.295], ["2016-06-24", 0.291], ["2016-06-24", 0.287], ["2016-06-25", 0.28], ["2016-06-26", 0.258], ["2016-06-26", 0.252], ["2016-06-28", 0.259], ["2016-06-28", 0.253], ["2016-06-28", 0.256], ["2016-06-29", 0.28], ["2016-06-29", 0.275], ["2016-06-29", 0.269], ["2016-06-29", 0.281], ["2016-06-29", 0.275], ["2016-06-29", 0.271], ["2016-06-29", 0.269], ["2016-06-29", 0.27], ["2016-06-30", 0.265], ["2016-06-30", 0.261], ["2016-06-30", 0.264], ["2016-06-30", 0.263], ["2016-06-30", 0.265], ["2016-06-30", 0.266], ["2016-06-30", 0.261], ["2016-07-02", 0.255], ["2016-07-02", 0.254], ["2016-07-02", 0.257], ["2016-07-03", 0.253], ["2016-07-03", 0.256], ["2016-07-03", 0.251], ["2016-07-04", 0.25], ["2016-07-04", 0.249], ["2016-07-04", 0.249], ["2016-07-04", 0.249], ["2016-07-05", 0.248], ["2016-07-05", 0.247], ["2016-07-05", 0.247], ["2016-07-05", 0.246]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/259/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Hillary Clinton's prospective VP nominee list has leaked. The most fun possibilities are probably Elizabeth Warren and Bernie, but he does not appear to be on the list according to Vox. So:
Will Elizabeth Warren be Hillary Clinton's choice for VP?
(This question will retroactively close when the news of Hillary's VP breaks publicly.) | true | 2016-07-06 | Will Clinton pick Elizabeth Warren as VP? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-08-04 | 2016-06-25 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-25", 0.27], ["2016-06-25", 0.205], ["2016-06-25", 0.22], ["2016-06-25", 0.235], ["2016-06-25", 0.258], ["2016-06-25", 0.257], ["2016-06-25", 0.277], ["2016-06-25", 0.272], ["2016-06-25", 0.247], ["2016-06-26", 0.321], ["2016-06-26", 0.324], ["2016-06-26", 0.37], ["2016-06-26", 0.365], ["2016-06-26", 0.379], ["2016-06-26", 0.365], ["2016-06-27", 0.365], ["2016-06-27", 0.374], ["2016-06-27", 0.376], ["2016-06-27", 0.371], ["2016-06-28", 0.37], ["2016-06-28", 0.364], ["2016-06-28", 0.392], ["2016-06-29", 0.392], ["2016-06-29", 0.394], ["2016-06-29", 0.376], ["2016-06-29", 0.375], ["2016-06-30", 0.379], ["2016-06-30", 0.384], ["2016-06-30", 0.385], ["2016-07-01", 0.388], ["2016-07-02", 0.39], ["2016-07-03", 0.383], ["2016-07-03", 0.378], ["2016-07-06", 0.373], ["2016-07-07", 0.371], ["2016-07-07", 0.371], ["2016-07-07", 0.372], ["2016-07-11", 0.367], ["2016-07-12", 0.367], ["2016-07-12", 0.362], ["2016-07-13", 0.333], ["2016-07-14", 0.325], ["2016-07-14", 0.304], ["2016-07-14", 0.302], ["2016-07-15", 0.298]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/262/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The UK's decision to leave the European Union caught Metaculus modestly by surprise. Consensus on "leave" was that there was a 32% chance. The Brexit, however, really caught the global financial markets by surprise. In the days prior to the vote, stock prices across the world were generally on the increase, with the S&P 500 peaking at 2112.93 at the close of the US Market on June 23rd, not far from its all-time high. And as measured by closing options prices on the index, demand for insurance against loss while the vote was well under way was not particularly high.
A few hours later, however, as it became clear that "Leave" would prevail, futures contracts on the S&P 500 went into free fall. At one point, in the midst of heavy overnight trading at the CME, they plunged nearly 6%. Market losses the next day were very heavy across the board. More than 2 trillion dollars in global stock market value evaporated. Viewed another way, each of the 17,410,742 "leave" votes generated a $115,000 loss in global market capitalization, a value that is nearly three times larger than the British per-capita GDP.
As usual, the market losses were accompanied by steep increases in volatility. The VIX index spiked to a high of 26.24, closing up 49.33% in a single trading session.
Impressive as that jump may sound, the forthcoming market disruptions implied by VIX are actually relatively modest. During the throes of the Financial Crisis in October 2008, a peak VIX print of 89.53 was observed. Roughly speaking, the value of the VIX index amounts to the expected one-sigma change in the S&P 500 index price during the coming year.
A look at the time series for the VIX shows that volatility tends to spike abruptly, and then decay in a roughly exponential manner over a period of months until the next shock hits. The VIX process is clearly not a random walk. Indeed, it certainly looks amenable to prediction... Before getting online with your broker, however, it pays to recall the worn adage that "a fool and his money are soon parted".
Will the VIX index achieve an intraday print above 40 prior to the 4:00PM close of the US equity markets on Friday July 29th, 2016? | true | 2016-07-15 | Is market volatility set to strongly increase? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-05-01 | 2016-06-26 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-26", 0.2], ["2016-06-27", 0.171], ["2016-06-27", 0.196], ["2016-06-28", 0.2], ["2016-06-28", 0.196], ["2016-06-29", 0.208], ["2016-06-30", 0.225], ["2016-06-30", 0.234], ["2016-07-02", 0.231], ["2016-07-02", 0.229], ["2016-07-05", 0.226], ["2016-07-06", 0.23], ["2016-07-11", 0.226], ["2016-07-11", 0.222], ["2016-07-15", 0.226], ["2016-07-18", 0.225], ["2016-07-23", 0.217], ["2016-07-26", 0.22], ["2016-07-27", 0.22], ["2016-07-28", 0.218], ["2016-07-30", 0.216], ["2016-07-31", 0.213], ["2016-08-02", 0.207], ["2016-08-03", 0.202], ["2016-08-04", 0.201], ["2016-08-04", 0.195], ["2016-08-07", 0.19], ["2016-08-08", 0.186], ["2016-08-10", 0.182], ["2016-08-11", 0.18], ["2016-08-12", 0.182], ["2016-08-13", 0.18], ["2016-08-19", 0.181], ["2016-08-19", 0.182], ["2016-08-20", 0.18], ["2016-08-23", 0.182], ["2016-08-30", 0.192], ["2016-09-02", 0.188], ["2016-09-06", 0.19], ["2016-09-12", 0.19], ["2016-09-12", 0.192], ["2016-09-15", 0.195], ["2016-09-15", 0.196], ["2016-09-16", 0.198], ["2016-09-17", 0.211], ["2016-09-18", 0.21], ["2016-09-19", 0.21], ["2016-09-19", 0.209], ["2016-09-21", 0.206], ["2016-09-26", 0.206], ["2016-09-27", 0.203], ["2016-09-29", 0.205], ["2016-09-30", 0.205], ["2016-10-03", 0.205], ["2016-10-19", 0.202], ["2016-10-20", 0.209], ["2016-10-23", 0.22], ["2016-10-23", 0.221], ["2016-10-24", 0.223], ["2016-10-25", 0.223], ["2016-10-25", 0.221], ["2016-11-12", 0.221], ["2016-11-12", 0.217], ["2016-11-17", 0.217], ["2016-11-17", 0.217], ["2016-11-19", 0.215], ["2016-11-23", 0.213], ["2016-11-29", 0.217], ["2016-12-04", 0.216], ["2016-12-10", 0.216], ["2016-12-15", 0.216], ["2016-12-21", 0.213], ["2016-12-21", 0.213], ["2016-12-29", 0.214], ["2016-12-31", 0.222], ["2016-12-31", 0.222], ["2017-01-01", 0.226], ["2017-01-01", 0.226], ["2017-01-02", 0.229], ["2017-01-03", 0.227], ["2017-01-04", 0.226], ["2017-01-05", 0.228], ["2017-01-08", 0.228], ["2017-01-10", 0.228], ["2017-01-11", 0.235], ["2017-01-12", 0.236], ["2017-01-13", 0.243], ["2017-01-17", 0.253], ["2017-01-18", 0.253], ["2017-01-21", 0.253], ["2017-01-21", 0.247], ["2017-01-22", 0.247], ["2017-01-23", 0.249], ["2017-01-26", 0.248], ["2017-01-27", 0.259], ["2017-01-28", 0.264], ["2017-01-28", 0.266], ["2017-01-30", 0.266], ["2017-01-31", 0.273], ["2017-01-31", 0.279], ["2017-02-01", 0.29]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/263/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | The 2015-2016 rainfall season brought some relief to California, following several years of well-below-average rain and snowfall. The northern half of the state received more-or-less average rain and snowfall, but the much-vaunted El Niño Southern Oscillation did not live up to expectations for the southern half of the state.
The El Niño conditions ended in May, and a band of cool ocean water is now developing in the central and east-central Pacific. This phenomenon is associated with the La Niña flipside of the Southern Oscillation. Empirically, La Niña tends to be associated with dry winters for California, but the connection is by no means one to one. It therefore falls on Metaculus to determine whether the drought will be busted in 2016-2017.
The severity of regional drought conditions is tracked and updated weekly by the National Drought Monitor. As of June 11, 2016, 42.8% of California's area is classified as experiencing "extreme" (code D3) or "exceptional" (code D4) drought. The last date at which California was free of such conditions was August 6th, 2013.
On May 01, 2017, will the National Drought Monitor show that California is entirely free of areas experiencing extreme (D3) or exceptional (D4) drought? | true | 2017-02-01 | Will the California Drought end in 2017? | metaculus | 1 |
2020-01-04 | 2016-06-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-27", 0.55], ["2016-07-05", 0.226], ["2016-07-15", 0.201], ["2016-07-23", 0.204], ["2016-08-05", 0.228], ["2016-08-12", 0.221], ["2016-08-22", 0.216], ["2016-09-04", 0.193], ["2016-09-10", 0.191], ["2016-09-24", 0.186], ["2016-10-04", 0.185], ["2016-10-16", 0.184], ["2016-11-01", 0.187], ["2016-11-12", 0.186], ["2016-11-23", 0.187], ["2016-12-02", 0.187], ["2016-12-21", 0.186], ["2017-01-04", 0.186], ["2017-01-13", 0.186], ["2017-02-12", 0.186], ["2017-02-24", 0.184], ["2017-03-10", 0.183], ["2017-03-14", 0.179], ["2017-03-31", 0.182], ["2017-04-01", 0.181], ["2017-05-10", 0.181], ["2017-05-21", 0.181], ["2017-06-01", 0.181], ["2017-06-09", 0.179], ["2017-06-24", 0.18], ["2017-07-01", 0.178], ["2017-07-17", 0.178], ["2017-07-26", 0.176], ["2017-08-04", 0.176], ["2017-08-18", 0.154], ["2017-09-02", 0.152], ["2017-09-13", 0.151], ["2017-09-26", 0.148], ["2017-10-02", 0.148], ["2017-10-15", 0.147], ["2017-10-26", 0.146], ["2017-11-07", 0.145], ["2017-11-15", 0.146], ["2017-11-25", 0.146], ["2017-12-02", 0.145], ["2017-12-18", 0.145], ["2018-01-04", 0.143], ["2018-01-30", 0.143], ["2018-02-15", 0.141], ["2018-03-02", 0.142], ["2018-03-12", 0.141], ["2018-03-23", 0.139], ["2018-03-29", 0.138], ["2018-04-10", 0.136], ["2018-04-27", 0.134], ["2018-05-10", 0.134], ["2018-05-21", 0.135], ["2018-05-28", 0.134], ["2018-06-08", 0.132], ["2018-06-25", 0.132], ["2018-07-08", 0.131], ["2018-07-24", 0.125], ["2018-08-04", 0.125], ["2018-08-19", 0.124], ["2018-09-02", 0.124], ["2018-09-11", 0.124], ["2018-09-28", 0.124], ["2018-10-08", 0.123], ["2018-10-21", 0.123], ["2018-10-30", 0.123], ["2018-11-09", 0.122], ["2018-11-20", 0.122], ["2018-12-11", 0.121], ["2018-12-21", 0.121], ["2019-01-01", 0.121], ["2019-01-11", 0.121], ["2019-01-21", 0.12], ["2019-02-06", 0.12], ["2019-03-05", 0.12], ["2019-03-16", 0.12], ["2019-04-08", 0.12], ["2019-04-09", 0.119], ["2019-04-29", 0.119], ["2019-05-14", 0.119], ["2019-05-25", 0.119], ["2019-06-08", 0.118], ["2019-06-23", 0.118], ["2019-06-30", 0.118], ["2019-07-20", 0.118], ["2019-08-02", 0.116], ["2019-08-16", 0.116], ["2019-08-31", 0.115], ["2019-09-21", 0.115], ["2019-10-07", 0.115], ["2019-10-16", 0.114], ["2019-10-28", 0.114], ["2019-11-05", 0.114], ["2019-11-19", 0.114], ["2019-12-04", 0.113], ["2019-12-19", 0.113], ["2019-12-31", 0.108]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/264/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The prospects for "contact" with an extraerrestrial civilization have been the subject of endless speculation. It is generally agreed that no evidence of such civilizations exists. Indeed, the apparent lack of aliens, in conjunction with the known profusion of stars and planets, forms the basis for the so-called Fermi Paradox.
The announcement in the news media of the detection of an alien-generated signal, or some other strong evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization, would clearly generate quite a bit of interest. This would be especially true if the announcement was authorized by a reputable and authoritative source or coalition of sources. Examples might include NASA, NSF, ESO, IAU, AAS, etc. Depending on the content of the message, or on the nature of the evidence, societal implications could potentially be profound.
By December 31, 2019, will the New York Times publish an article suggesting that reasonable scientific evidence for an extraterrestrial civilization has been found?
Note that this question is not asking whether extraterrestrial contact will actually take place. Despite strong efforts at both peer review and confirmation, official press releases on scientific topics of public interest are sometimes more definitive in tone than is warranted by later consensus. The 1996 New York Times article describing evidence for fossil life in the Martian meteorite ALH 84001 is a good example. If you believe there is a negligible probability of actual aliens, your answer to this question amounts to your assessment of the probability that a widely publicized false alarm will occur. | true | 2019-12-31 | Announcement of evidence for aliens by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-06-29 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-01", 0.62], ["2016-07-01", 0.71], ["2016-07-01", 0.803], ["2016-07-01", 0.81], ["2016-07-01", 0.798], ["2016-07-02", 0.783], ["2016-07-02", 0.806], ["2016-07-02", 0.794], ["2016-07-02", 0.766], ["2016-07-03", 0.769], ["2016-07-03", 0.797], ["2016-07-03", 0.797], ["2016-07-03", 0.806], ["2016-07-03", 0.772], ["2016-07-04", 0.765], ["2016-07-04", 0.777], ["2016-07-05", 0.791], ["2016-07-05", 0.785], ["2016-07-05", 0.777], ["2016-07-06", 0.777], ["2016-07-06", 0.779], ["2016-07-07", 0.775], ["2016-07-07", 0.784], ["2016-07-07", 0.78], ["2016-07-08", 0.775], ["2016-07-08", 0.771], ["2016-07-09", 0.772], ["2016-07-09", 0.768], ["2016-07-10", 0.754], ["2016-07-10", 0.743], ["2016-07-11", 0.744], ["2016-07-11", 0.71], ["2016-07-12", 0.708], ["2016-07-12", 0.709], ["2016-07-12", 0.69], ["2016-07-12", 0.69], ["2016-07-14", 0.692], ["2016-07-15", 0.698], ["2016-07-15", 0.696], ["2016-07-15", 0.682], ["2016-07-15", 0.676], ["2016-07-16", 0.664], ["2016-07-19", 0.655], ["2016-07-19", 0.656], ["2016-07-19", 0.643], ["2016-07-20", 0.622], ["2016-07-20", 0.619], ["2016-07-21", 0.642], ["2016-07-21", 0.622], ["2016-07-21", 0.635], ["2016-07-21", 0.629], ["2016-07-21", 0.612], ["2016-07-22", 0.604], ["2016-07-22", 0.606], ["2016-07-22", 0.598], ["2016-07-22", 0.592], ["2016-07-23", 0.589], ["2016-07-23", 0.597], ["2016-07-24", 0.599], ["2016-07-24", 0.589], ["2016-07-24", 0.58], ["2016-07-25", 0.57], ["2016-07-26", 0.568], ["2016-07-26", 0.566], ["2016-07-26", 0.571], ["2016-07-26", 0.581], ["2016-07-26", 0.583], ["2016-07-26", 0.578], ["2016-07-26", 0.574], ["2016-07-26", 0.561], ["2016-07-26", 0.566], ["2016-07-26", 0.569], ["2016-07-26", 0.563], ["2016-07-26", 0.556], ["2016-07-26", 0.565], ["2016-07-26", 0.555], ["2016-07-26", 0.549], ["2016-07-27", 0.548], ["2016-07-27", 0.551], ["2016-07-27", 0.554], ["2016-07-27", 0.552], ["2016-07-28", 0.543], ["2016-07-28", 0.546], ["2016-07-28", 0.533], ["2016-07-28", 0.531], ["2016-07-28", 0.522], ["2016-07-28", 0.509], ["2016-07-29", 0.502], ["2016-07-29", 0.501], ["2016-07-29", 0.504], ["2016-07-29", 0.505], ["2016-07-29", 0.503], ["2016-07-29", 0.499], ["2016-07-29", 0.491], ["2016-07-29", 0.491], ["2016-07-29", 0.495], ["2016-07-29", 0.495], ["2016-07-29", 0.49], ["2016-07-30", 0.487], ["2016-07-30", 0.487], ["2016-07-30", 0.491]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/267/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Participants may be vaguely aware that a referendum in the UK occasionally known as "brexit," calling for the UK to leave the European union, has passed by a simple majority.
This is, however, not quite the end of the story. The referendum was, technically, non-binding, and many things must happen in order to actually enact withdrawal from the EU. Most centrally, perhaps, is that per Article 50 of the EU treaty, the nation wishing to exit provides a notification to the EU, negotiates the withdrawal terms and sets a date of of when the treaty terms no longer apply. See this description in Wikipedia.
In this question we give Metaculus predictors a chance to win back some of their hard (for the most part) lost points on brexit by asking if the UK will actually exit in the next several years.
We'll set the bar slightly lower by setting the resolution criterion to be that the UK has, by end of 2016, officially filed notice with the EU per Article 50 of its intention to withdraw. If this question resolves positively, we can launch another one regarding the negotiations and timescales.
(Edit: 7/2/16 to remove mention of 2020 and clarify title) | true | 2016-07-30 | Will the UK submit article 50 notification to the European Union this year? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-31 | 2016-06-29 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-30", 0.43], ["2016-07-01", 0.372], ["2016-07-04", 0.372], ["2016-07-04", 0.356], ["2016-07-09", 0.347], ["2016-07-09", 0.331], ["2016-07-10", 0.335], ["2016-07-12", 0.339], ["2016-07-15", 0.329], ["2016-07-15", 0.332], ["2016-07-23", 0.352], ["2016-07-24", 0.347], ["2016-07-26", 0.336], ["2016-07-27", 0.335], ["2016-07-27", 0.339], ["2016-07-28", 0.332], ["2016-08-01", 0.332], ["2016-08-01", 0.329], ["2016-08-03", 0.325], ["2016-08-04", 0.327], ["2016-08-06", 0.318], ["2016-08-07", 0.313], ["2016-08-08", 0.305], ["2016-08-09", 0.303], ["2016-08-12", 0.299], ["2016-08-13", 0.297], ["2016-08-15", 0.294], ["2016-08-19", 0.289], ["2016-08-30", 0.294], ["2016-09-01", 0.288], ["2016-09-03", 0.285], ["2016-09-05", 0.288], ["2016-09-06", 0.283], ["2016-09-14", 0.285], ["2016-09-15", 0.279], ["2016-09-15", 0.278], ["2016-09-16", 0.273], ["2016-09-16", 0.282], ["2016-09-17", 0.298], ["2016-09-18", 0.296], ["2016-09-19", 0.293], ["2016-09-19", 0.292], ["2016-09-20", 0.288], ["2016-09-21", 0.285], ["2016-09-21", 0.281], ["2016-09-26", 0.28], ["2016-09-28", 0.28], ["2016-09-29", 0.277], ["2016-09-29", 0.277], ["2016-10-01", 0.27], ["2016-10-04", 0.27], ["2016-10-07", 0.27], ["2016-10-15", 0.271], ["2016-10-19", 0.267], ["2016-10-19", 0.267], ["2016-10-20", 0.277], ["2016-10-21", 0.267], ["2016-10-23", 0.267], ["2016-10-23", 0.259], ["2016-10-24", 0.258], ["2016-10-25", 0.256], ["2016-11-01", 0.254], ["2016-11-02", 0.254], ["2016-11-12", 0.25], ["2016-11-12", 0.245], ["2016-11-23", 0.245], ["2016-11-29", 0.247], ["2016-11-30", 0.249], ["2016-12-01", 0.248], ["2016-12-21", 0.249], ["2017-01-01", 0.254], ["2017-01-02", 0.254], ["2017-01-04", 0.253], ["2017-01-23", 0.252], ["2017-02-04", 0.25], ["2017-02-23", 0.25], ["2017-02-23", 0.249], ["2017-02-26", 0.247], ["2017-02-27", 0.247], ["2017-03-02", 0.246], ["2017-03-22", 0.247], ["2017-03-24", 0.247], ["2017-03-27", 0.246], ["2017-04-01", 0.246], ["2017-04-01", 0.246], ["2017-04-15", 0.244], ["2017-04-15", 0.243], ["2017-04-18", 0.241], ["2017-04-18", 0.239], ["2017-04-20", 0.239], ["2017-04-23", 0.238], ["2017-04-24", 0.238], ["2017-05-02", 0.236], ["2017-05-02", 0.236], ["2017-05-06", 0.235], ["2017-05-06", 0.235], ["2017-05-07", 0.234], ["2017-05-09", 0.234], ["2017-05-13", 0.233], ["2017-05-14", 0.234], ["2017-05-15", 0.234]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/268/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | For decades, the essential architecture of personal and other computers has been largely the same, with very fast-access random-access memory supplemented by a much slower-access permanent memory storage system (whether punch card, tape, magnetic hard drive or SSD). Data analysis tasks employing very large (i.e. exceeding tens of GB currently) data sets must read portions of the data into memory at a time. Similarly, applications are loaded from disk into memory upon demand.
In principle, this can be different. A major, and long-term, project by the research arm of Hewlett-Packard is to develop a qualitatively new hardware architecture using "memristors" and optical communications to effectively combine long- and short-term storage. This new sort of device is internally referred to as "The Machine."
The project, described in some detail in this 2014 article and this 2015 article may (or may not) be nearing prototyping and production. So we ask:
Will there be "The Machine" (a HP technology, consisting of memristor chips and optical communications inside the computer) based computer for personal use below $2000 in 2018 year?
Fore a positive resolution, the computer should be based on HP technology (manufactured by HP or with licensing to HP), and have an assigned MSRP below $2000 and an at least approximate shipping date (if not already shipping or in use) by the end of 2018. The machine must use both memristor chips and at least some internal optical data transfer (beyond what might be found in any standard PC). | true | 2017-05-15 | Will a personal computer based on "The Machine" technology be put to market by end of 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-10-21 | 2016-07-01 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-01", 0.5], ["2016-07-01", 0.35], ["2016-07-02", 0.563], ["2016-07-02", 0.237], ["2016-07-02", 0.205], ["2016-07-02", 0.168], ["2016-07-02", 0.162], ["2016-07-02", 0.137], ["2016-07-02", 0.164], ["2016-07-02", 0.134], ["2016-07-02", 0.145], ["2016-07-02", 0.173], ["2016-07-02", 0.162], ["2016-07-02", 0.154], ["2016-07-03", 0.146], ["2016-07-03", 0.139], ["2016-07-04", 0.129], ["2016-07-04", 0.124], ["2016-07-04", 0.132], ["2016-07-05", 0.125], ["2016-07-05", 0.125], ["2016-07-05", 0.133], ["2016-07-06", 0.148], ["2016-07-08", 0.162], ["2016-07-10", 0.155], ["2016-07-10", 0.151], ["2016-07-11", 0.146], ["2016-07-12", 0.151], ["2016-07-12", 0.149], ["2016-07-12", 0.153], ["2016-07-14", 0.152], ["2016-07-15", 0.156], ["2016-07-21", 0.151], ["2016-07-23", 0.139], ["2016-07-23", 0.144], ["2016-07-24", 0.15], ["2016-07-26", 0.154], ["2016-07-26", 0.165], ["2016-07-26", 0.164], ["2016-07-26", 0.165], ["2016-07-26", 0.17], ["2016-07-26", 0.175], ["2016-07-27", 0.18], ["2016-07-27", 0.179], ["2016-07-27", 0.181], ["2016-07-27", 0.176], ["2016-07-27", 0.192], ["2016-07-29", 0.193], ["2016-07-30", 0.195], ["2016-07-30", 0.19], ["2016-07-31", 0.189], ["2016-08-01", 0.196], ["2016-08-01", 0.198], ["2016-08-01", 0.197], ["2016-08-01", 0.197], ["2016-08-02", 0.199], ["2016-08-04", 0.197], ["2016-08-04", 0.203], ["2016-08-05", 0.203], ["2016-08-05", 0.199], ["2016-08-06", 0.196], ["2016-08-07", 0.204], ["2016-08-08", 0.2], ["2016-08-10", 0.209], ["2016-08-11", 0.206], ["2016-08-12", 0.209], ["2016-08-13", 0.212], ["2016-08-13", 0.215], ["2016-08-17", 0.216], ["2016-08-18", 0.216], ["2016-08-18", 0.214], ["2016-08-19", 0.215], ["2016-08-19", 0.214], ["2016-08-19", 0.215], ["2016-08-20", 0.214], ["2016-08-20", 0.215], ["2016-08-20", 0.214], ["2016-08-21", 0.213], ["2016-08-22", 0.215], ["2016-08-22", 0.228], ["2016-08-22", 0.227], ["2016-08-23", 0.236], ["2016-08-23", 0.235], ["2016-08-23", 0.235]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/272/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | One hope of Metaculus is not just to allow users to accrue a track record, but to assess, given the large set of statistics assembled, which predictors are doing much better than chance, i.e. are far enough out into the possible probability distribution that their predictions could not have been just luck.
Otherwise, it is difficult to sort out who has simply been lucky in the past.
As a case in point, consider this article about Sandy Jadeja, a technical analyst who has purportedly predicted four previous market turndowns, to the day.
How many people have been making such predictions? How many (if any) did he predict that did not come to pass? We don't know. What we do know is what he has predicted. From the article:
He now warns that the following dates spell trouble for the Dow Jones in the US that could spread to other markets.
Between August 26 and August 30, 2016.
September 26, 2016.
October 20, 2016.
Will he get any of these right?
Question resolves as positive if the DJIA has a one-day drop (market opening to close) of more than 5% on any of the 5 days mentioned above (the 27th and 28th are a weekend.) | true | 2016-08-24 | A posteriori statistics and five for seven or better on stock dips? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-02-04 | 2016-07-04 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-04", 0.25], ["2016-07-04", 0.29], ["2016-07-04", 0.332], ["2016-07-04", 0.32], ["2016-07-04", 0.432], ["2016-07-04", 0.427], ["2016-07-05", 0.414], ["2016-07-05", 0.378], ["2016-07-05", 0.38], ["2016-07-05", 0.404], ["2016-07-05", 0.418], ["2016-07-06", 0.418], ["2016-07-06", 0.43], ["2016-07-06", 0.415], ["2016-07-06", 0.451], ["2016-07-06", 0.442], ["2016-07-08", 0.445], ["2016-07-10", 0.44], ["2016-07-12", 0.441], ["2016-07-12", 0.44], ["2016-07-14", 0.443], ["2016-07-15", 0.461], ["2016-07-15", 0.459], ["2016-07-22", 0.455], ["2016-07-23", 0.452], ["2016-07-26", 0.45], ["2016-07-27", 0.46], ["2016-07-27", 0.456], ["2016-07-27", 0.451], ["2016-07-28", 0.464], ["2016-07-28", 0.471], ["2016-07-29", 0.471], ["2016-07-31", 0.478], ["2016-08-01", 0.478], ["2016-08-03", 0.483], ["2016-08-03", 0.487], ["2016-08-05", 0.49], ["2016-08-06", 0.479], ["2016-08-11", 0.487], ["2016-08-11", 0.482], ["2016-08-13", 0.47], ["2016-08-13", 0.472], ["2016-08-14", 0.47], ["2016-08-14", 0.475], ["2016-08-16", 0.475], ["2016-08-18", 0.485], ["2016-08-24", 0.485], ["2016-08-27", 0.491], ["2016-09-03", 0.495], ["2016-09-05", 0.493], ["2016-09-12", 0.494], ["2016-09-15", 0.499], ["2016-09-16", 0.501], ["2016-09-17", 0.504], ["2016-09-17", 0.509], ["2016-09-18", 0.51], ["2016-09-19", 0.511], ["2016-09-19", 0.511], ["2016-09-20", 0.512], ["2016-09-21", 0.512], ["2016-09-23", 0.513], ["2016-09-26", 0.513], ["2016-09-29", 0.501], ["2016-09-29", 0.497], ["2016-09-29", 0.498], ["2016-09-29", 0.503], ["2016-10-12", 0.503], ["2016-10-22", 0.503], ["2016-10-24", 0.503], ["2016-10-24", 0.492], ["2016-10-24", 0.492], ["2016-10-26", 0.491], ["2016-12-07", 0.496], ["2016-12-21", 0.496], ["2017-01-01", 0.496], ["2017-02-16", 0.503], ["2017-03-20", 0.503], ["2017-04-10", 0.501], ["2017-04-21", 0.502], ["2017-04-21", 0.503], ["2017-04-23", 0.503], ["2017-04-23", 0.503], ["2017-04-25", 0.5], ["2017-05-14", 0.5], ["2017-05-20", 0.5], ["2017-05-21", 0.495], ["2017-05-31", 0.498], ["2017-06-03", 0.491], ["2017-06-18", 0.491], ["2017-06-18", 0.488], ["2017-06-19", 0.488], ["2017-06-20", 0.488], ["2017-06-20", 0.486], ["2017-06-20", 0.484], ["2017-06-21", 0.483], ["2017-06-21", 0.483], ["2017-06-23", 0.482], ["2017-06-29", 0.482], ["2017-06-30", 0.481], ["2017-07-01", 0.478], ["2017-07-01", 0.478]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/274/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | At a conference on exoplanets this morning (July 4th, 2016), it was announced that the planet HD 219134 c can be observed to transit the disk of its parent star. With this discovery, HD 219134 c ranks as the closest known transiting exoplanet.
This announcement seems unlikely to be met with much fanfare in the news media. NASA's Kepler Mission has discovered thousands of transiting planets, several of which are argued to be potentially habitable, and HD 219134 c, with its orbital period of 6.8 days, is anything but. It evokes nostalgia for the turn of the century, when the discovery of even a thoroughly uninhabitable transiting planet was headline news.
Transits are scientifically valuable because they enable direct measurements of planetary densities, and they impart clues about bulk and atmospheric compositions. Probing of exoplanetary atmospheres, however, requires bright parent stars. HD 219134, with its mere 6.55 parsec (21.4 light year) distance, is important in this regard because it appears ~10,000 times brighter than many of the host stars of the planets found by the Kepler Mission.
Is HD 219134 c the closest transiting exoplanet? At present, a total of 76 stars and brown dwarfs are known to lie within 5 parsecs (16.3 light years) of the Sun. This list of nearest solar neighbors has been growing as objects such as Luhman 16A and 16B -- currently #5 and #6 on the list -- are detected.
Prior to Dec. 31, 2017, will a transiting extrasolar planet orbiting a star or brown dwarf within 5 parsecs be announced in the peer-reviewed astronomical literature? | true | 2017-07-01 | Transiting exoplanet within 5 parsecs by 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-07-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-08", 0.77], ["2016-07-08", 0.655], ["2016-07-08", 0.61], ["2016-07-08", 0.61], ["2016-07-08", 0.68], ["2016-07-08", 0.654], ["2016-07-08", 0.638], ["2016-07-08", 0.65], ["2016-07-09", 0.631], ["2016-07-09", 0.639], ["2016-07-09", 0.631], ["2016-07-09", 0.619], ["2016-07-10", 0.626], ["2016-07-10", 0.616], ["2016-07-10", 0.623], ["2016-07-11", 0.633], ["2016-07-11", 0.637], ["2016-07-11", 0.641], ["2016-07-12", 0.636], ["2016-07-12", 0.632], ["2016-07-12", 0.629], ["2016-07-12", 0.62], ["2016-07-13", 0.617], ["2016-07-14", 0.612], ["2016-07-15", 0.622], ["2016-07-18", 0.624], ["2016-07-18", 0.626], ["2016-07-20", 0.626], ["2016-07-22", 0.617], ["2016-07-23", 0.602], ["2016-07-24", 0.602], ["2016-07-24", 0.589], ["2016-07-26", 0.602], ["2016-07-26", 0.609], ["2016-07-26", 0.601], ["2016-07-26", 0.602], ["2016-07-26", 0.607], ["2016-07-26", 0.601], ["2016-07-27", 0.601], ["2016-07-27", 0.606], ["2016-07-28", 0.611], ["2016-07-28", 0.621], ["2016-07-28", 0.625], ["2016-07-29", 0.616], ["2016-07-29", 0.62], ["2016-07-29", 0.628], ["2016-07-30", 0.628], ["2016-07-30", 0.63], ["2016-07-30", 0.637], ["2016-07-30", 0.645], ["2016-07-31", 0.645], ["2016-07-31", 0.645], ["2016-08-01", 0.637], ["2016-08-01", 0.628], ["2016-08-02", 0.626], ["2016-08-02", 0.633], ["2016-08-02", 0.635], ["2016-08-02", 0.638], ["2016-08-03", 0.644], ["2016-08-03", 0.65], ["2016-08-03", 0.647], ["2016-08-03", 0.647], ["2016-08-04", 0.636], ["2016-08-04", 0.635], ["2016-08-04", 0.641], ["2016-08-04", 0.646], ["2016-08-05", 0.649], ["2016-08-05", 0.645], ["2016-08-05", 0.635], ["2016-08-06", 0.626], ["2016-08-07", 0.628], ["2016-08-08", 0.625], ["2016-08-08", 0.631], ["2016-08-10", 0.633], ["2016-08-11", 0.635], ["2016-08-13", 0.626], ["2016-08-13", 0.62], ["2016-08-13", 0.626], ["2016-08-13", 0.625], ["2016-08-14", 0.625], ["2016-08-14", 0.623], ["2016-08-14", 0.616], ["2016-08-14", 0.62], ["2016-08-15", 0.618], ["2016-08-16", 0.62], ["2016-08-16", 0.617], ["2016-08-16", 0.619], ["2016-08-18", 0.621], ["2016-08-19", 0.621], ["2016-08-19", 0.621], ["2016-08-19", 0.621], ["2016-08-22", 0.617], ["2016-08-23", 0.619], ["2016-08-24", 0.621], ["2016-08-24", 0.621], ["2016-08-24", 0.617], ["2016-08-24", 0.616], ["2016-08-25", 0.619], ["2016-08-26", 0.618], ["2016-08-30", 0.615], ["2016-08-31", 0.615]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/276/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Fatal shootings of civilians by police were thrust into the national spotlight following the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. The incident sparked a debate about the use of force in police encounters, as well as the lack of comprehensive reporting of such incidents.
Currently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics compiles reports from state agencies of deaths that occurred while in police custody. By the bureau's own admission, however, more than half of such deaths may go unreported.
To cover the gap, several independent organizations have launched their own tracking systems, notably Killed by Police and Fatal Encounters. Building on their work, journalists at the Washington Post and The Guardian have followed up on reports of police-related deaths, which are gathered from social media and news reports, to compile databases and tell the stories behind each incident.
The Washington Post's database is unique because it tracks only shooting deaths and not other deaths in police custody, such as the April 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Md., which was attributed to injuries sustained while detained in a police van.
By the Post's accounting, 990 people were fatally shot in police encounters in the United States in 2015. Further statistics paint a picture of the majority of encounters: Most of the victims were white males, armed with a deadly weapon in the process of an active attack. By race, 26% of those shot and killed were black and 17% were Hispanic. Mental illness played a factor in at least 25% of incidents.
In December 2015, the FBI announced that their system for tracking deaths in police custody, including non-shooting incidents, would dramatically expand by 2017.
Many solutions have been proposed to reduce police shootings, including additional training on interacting with mentally ill individuals. The effectiveness of such efforts, however, is most directly measured in the total number of shooting deaths by years' end. As of early July 2016, the Post reported 505 police shooting deaths in 2016, 27 more cumulative deaths than at the same time last year.
Will the total number of police shooting deaths in 2016 reach 1,000, surpassing 2015's total of 990 deaths?
This question will resolve as positive if, once complete numbers for 2016 are available, the Washington Post database shows 1,000 or more deaths in 2016. | true | 2016-09-01 | Will police officers in the United States shoot and kill more than 1000 people in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-03 | 2016-07-08 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-09", 0.41], ["2016-07-09", 0.496], ["2016-07-10", 0.45], ["2016-07-10", 0.436], ["2016-07-10", 0.406], ["2016-07-11", 0.324], ["2016-07-11", 0.295], ["2016-07-11", 0.339], ["2016-07-12", 0.343], ["2016-07-12", 0.339], ["2016-07-13", 0.34], ["2016-07-14", 0.327], ["2016-07-15", 0.319], ["2016-07-15", 0.32], ["2016-07-15", 0.281], ["2016-07-17", 0.282], ["2016-07-18", 0.278], ["2016-07-18", 0.275], ["2016-07-23", 0.274], ["2016-07-23", 0.276], ["2016-07-24", 0.27], ["2016-07-26", 0.265], ["2016-07-27", 0.26], ["2016-07-27", 0.258], ["2016-07-27", 0.253], ["2016-07-28", 0.26], ["2016-07-28", 0.259], ["2016-07-30", 0.254], ["2016-07-30", 0.252], ["2016-07-31", 0.247], ["2016-07-31", 0.247], ["2016-08-01", 0.247], ["2016-08-02", 0.24], ["2016-08-02", 0.239], ["2016-08-03", 0.243], ["2016-08-04", 0.24], ["2016-08-05", 0.247], ["2016-08-06", 0.251], ["2016-08-07", 0.245], ["2016-08-07", 0.242], ["2016-08-08", 0.237], ["2016-08-09", 0.252], ["2016-08-10", 0.258], ["2016-08-11", 0.257], ["2016-08-11", 0.254], ["2016-08-15", 0.254], ["2016-08-15", 0.262], ["2016-08-27", 0.261], ["2016-08-31", 0.26], ["2016-09-01", 0.249], ["2016-09-01", 0.248], ["2016-09-02", 0.249], ["2016-09-02", 0.262], ["2016-09-06", 0.257], ["2016-09-14", 0.258], ["2016-09-15", 0.266], ["2016-09-16", 0.262], ["2016-09-16", 0.258], ["2016-09-17", 0.26], ["2016-09-17", 0.264], ["2016-09-17", 0.262], ["2016-09-18", 0.261], ["2016-09-18", 0.26], ["2016-09-18", 0.261], ["2016-09-19", 0.261], ["2016-09-19", 0.257], ["2016-09-20", 0.257], ["2016-09-20", 0.257], ["2016-09-20", 0.254], ["2016-09-21", 0.251], ["2016-09-21", 0.251], ["2016-09-23", 0.252], ["2016-09-24", 0.25], ["2016-09-26", 0.24], ["2016-09-26", 0.241], ["2016-09-27", 0.24], ["2016-09-28", 0.24], ["2016-09-29", 0.24], ["2016-09-29", 0.237], ["2016-09-29", 0.24], ["2016-09-30", 0.24], ["2016-09-30", 0.236], ["2016-10-01", 0.235], ["2016-10-01", 0.232], ["2016-10-01", 0.232], ["2016-10-03", 0.23], ["2016-10-03", 0.23], ["2016-10-03", 0.238], ["2016-10-04", 0.237], ["2016-10-08", 0.238], ["2016-10-08", 0.24], ["2016-10-09", 0.24], ["2016-10-10", 0.244], ["2016-10-10", 0.245], ["2016-10-12", 0.246], ["2016-10-13", 0.247], ["2016-10-13", 0.249], ["2016-10-14", 0.248], ["2016-10-14", 0.248], ["2016-10-14", 0.248], ["2016-10-15", 0.248]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/277/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The pound has fall 11.74% since the Brexit referndum: the exchange rate has gone from 1.49 to 1.3150 dollars per pound.
If the pound were to fall an additional 23.7 % it would reach market parity with the dollar.
Will this happen?
Question resolves as positive if at any time prior to Dec. 30, 2017 the exchange rate as listed here falls below one dollar per pound. | true | 2016-10-15 | Will the Pound be equal to or less than the Dollar by Dec. 30, 2017. | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-18 | 2016-07-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-11", 0.7], ["2016-07-11", 0.7], ["2016-07-11", 0.69], ["2016-07-11", 0.7], ["2016-07-11", 0.665], ["2016-07-11", 0.657], ["2016-07-11", 0.71], ["2016-07-11", 0.778], ["2016-07-11", 0.778], ["2016-07-11", 0.798], ["2016-07-11", 0.798], ["2016-07-11", 0.818], ["2016-07-11", 0.784], ["2016-07-11", 0.818], ["2016-07-11", 0.818], ["2016-07-11", 0.827], ["2016-07-11", 0.816], ["2016-07-11", 0.82], ["2016-07-12", 0.808], ["2016-07-12", 0.793], ["2016-07-12", 0.781], ["2016-07-12", 0.767], ["2016-07-12", 0.773], ["2016-07-12", 0.765], ["2016-07-12", 0.757], ["2016-07-12", 0.751], ["2016-07-12", 0.751], ["2016-07-12", 0.745], ["2016-07-13", 0.746], ["2016-07-13", 0.741], ["2016-07-13", 0.736], ["2016-07-13", 0.736], ["2016-07-14", 0.722], ["2016-07-14", 0.706], ["2016-07-14", 0.703]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/279/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Elon Musk has teased the release of a second "Top Secret Master Plan." The first installment was in 2006.
Will Tesla publish this plan "this week" meaning (generously) prior to midnight pacific time on Sunday July 16?
For fun, let's dedicate comments on this question to speculating as to exactly what the masterplan will say. | true | 2016-07-14 | New Tesla "Top Secret Master Plan" revealed this week? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-26 | 2016-07-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-12", 0.81], ["2016-07-12", 0.755], ["2016-07-12", 0.637], ["2016-07-12", 0.665], ["2016-07-12", 0.71], ["2016-07-13", 0.678], ["2016-07-13", 0.702], ["2016-07-13", 0.75], ["2016-07-13", 0.746], ["2016-07-13", 0.776], ["2016-07-13", 0.782], ["2016-07-13", 0.762], ["2016-07-13", 0.757], ["2016-07-13", 0.743], ["2016-07-14", 0.734], ["2016-07-14", 0.73], ["2016-07-14", 0.715], ["2016-07-15", 0.722], ["2016-07-15", 0.715], ["2016-07-15", 0.715], ["2016-07-15", 0.697], ["2016-07-15", 0.663], ["2016-07-16", 0.653], ["2016-07-17", 0.638], ["2016-07-18", 0.638], ["2016-07-18", 0.638], ["2016-07-18", 0.638], ["2016-07-18", 0.631], ["2016-07-18", 0.635], ["2016-07-21", 0.607], ["2016-07-21", 0.624], ["2016-07-21", 0.643], ["2016-07-21", 0.637], ["2016-07-22", 0.636], ["2016-07-22", 0.61], ["2016-07-22", 0.607], ["2016-07-22", 0.605], ["2016-07-22", 0.601], ["2016-07-23", 0.577], ["2016-07-23", 0.572], ["2016-07-23", 0.568], ["2016-07-23", 0.559], ["2016-07-23", 0.545], ["2016-07-23", 0.543], ["2016-07-23", 0.523], ["2016-07-24", 0.52], ["2016-07-24", 0.493], ["2016-07-24", 0.49], ["2016-07-24", 0.488], ["2016-07-24", 0.486], ["2016-07-24", 0.479], ["2016-07-24", 0.477], ["2016-07-24", 0.475], ["2016-07-24", 0.471], ["2016-07-24", 0.465], ["2016-07-24", 0.464], ["2016-07-24", 0.463], ["2016-07-24", 0.457], ["2016-07-24", 0.432]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/282/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Resolves as positive if a tweet (including retweet) on Snowden's feed refers directly to Pokemon Go. | true | 2016-07-25 | Will Edward Snowden tweet about Pokemon Go by July 26? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-02-16 | 2016-07-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-16", 0.58], ["2016-07-16", 0.735], ["2016-07-16", 0.667], ["2016-07-16", 0.748], ["2016-07-16", 0.756], ["2016-07-16", 0.76], ["2016-07-17", 0.677], ["2016-07-17", 0.664], ["2016-07-17", 0.673], ["2016-07-18", 0.691], ["2016-07-18", 0.69], ["2016-07-20", 0.685], ["2016-07-22", 0.678], ["2016-07-22", 0.684], ["2016-07-23", 0.704], ["2016-07-24", 0.704], ["2016-07-26", 0.683], ["2016-07-26", 0.679], ["2016-07-26", 0.682], ["2016-07-26", 0.678], ["2016-07-26", 0.666], ["2016-07-27", 0.662], ["2016-07-27", 0.653], ["2016-07-28", 0.653], ["2016-07-29", 0.654], ["2016-07-29", 0.657], ["2016-07-31", 0.651], ["2016-08-02", 0.65], ["2016-08-03", 0.662], ["2016-08-04", 0.66], ["2016-08-05", 0.666], ["2016-08-06", 0.646], ["2016-08-07", 0.635], ["2016-08-07", 0.638], ["2016-08-08", 0.636], ["2016-08-08", 0.63], ["2016-08-13", 0.631], ["2016-08-14", 0.629], ["2016-08-15", 0.618], ["2016-08-16", 0.62], ["2016-08-18", 0.616], ["2016-08-28", 0.611], ["2016-09-04", 0.614], ["2016-09-05", 0.613], ["2016-09-06", 0.608], ["2016-09-14", 0.614], ["2016-09-14", 0.609], ["2016-09-14", 0.596], ["2016-09-15", 0.592], ["2016-09-15", 0.595], ["2016-09-16", 0.593], ["2016-09-16", 0.596], ["2016-09-16", 0.598], ["2016-09-17", 0.6], ["2016-09-17", 0.599], ["2016-09-17", 0.601], ["2016-09-17", 0.604], ["2016-09-18", 0.606], ["2016-09-20", 0.608], ["2016-09-21", 0.598], ["2016-09-21", 0.604], ["2016-09-26", 0.603], ["2016-09-29", 0.603], ["2016-09-29", 0.606], ["2016-10-01", 0.608], ["2016-10-01", 0.608], ["2016-10-01", 0.6], ["2016-10-02", 0.603], ["2016-10-06", 0.602], ["2016-10-09", 0.602], ["2016-10-12", 0.602], ["2016-10-19", 0.599], ["2016-10-20", 0.604], ["2016-10-20", 0.602], ["2016-10-20", 0.604], ["2016-10-21", 0.599], ["2016-10-23", 0.599], ["2016-10-24", 0.597], ["2016-11-02", 0.597], ["2016-11-03", 0.594], ["2016-11-05", 0.594], ["2016-11-09", 0.594], ["2016-11-11", 0.594], ["2016-11-11", 0.593], ["2016-11-11", 0.596], ["2016-11-11", 0.595], ["2016-11-11", 0.594], ["2016-11-11", 0.594], ["2016-11-12", 0.591], ["2016-11-12", 0.591], ["2016-11-12", 0.595], ["2016-11-12", 0.595], ["2016-11-13", 0.595], ["2016-11-13", 0.594], ["2016-11-13", 0.594], ["2016-11-13", 0.594], ["2016-11-13", 0.594], ["2016-11-14", 0.593], ["2016-11-14", 0.593], ["2016-11-14", 0.59], ["2016-11-14", 0.594]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/284/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In 2012, CRISPR/Cas9 burst onto the genetic scene with the limitless promise of gene editing, the ability to remove or replace genetic material in living cells. The landmark discovery has since become tangled in a bitter patent dispute, however, that could shape how the technology can be developed going forward.
CRISPR stands for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats." First discovered in bacteria in 1987, CRISPR refers to a system used by cells to recognize and excise foreign DNA, such as from viruses. The CRISPR/Cas9 technology introduces a strand of RNA that guides the Cas9 enzyme to specific locations in the genome and precisely cuts DNA, like a pair of scissors. The target gene is either replaced with a new genetic sequence or is deleted entirely, and the change to the genetic sequence of that cell is permanent. CRISPR/Cas9 has already been used in many organisms and, once fully developed, could point the way toward repairing faulty genes in human genetic disorders.
First, however, CRISPR/Cas9 must endure a patent fight to decide which of the several scientists involved in the technology's discovery can claim the sole right to license CRISPR/Cas9 to laboratories and reap the profits of such exclusivity.
The key players: Jennifer Doudna of UC Berkeley. Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier published the first CRISPR/Cas9 paper in 2012, describing use of the technique in a bacterial cell - a prokaryotic cell without a nucleus. Doudna's patent application for the technique, filed first, is still pending.
Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. Independent of Doudna and Charpentier, Zhang published a paper in early 2013 that first showed use of CRISPR/Cas9 in a eukaryotic cell, or a cell with a nucleus. Zhang had his patent application expedited, however, and although he filed later than Doudna, his patent was awarded in 2014. Doudna's challenge to Zhang's patent triggered the current dispute, called an "interference."
A complicating wrinkle in the dispute is a law that took effect on March 16, 2013 that changed patent priority from "first to invent" to "first to file." The trouble in this case is that Zhang's filings may contain inventions made both before and after March 16, complicating interpretation of which rules apply to the patent.
Zhang's argument is that although Doudna's group showed an earlier use of the building blocks of CRISPR/Cas9, he first applied it in the actual target system, the eukaryotic cell. Doudna's argument is that her earlier use of the technology and filing of a patent establishes priority, and that Zhang's lab may have misrepresented when they developed key steps of the method. Other parties are also claiming a share of the credit for discovering CRISPR.
At stake is the right to own the CRISPR/Cas9 enterprise, technology that would be licensed out to laboratories that want to engage in gene editing. Several groups, including Doudna and Zhang, have started gene editing companies that, together, have raised more than $1 billion in funding. The patent could be worth an untold amount of money, given the excitement and promise of CRISPR/Cas9.
Opening motions in the case were filed in March. On November 17, 2016, a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments. A decision could take months, however, and any appeals could extend the process of rendering a final judgment.
Will a decision be issued in the CRISPR/Cas9 patent interference case by the end of 2017 that overturns Zhang's 2014 patent?
This questions will resolve as positive if the US Patent and Trademark Office three-judge panel issues its decision regarding the rights to the CRISPR/Cas9 patent on or before December 31, 2017, and that decision overturns at least some claims of the Zhang 2014 patent. This does not speak to appeals of the decision, and the question resolves as negative if a settlement or other event precludes judgement, or if the judgement confers some benefits to Doudna but leaves all claims in the original Zhang patent standing. | true | 2016-11-15 | Major contentious CRISPR patent to be overturned? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-07-19 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-21", 0.3], ["2016-07-21", 0.545], ["2016-07-21", 0.587], ["2016-07-21", 0.59], ["2016-07-21", 0.622], ["2016-07-21", 0.635], ["2016-07-21", 0.686], ["2016-07-21", 0.678], ["2016-07-21", 0.676], ["2016-07-21", 0.668], ["2016-07-22", 0.662], ["2016-07-22", 0.636], ["2016-07-22", 0.646], ["2016-07-22", 0.657], ["2016-07-23", 0.657], ["2016-07-23", 0.665], ["2016-07-26", 0.663], ["2016-07-26", 0.631], ["2016-07-26", 0.631], ["2016-07-26", 0.615], ["2016-07-27", 0.629], ["2016-07-27", 0.629], ["2016-07-27", 0.636], ["2016-07-27", 0.639], ["2016-07-27", 0.617], ["2016-07-28", 0.613], ["2016-07-29", 0.627], ["2016-07-30", 0.64], ["2016-07-31", 0.638], ["2016-07-31", 0.638], ["2016-08-01", 0.634], ["2016-08-03", 0.63], ["2016-08-03", 0.642], ["2016-08-04", 0.639], ["2016-08-04", 0.635], ["2016-08-05", 0.631], ["2016-08-05", 0.633], ["2016-08-06", 0.643], ["2016-08-07", 0.645], ["2016-08-10", 0.654], ["2016-08-11", 0.661], ["2016-08-11", 0.663], ["2016-08-11", 0.665], ["2016-08-11", 0.666], ["2016-08-13", 0.655], ["2016-08-13", 0.661], ["2016-08-13", 0.653], ["2016-08-13", 0.654], ["2016-08-13", 0.654], ["2016-08-14", 0.654], ["2016-08-14", 0.656], ["2016-08-14", 0.642], ["2016-08-16", 0.635], ["2016-08-17", 0.634], ["2016-08-17", 0.635], ["2016-08-18", 0.635], ["2016-08-22", 0.629], ["2016-08-22", 0.623], ["2016-08-25", 0.617], ["2016-08-27", 0.62], ["2016-08-28", 0.621], ["2016-08-30", 0.61], ["2016-08-31", 0.611], ["2016-09-01", 0.605], ["2016-09-01", 0.607], ["2016-09-03", 0.611], ["2016-09-06", 0.605], ["2016-09-07", 0.598], ["2016-09-07", 0.599], ["2016-09-08", 0.6], ["2016-09-11", 0.598], ["2016-09-11", 0.597], ["2016-09-11", 0.585], ["2016-09-11", 0.584], ["2016-09-12", 0.582], ["2016-09-12", 0.572], ["2016-09-12", 0.569], ["2016-09-12", 0.563], ["2016-09-12", 0.559], ["2016-09-12", 0.557], ["2016-09-12", 0.557], ["2016-09-12", 0.549], ["2016-09-12", 0.545], ["2016-09-13", 0.537], ["2016-09-14", 0.529], ["2016-09-14", 0.521], ["2016-09-14", 0.523], ["2016-09-14", 0.515], ["2016-09-14", 0.515], ["2016-09-14", 0.512], ["2016-09-14", 0.504], ["2016-09-14", 0.504], ["2016-09-14", 0.504], ["2016-09-14", 0.505]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/287/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Arts & Recreation | Before artificial skyglow from industrialization, early humans used the stars as navigation during migration, to plant crops for survival, and even created impressively accurate calendars by studying the occurrences of celestial events. Unfortunately, human activities are causing an increasing amount of light pollution, which prevent some populations at various locations on Earth from seeing the night sky as it once was. Mainly arising from urban areas, the production of excessive light due to inefficiency and unnecessity has significant negative effects.
A fairly comprehensive and quantitative assessment of light pollution is described in this article published by the AAAS. With the help of light pollution propagation software, data from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite, and measurements made by the Sky Quality Meter, a team of researcher created the world atlas of artificial sky luminance, finding that the Milky Way is not visible for over one-third of humanity! This includes 60% of Europeans and about 80% of North Americans. In some entire (small) countries such as Singapore and San Marino have the Galaxy is entirely blocked.
To help reduce this pollution, several programs have started to promote awareness and provide suggested solutions. This include organizations advocating smart light laws and policies as well as efforts by various astronomical centers such as the Mont-Mégantic Observatory and the David Dunlap Observatory. However, light pollution currently is not as well advocated as other types pollutions such as air, water, even noise pollution.
The international dark-sky association is one of the leading organizations promoting public awareness on light pollution by inviting citizen-scientist to take measurements of night sky brightness using a smartphone or a computer. This citizen-science campaign named Globe at Night has been collecting data since 2006. The total number of observations has been increasing almost for every year. Thus far, Globe at Night has received 9132 observations as of writing. For the year of 2015 there were a total number of 23053 observations made from people of 104 different countries.
Although advocacy against light pollution still remains relatively weak, we can monitor an increase in popularity of the issue and the number of people getting involved.
Will participation in the 2016 Globe at Night campaign (which will be announced on the Globe at Night Real-time Interactive Infographic) to be greater than that of 2015? | true | 2016-09-15 | The Galaxy has disappeared from view for a third of humanity; will there be a growing movement to bring it back? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-31 | 2016-07-19 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-22", 0.66], ["2016-07-23", 0.641], ["2016-07-23", 0.683], ["2016-07-26", 0.688], ["2016-07-26", 0.679], ["2016-07-27", 0.67], ["2016-07-27", 0.67], ["2016-07-28", 0.67], ["2016-07-29", 0.68], ["2016-07-29", 0.68], ["2016-07-29", 0.666], ["2016-07-30", 0.674], ["2016-07-30", 0.68], ["2016-07-31", 0.678], ["2016-08-01", 0.684], ["2016-08-02", 0.694], ["2016-08-03", 0.691], ["2016-08-05", 0.698], ["2016-08-06", 0.704], ["2016-08-06", 0.709], ["2016-08-07", 0.712], ["2016-08-08", 0.713], ["2016-08-10", 0.709], ["2016-08-10", 0.716], ["2016-08-11", 0.722], ["2016-08-12", 0.719], ["2016-08-13", 0.716], ["2016-08-13", 0.718], ["2016-08-17", 0.701], ["2016-08-19", 0.704], ["2016-08-21", 0.708], ["2016-08-24", 0.711], ["2016-08-24", 0.718], ["2016-08-26", 0.717], ["2016-08-28", 0.712], ["2016-08-29", 0.713], ["2016-08-31", 0.712], ["2016-08-31", 0.717], ["2016-09-03", 0.718], ["2016-09-03", 0.723], ["2016-09-12", 0.728], ["2016-09-13", 0.731], ["2016-09-14", 0.734], ["2016-09-15", 0.734], ["2016-09-15", 0.739], ["2016-09-16", 0.73], ["2016-09-17", 0.719], ["2016-09-18", 0.718], ["2016-09-18", 0.717], ["2016-09-19", 0.719], ["2016-09-19", 0.714], ["2016-09-20", 0.714], ["2016-09-21", 0.718], ["2016-09-21", 0.719], ["2016-09-21", 0.722], ["2016-09-26", 0.723], ["2016-09-26", 0.722], ["2016-10-02", 0.724], ["2016-10-04", 0.724], ["2016-10-07", 0.719], ["2016-10-21", 0.72], ["2016-10-21", 0.72], ["2016-10-22", 0.719], ["2016-10-24", 0.719], ["2016-10-24", 0.716], ["2016-10-27", 0.718], ["2016-10-27", 0.718], ["2016-11-03", 0.72], ["2016-11-03", 0.72], ["2016-11-05", 0.72], ["2016-11-10", 0.721], ["2016-11-12", 0.721], ["2016-11-23", 0.72], ["2016-11-30", 0.722], ["2016-11-30", 0.715], ["2016-12-01", 0.714], ["2016-12-02", 0.714], ["2016-12-09", 0.714], ["2016-12-21", 0.715], ["2016-12-31", 0.717], ["2017-01-03", 0.718], ["2017-01-06", 0.719], ["2017-01-17", 0.719], ["2017-03-02", 0.719], ["2017-03-02", 0.716], ["2017-03-04", 0.716], ["2017-03-09", 0.718], ["2017-04-05", 0.716], ["2017-04-08", 0.717], ["2017-05-02", 0.717], ["2017-05-08", 0.717], ["2017-05-14", 0.714], ["2017-05-28", 0.714], ["2017-06-01", 0.713], ["2017-06-07", 0.711], ["2017-06-08", 0.71], ["2017-06-09", 0.71], ["2017-06-11", 0.707], ["2017-06-12", 0.708], ["2017-06-14", 0.709], ["2017-06-14", 0.707]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/288/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Since the 1990s, the Tropical Race 4 strain of Panama disease has been destroying banana crops around the world. The fungus (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense) operates as a soil pathogen, infecting the banana plant through its root system. It is easily spread through the transportation of contaminated dirt, and there is no known cure. Tropical Race 4 was first detected in Taiwan and has since spread across southeast Asia as well as northern Australia, Mozambique, Jordan, Pakistan, and Lebanon.
The fast and widespread progression of the disease has a historical precedent. In the first half of the nineteenth century, an earlier variant of Panama disease wreaked havoc on the export banana plantations of Latin America and the Caribbean, which were dedicated to the growth of a single species, the Gros Michel. After the near-extinction of Gros Michel, production shifted to the Cavendish, a more resistant banana. Representing 99% of the global banana market, the monoculture of the Cavendish renders the world’s supply of the fruit particularly vulnerable to diseases like TR4. TR4 has the potential to wipe out not only the Cavendish, but many local varieties of banana and plantain that are crucial to the diets of people around the world.
TR4 has not been detected in the Americas, but scientists warn that it is likely to disseminate further via the spread of contaminated plant material, soil, tools, or footwear. Should it reach Latin America, where at least 70% of the world’s bananas are grown, there is potential for a second global banana crisis.
By start of 2019, will a credible media report emerge that a case of TR4 has been detected in Latin America?
For positive resolution, the infection must be of a banana tree, and should include the reported (or implied) destruction of at least one banana tree in an effort to contain the fungus. | true | 2017-06-15 | Will the banana plague reach Latin America? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-11 | 2016-07-21 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-23", 0.63], ["2016-07-24", 0.618], ["2016-07-26", 0.623], ["2016-07-27", 0.612], ["2016-07-27", 0.618], ["2016-07-29", 0.618], ["2016-07-29", 0.608], ["2016-07-30", 0.61], ["2016-07-31", 0.608], ["2016-07-31", 0.597], ["2016-08-03", 0.586], ["2016-08-04", 0.578], ["2016-08-06", 0.589], ["2016-08-10", 0.604], ["2016-08-10", 0.599], ["2016-08-11", 0.612], ["2016-08-12", 0.608], ["2016-08-13", 0.596], ["2016-08-19", 0.601], ["2016-08-26", 0.601], ["2016-08-28", 0.601], ["2016-09-01", 0.603], ["2016-09-02", 0.587], ["2016-09-04", 0.59], ["2016-09-05", 0.592], ["2016-09-12", 0.592], ["2016-09-12", 0.591], ["2016-09-14", 0.597], ["2016-09-15", 0.586], ["2016-09-15", 0.572], ["2016-09-16", 0.566], ["2016-09-17", 0.57], ["2016-09-17", 0.572], ["2016-09-18", 0.575], ["2016-09-21", 0.584], ["2016-09-22", 0.593], ["2016-09-29", 0.593], ["2016-10-01", 0.594], ["2016-10-05", 0.597], ["2016-10-07", 0.6], ["2016-10-12", 0.598], ["2016-10-12", 0.598], ["2016-10-19", 0.6], ["2016-10-20", 0.596], ["2016-10-20", 0.598], ["2016-10-24", 0.592], ["2016-11-04", 0.593], ["2016-11-10", 0.593], ["2016-11-17", 0.594], ["2016-11-24", 0.594], ["2016-12-21", 0.594], ["2017-01-13", 0.593], ["2017-05-14", 0.593], ["2017-05-16", 0.594], ["2017-05-18", 0.591], ["2017-05-18", 0.591], ["2017-05-19", 0.588], ["2017-05-20", 0.582], ["2017-05-25", 0.586], ["2017-06-02", 0.586], ["2017-06-04", 0.579], ["2017-06-23", 0.578], ["2017-06-25", 0.581], ["2017-06-27", 0.581], ["2017-07-18", 0.581], ["2017-08-04", 0.576], ["2017-08-04", 0.568], ["2017-08-05", 0.567], ["2017-08-07", 0.566], ["2017-08-09", 0.565], ["2017-08-12", 0.565], ["2017-08-14", 0.57], ["2017-08-19", 0.567], ["2017-08-20", 0.567], ["2017-08-23", 0.567], ["2017-08-29", 0.561], ["2017-08-31", 0.558], ["2017-08-31", 0.558], ["2017-09-01", 0.558], ["2017-09-01", 0.555], ["2017-09-11", 0.555], ["2017-09-20", 0.555], ["2017-09-20", 0.554], ["2017-10-04", 0.554], ["2017-10-05", 0.553], ["2017-10-07", 0.552], ["2017-10-07", 0.552], ["2017-10-09", 0.554], ["2017-10-17", 0.554], ["2017-10-17", 0.555], ["2017-10-19", 0.555], ["2017-10-19", 0.554], ["2017-10-21", 0.554], ["2017-10-22", 0.552], ["2017-10-23", 0.552], ["2017-10-25", 0.55], ["2017-10-26", 0.551], ["2017-10-27", 0.551], ["2017-10-28", 0.553], ["2017-10-29", 0.553], ["2017-10-29", 0.553]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/289/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The NIH-funded Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) tracks 25,874 men and women across the U.S. over five years, investigating whether taking daily dietary supplements of vitamin D3 (2000 IU) or omega-3 fatty acids (Omacor® fish oil, 1 gram) reduces the risk for developing cancer, heart disease, and stroke in people who do not have a prior history of these illnesses. The trial is scheduled to end October 2017.
Research on the health effects of vitamin D, which humans primarily obtain from exposure to sunlight, has yielded mixed results, with strong claims being made by both advocates and skeptics. Some studies show inverse correlation between vitamin D levels and a range of diseases including cancer and diabetes; others indicate no significant connection. The health effects of omega-3 fatty acids are similarly uncertain. Since the 1970s, fish oil supplements (a common dietary source of omega-3 fatty acids) have been linked to increased cardiovascular health and a lower risk of heart disease and stroke, but most large clinical trials show no notable benefits. VITAL’s research leaders propose that the study’s size, scope, and rigor will more clearly determine the health effects of vitamin D and omega-3 supplements.
Will the results of the VITAL study support a connection between daily supplements of vitamin D3 and/or omega-3 fatty acids and decreased risk of cancer, heart disease, and stroke in people with no prior history of these illnesses?
A positive resolution holds if the results of the VITAL study, published after the study's close in October 2017, show that a daily supplement of either 2,000 IU of vitamin D or 1 gram of fish oil reduces the risk of stroke, cancer, and/or heart disease compared with a placebo, with a statistical significance of 95% or greater. | true | 2017-10-30 | Will the VITAL study show significant benefits of vitamin D and/or omega-3 supplementation? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-26 | 2016-07-23 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-25", 0.78], ["2016-07-25", 0.735], ["2016-07-25", 0.6], ["2016-07-25", 0.503], ["2016-07-25", 0.503], ["2016-07-25", 0.6], ["2016-07-26", 0.555], ["2016-07-26", 0.657], ["2016-07-26", 0.688], ["2016-07-26", 0.661], ["2016-07-26", 0.642], ["2016-07-26", 0.638], ["2016-07-26", 0.612], ["2016-07-26", 0.603], ["2016-07-26", 0.577], ["2016-07-26", 0.559], ["2016-07-26", 0.562], ["2016-07-28", 0.537], ["2016-07-29", 0.528], ["2016-07-29", 0.53], ["2016-07-30", 0.527], ["2016-07-30", 0.521], ["2016-07-31", 0.52], ["2016-08-02", 0.495], ["2016-08-03", 0.497], ["2016-08-04", 0.503], ["2016-08-07", 0.524], ["2016-08-08", 0.52], ["2016-08-09", 0.508], ["2016-08-11", 0.496], ["2016-08-13", 0.496], ["2016-08-16", 0.48], ["2016-08-17", 0.472], ["2016-08-19", 0.476], ["2016-08-23", 0.474], ["2016-08-26", 0.473], ["2016-09-01", 0.479], ["2016-09-02", 0.47], ["2016-09-14", 0.462], ["2016-09-14", 0.476], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-16", 0.477], ["2016-09-17", 0.484], ["2016-09-17", 0.484], ["2016-09-21", 0.496], ["2016-09-25", 0.495], ["2016-09-27", 0.498], ["2016-09-27", 0.504], ["2016-10-12", 0.504], ["2016-10-12", 0.5], ["2016-10-19", 0.501], ["2016-10-19", 0.501], ["2016-10-19", 0.504], ["2016-10-20", 0.494], ["2016-10-23", 0.495], ["2016-10-23", 0.495], ["2016-10-24", 0.489], ["2016-10-27", 0.495], ["2016-10-27", 0.495], ["2016-11-10", 0.496], ["2016-11-12", 0.498], ["2016-11-23", 0.495], ["2016-11-24", 0.495], ["2016-12-20", 0.494], ["2016-12-20", 0.494], ["2016-12-21", 0.494], ["2017-01-01", 0.494], ["2017-01-06", 0.483], ["2017-02-17", 0.483], ["2017-02-23", 0.483], ["2017-02-23", 0.484], ["2017-03-18", 0.482], ["2017-04-15", 0.482], ["2017-04-16", 0.479], ["2017-04-16", 0.48], ["2017-04-20", 0.482], ["2017-05-01", 0.475], ["2017-05-01", 0.475], ["2017-05-01", 0.475], ["2017-05-01", 0.472], ["2017-05-01", 0.467], ["2017-05-01", 0.463], ["2017-05-01", 0.463], ["2017-05-01", 0.462], ["2017-05-02", 0.459], ["2017-05-04", 0.459], ["2017-05-05", 0.458], ["2017-05-05", 0.458], ["2017-05-08", 0.459], ["2017-05-08", 0.459], ["2017-05-09", 0.458], ["2017-05-10", 0.458], ["2017-05-10", 0.457], ["2017-05-11", 0.456], ["2017-05-12", 0.451], ["2017-05-13", 0.448], ["2017-05-14", 0.447], ["2017-05-14", 0.447], ["2017-05-14", 0.445], ["2017-05-14", 0.445]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/290/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | A team of independent researchers led by Dr. Matthew Lewin at Ophirex, Inc. is working to develop a universal antidote to snakebite.
Snakes bite around 5 million people each year, resulting in about 100,000 deaths worldwide. Bites are traditionally treated with antivenoms, which are snake-specific, expensive, temperature-sensitive, and often require medical expertise to administer, conditions that make snakebite difficult to treat outside a hospital. An effective antidote, in contrast, would be both heat-stable and broadly effective, interfering with venom’s destructive biochemical effects, which might include paralysis, excessive clotting or bleeding, necrosis, or a combination.
Lewin’s research team has identified varespladib and varespladib methyl, off-patent drugs originally developed as an anti-inflammatory, as potential antidotes. These drugs inhibit an enzyme called sPLA2, which is produced in the human body during inflammation and is also a component of snake venom. The drugs have been tested in humans for other uses, but never obtained FDA approval.
Early research shows that the drugs are effective in neutralizing sPLA2 in a large variety of snake venoms. In preliminary rodent studies, rats who received varespladib treatments 1-5 minutes after lethal doses of snake venom all went on to survive at least 24 hours. No human trials have yet been undertaken, though Lewin conducted a UCSF-approved trial on himself in April 2013.
Will a clinical trial be entered into the US database with a start date prior to 1/1/2018, to test the use of varespladib and/or varespladib methyl as snake venom antidotes in humans? | true | 2017-05-15 | Clinical trials of a "universal" snakebite antidote? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-10-21 | 2016-07-23 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-25", 0.69], ["2016-07-26", 0.792], ["2016-07-27", 0.812], ["2016-07-28", 0.817], ["2016-07-29", 0.817], ["2016-07-31", 0.8], ["2016-07-31", 0.795], ["2016-08-02", 0.79], ["2016-08-04", 0.79], ["2016-08-05", 0.788], ["2016-08-06", 0.759], ["2016-08-07", 0.764], ["2016-08-08", 0.727], ["2016-08-11", 0.716], ["2016-08-13", 0.719], ["2016-08-14", 0.724], ["2016-08-17", 0.729], ["2016-08-19", 0.72], ["2016-08-24", 0.721], ["2016-08-24", 0.716], ["2016-08-26", 0.715], ["2016-08-27", 0.719], ["2016-08-28", 0.719], ["2016-08-31", 0.714], ["2016-09-01", 0.713], ["2016-09-02", 0.719], ["2016-09-03", 0.72], ["2016-09-08", 0.72], ["2016-09-11", 0.721], ["2016-09-12", 0.72], ["2016-09-12", 0.722], ["2016-09-14", 0.725], ["2016-09-15", 0.732], ["2016-09-16", 0.737], ["2016-09-17", 0.754], ["2016-09-18", 0.756], ["2016-09-19", 0.758], ["2016-09-19", 0.765], ["2016-09-21", 0.754], ["2016-09-21", 0.761], ["2016-09-22", 0.763], ["2016-09-24", 0.764], ["2016-09-29", 0.764], ["2016-09-29", 0.764], ["2016-09-30", 0.766], ["2016-09-30", 0.763], ["2016-10-01", 0.763], ["2016-10-03", 0.762], ["2016-10-03", 0.753], ["2016-10-05", 0.754], ["2016-10-06", 0.754], ["2016-10-10", 0.753], ["2016-10-10", 0.754], ["2016-10-12", 0.751], ["2016-10-12", 0.747], ["2016-10-19", 0.746], ["2016-10-19", 0.746], ["2016-10-20", 0.744], ["2016-10-24", 0.741], ["2016-10-24", 0.735], ["2016-10-31", 0.737], ["2016-11-03", 0.735], ["2016-11-03", 0.734], ["2016-11-08", 0.734], ["2016-11-13", 0.735], ["2016-11-26", 0.735], ["2016-11-29", 0.734], ["2016-11-30", 0.734], ["2016-12-15", 0.732], ["2016-12-21", 0.732], ["2016-12-22", 0.733], ["2017-01-01", 0.73], ["2017-01-02", 0.733], ["2017-03-09", 0.731], ["2017-03-09", 0.733], ["2017-03-11", 0.733], ["2017-03-21", 0.733], ["2017-04-15", 0.733], ["2017-04-29", 0.727], ["2017-05-16", 0.729], ["2017-05-18", 0.726], ["2017-05-20", 0.726], ["2017-05-20", 0.723], ["2017-06-01", 0.721], ["2017-06-03", 0.716], ["2017-06-03", 0.716], ["2017-06-09", 0.714], ["2017-06-19", 0.713], ["2017-06-21", 0.712], ["2017-06-21", 0.712], ["2017-06-29", 0.712], ["2017-07-01", 0.711], ["2017-07-01", 0.711], ["2017-07-04", 0.711], ["2017-07-05", 0.709], ["2017-07-06", 0.71], ["2017-07-08", 0.71], ["2017-07-09", 0.708], ["2017-07-12", 0.708], ["2017-07-14", 0.708], ["2017-07-14", 0.703]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/291/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Advancing age brings with it a host of health risks, and while modern medicine works to treat many of the conditions associated with aging, no therapy is yet approved to treat aging as an underlying condition.
Slow aging, some researchers say, and you can extend a person's "healthspan," or years of relative health. Delaying aging could also delay the onset of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, cognitive decline, and other conditions. To spur development of anti-aging therapeutics, however, researchers must first convince the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve aging as a disease or pharmaceutical target, also called an "indication."
A trial balloon in this effort is a study called Targeting Aging with Metformin, or "TAME." The study, led by Nir Barzilai of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, aims to enroll 3,000 people in a double-blind controlled experiment to see if the diabetes drug metformin can extend the human healthspan and lifespan. Metformin, considered the first line of defense against Type 2 diabetes, lowers blood sugar and increases insulin sensitivity. At around 35 cents per pill, it's relatively inexpensive.
Studies have found an intriguing side effect of metformin, however. The drug increased the lifespan of worms and some mice. A UK study of patient data suggested a possible lowered risk of cardiovascular disease in metformin-treated diabetes patients. Another study of patient data suggests that diabetes patients in their 70s, treated with metformin, experienced around 15% less mortality than their diabetic peers treated with other methods. Scientists think the drug may reduce inflammation and slow the process of cell senescence, a component of aging.
Although TAME shows promise, and the protocol was approved by the FDA in June 2016, the program is unfunded. Costs are expected to reach $50-65 million. Without funding, TAME cannot proceed.
Funding could come from private or public sources. Pharmaceutical companies have the deep pockets that TAME needs, but may be reluctant to invest in the study since a previous anti-aging effort cost more than $700 million and has been fruitless so far in clinical trials. And, with metformin already established as a drug, pharmaceutical companies cannot exclusively profit from it as they would with a newly developed therapeutic.
Another possible funding source is a line in the US Department of Defense's budget called the "Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program," (PRMRP) which distributes funding for basic medical research. For 2016, Congress appropriated $278 million for the program. Visitors to TAME's website are encouraged to write to their congressional representative to encourage further appropriations of $13 million per year for the PRMRP, funds that could support the initial years of TAME.
According to the House Committee on the Budget, any action on the FY 2017 budget will be in place by June 30, 2017. PRMRP proposals are typically submitted in the spring, in advance of the fiscal year beginning on October 1.
Will TAME secure enough funding, public or private, to proceed by October 1, 2017?
To resolve positively, a credible media story or TAME-affiliated press release must report that the program has received at least $13 million in funding, enough to commence the first year of the study, regardless of the funding source, on or before October 1, 2017. | true | 2017-07-15 | Funding for a study of anti-aging properties of the diabetes drug Metformin? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-09-03 | 2016-07-23 | [] | binary | [["2016-07-25", 0.83], ["2016-07-25", 0.82], ["2016-07-25", 0.877], ["2016-07-25", 0.89], ["2016-07-25", 0.91], ["2016-07-26", 0.842], ["2016-07-26", 0.912], ["2016-07-26", 0.933], ["2016-07-26", 0.891], ["2016-07-26", 0.854], ["2016-07-26", 0.842], ["2016-07-26", 0.849], ["2016-07-26", 0.828], ["2016-07-26", 0.837], ["2016-07-26", 0.828], ["2016-07-26", 0.804], ["2016-07-26", 0.798], ["2016-07-26", 0.802], ["2016-07-28", 0.814], ["2016-07-28", 0.823], ["2016-07-29", 0.817], ["2016-07-29", 0.784], ["2016-07-29", 0.78], ["2016-07-30", 0.777], ["2016-07-31", 0.773], ["2016-08-02", 0.773], ["2016-08-07", 0.74], ["2016-08-07", 0.75], ["2016-08-13", 0.746], ["2016-08-14", 0.73], ["2016-08-19", 0.721], ["2016-08-25", 0.719], ["2016-08-28", 0.718], ["2016-08-31", 0.702], ["2016-09-01", 0.694], ["2016-09-01", 0.695], ["2016-09-14", 0.701], ["2016-09-14", 0.709], ["2016-09-15", 0.696], ["2016-09-17", 0.701], ["2016-09-17", 0.7], ["2016-09-17", 0.694], ["2016-09-18", 0.693], ["2016-09-18", 0.697], ["2016-09-18", 0.699], ["2016-09-19", 0.698], ["2016-09-20", 0.702], ["2016-09-21", 0.704], ["2016-09-21", 0.689], ["2016-09-27", 0.691], ["2016-09-29", 0.691], ["2016-10-11", 0.687], ["2016-10-11", 0.689], ["2016-10-20", 0.687], ["2016-10-22", 0.687], ["2016-10-23", 0.687], ["2016-10-24", 0.68], ["2016-10-24", 0.68], ["2016-10-24", 0.687], ["2016-11-02", 0.68], ["2016-11-07", 0.675], ["2016-11-07", 0.665], ["2016-11-07", 0.661], ["2016-11-10", 0.659], ["2016-11-11", 0.652], ["2016-11-18", 0.652], ["2016-12-15", 0.654], ["2016-12-16", 0.653], ["2016-12-21", 0.659], ["2016-12-22", 0.657], ["2016-12-26", 0.657], ["2016-12-31", 0.652], ["2016-12-31", 0.65]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/292/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | As the Zika virus continues to pose a global health threat, research is underway to develop potential vaccines and treatments. In June 2016, a research team at the University of Massachusetts Medical School published findings that interferon-inducible transmembrane proteins (IFITMs), small proteins found in the human body, can significantly block infection by the Zika virus.
In particular, the team identified the protein IFITM3, already known to play an important role in the human immune system, as an early front line defender against Zika. IFITM3, found in nearly all human cells, bolsters the cell membrane against viral penetration. The study found that IFITM3 levels in test cells were inversely correlated with the rate of infection by Zika. The team’s next step will be to test the susceptibility of IFITM3-deficient mice to Zika infection, with the hope of eventually developing an anti-viral therapy based on IFITM3 that can be used to fight the Zika outbreak.
Will a clinical trial be entered into the U.S. database with a start date prior to September 1, 2017, to test an IFITM3-based therapy to treat or protect against the Zika virus in humans? | true | 2017-01-01 | Zapping Zika #5: Clinical trials of IFITM3-based therapies? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-07-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-01", 0.64], ["2016-08-01", 0.455], ["2016-08-01", 0.47], ["2016-08-01", 0.355], ["2016-08-01", 0.374], ["2016-08-01", 0.395], ["2016-08-01", 0.48], ["2016-08-02", 0.454], ["2016-08-02", 0.481], ["2016-08-02", 0.48], ["2016-08-02", 0.482], ["2016-08-02", 0.484], ["2016-08-02", 0.504], ["2016-08-03", 0.501], ["2016-08-03", 0.5], ["2016-08-03", 0.507], ["2016-08-03", 0.522], ["2016-08-04", 0.508], ["2016-08-04", 0.508], ["2016-08-04", 0.508], ["2016-08-04", 0.522], ["2016-08-04", 0.524], ["2016-08-05", 0.533], ["2016-08-05", 0.531], ["2016-08-05", 0.54], ["2016-08-05", 0.537], ["2016-08-06", 0.526], ["2016-08-06", 0.527], ["2016-08-07", 0.506], ["2016-08-07", 0.522], ["2016-08-08", 0.532], ["2016-08-09", 0.521], ["2016-08-10", 0.538], ["2016-08-12", 0.54], ["2016-08-13", 0.549], ["2016-08-13", 0.539], ["2016-08-16", 0.544], ["2016-08-17", 0.557], ["2016-08-18", 0.548], ["2016-08-19", 0.555], ["2016-08-20", 0.549], ["2016-08-22", 0.538], ["2016-08-22", 0.54], ["2016-08-25", 0.538], ["2016-08-25", 0.542], ["2016-09-01", 0.537], ["2016-09-01", 0.53], ["2016-09-02", 0.517], ["2016-09-05", 0.515], ["2016-09-06", 0.503], ["2016-09-06", 0.5], ["2016-09-09", 0.498], ["2016-09-12", 0.498], ["2016-09-12", 0.495], ["2016-09-12", 0.486], ["2016-09-12", 0.478], ["2016-09-12", 0.468], ["2016-09-12", 0.49], ["2016-09-12", 0.479], ["2016-09-13", 0.478], ["2016-09-14", 0.473], ["2016-09-14", 0.476], ["2016-09-14", 0.472], ["2016-09-14", 0.463], ["2016-09-14", 0.453], ["2016-09-14", 0.452], ["2016-09-14", 0.451], ["2016-09-14", 0.448], ["2016-09-14", 0.442], ["2016-09-14", 0.443], ["2016-09-15", 0.44], ["2016-09-15", 0.438], ["2016-09-15", 0.435], ["2016-09-15", 0.427], ["2016-09-15", 0.43], ["2016-09-15", 0.429]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/302/ | Author, inventor, and computer scientist Ray Kurzweil is known as a public advocate for the Singularity, predicting that within decades, artificial intelligence will surpass that of human beings. In 2012, Kurzweil was hired as Google’s Director of Engineering, with a focus on projects involving machine learning and natural language processing.
At a May 2016 conference held by Singularity University, Kurzweil announced that his Google team is working on a chatbot to be released later this year. One of the bots will be named Danielle, after the titular character of Kurzweil’s yet-to-be-released novel. Kurzweil described a chatbot that, given substantial writing samples from a unique user, could be personalized to adopt the writer’s “style, personality, and ideas”. The anticipated bots will be able to hold conversations that are “interesting,” though not yet near the sophistication of human-to-human communication.
The story broke via a video from the conference posted on technology and culture website theverge.com. The video has since been removed due to copyright restrictions by Singularity University; no official announcement of Kurzweil's project has been made by Google.
Kurzweil’s announcement comes at a time of chatbot development among tech giants. The CEO of Microsoft recently declared that chatbots will revolutionize computing, although Microsoft suffered an embarrassing setback in March when its Twitter chatbot had to be disabled in less than a day after learning hate speech from users. Facebook’s Messenger app features over 11,000 chatbots for users to converse with. Earlier this year, Google itself released a new smart messaging app, Allo, that learns a user’s texting style in order to provide intelligent suggestions for conversations with other humans. | Science & Tech | Will Kurzweil’s Google team release Danielle or another chatbot by the end of 2016?
For a positive resolution there must be by Dec. 31, 2016 a publicly accessible chatbot (potentially with signup or even fees but open in principle to anyone) released by Google or another child company of Alphabet, Inc. Release notes or credible media report must indicate a connection between this chatbot and the program run by Kuzweil at Google. | true | 2016-09-15 | Will Google release a chatbot in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-09 | 2016-08-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-05", 0.37], ["2016-08-05", 0.145], ["2016-08-06", 0.4], ["2016-08-06", 0.443], ["2016-08-07", 0.398], ["2016-08-07", 0.421], ["2016-08-08", 0.421], ["2016-08-08", 0.421], ["2016-08-09", 0.409], ["2016-08-09", 0.425], ["2016-08-10", 0.423], ["2016-08-10", 0.426], ["2016-08-10", 0.421], ["2016-08-11", 0.438], ["2016-08-13", 0.425], ["2016-08-13", 0.424], ["2016-08-13", 0.42], ["2016-08-14", 0.431], ["2016-08-15", 0.425], ["2016-08-15", 0.435], ["2016-08-17", 0.436], ["2016-08-17", 0.433], ["2016-08-18", 0.44], ["2016-08-19", 0.44], ["2016-08-19", 0.446], ["2016-08-20", 0.44], ["2016-08-24", 0.431], ["2016-08-25", 0.429], ["2016-08-25", 0.427], ["2016-08-26", 0.423], ["2016-08-27", 0.421], ["2016-08-28", 0.42], ["2016-08-30", 0.424], ["2016-08-31", 0.416], ["2016-08-31", 0.413], ["2016-08-31", 0.414], ["2016-09-01", 0.413], ["2016-09-02", 0.416], ["2016-09-03", 0.415], ["2016-09-13", 0.413], ["2016-09-14", 0.41], ["2016-09-14", 0.419], ["2016-09-15", 0.415], ["2016-09-15", 0.418], ["2016-09-16", 0.412], ["2016-09-16", 0.411], ["2016-09-16", 0.416], ["2016-09-17", 0.418], ["2016-09-17", 0.421], ["2016-09-18", 0.418], ["2016-09-18", 0.419], ["2016-09-19", 0.419], ["2016-09-19", 0.419], ["2016-09-21", 0.414], ["2016-09-21", 0.421], ["2016-09-23", 0.42], ["2016-09-24", 0.416], ["2016-09-25", 0.415], ["2016-09-26", 0.415], ["2016-09-27", 0.413], ["2016-09-28", 0.416], ["2016-09-29", 0.416], ["2016-09-29", 0.416], ["2016-09-29", 0.415], ["2016-09-30", 0.414], ["2016-10-04", 0.415], ["2016-10-04", 0.415], ["2016-10-05", 0.416], ["2016-10-05", 0.416], ["2016-10-13", 0.418], ["2016-10-19", 0.415], ["2016-10-19", 0.415], ["2016-10-20", 0.422], ["2016-10-20", 0.422], ["2016-10-21", 0.417], ["2016-10-21", 0.414], ["2016-10-22", 0.415], ["2016-10-22", 0.416], ["2016-10-23", 0.413], ["2016-10-23", 0.409], ["2016-10-24", 0.408], ["2016-10-24", 0.409], ["2016-10-25", 0.409], ["2016-10-25", 0.408], ["2016-10-28", 0.408], ["2016-10-28", 0.408], ["2016-10-28", 0.402], ["2016-10-28", 0.402], ["2016-10-29", 0.403], ["2016-10-29", 0.403], ["2016-11-01", 0.4], ["2016-11-02", 0.398], ["2016-11-02", 0.397], ["2016-11-02", 0.398], ["2016-11-04", 0.398], ["2016-11-05", 0.398], ["2016-11-06", 0.399], ["2016-11-06", 0.399], ["2016-11-07", 0.398], ["2016-11-07", 0.399], ["2016-11-08", 0.4]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/304/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | The fivethirtyeight.com team, lead by Nate Silver, was able to predict exactly the 2012 state-by-state electoral map for the presidential election. In 2008 their prediction missed on only a single state, Indiana, which Obama won by a 0.1% margin.
See for example this writeup on Mashable.
Will the 538 model repeat its 2012 success and correctly predict the outcome in every state?
This will resolve as correct if the final prediction from fivethirtyeight.com before the election matches exactly the electoral results post-election for each state. (Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be split; for these two states, success requires all the districts to be called correctly.) If the site has multiple prediction models showing as of the day before the election, whichever is highlighted as their best pick will be used. | true | 2016-11-08 | Will 538 ace the 2016 US presidential electoral map? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-28 | 2016-08-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-05", 0.32], ["2016-08-06", 0.445], ["2016-08-06", 0.42], ["2016-08-06", 0.443], ["2016-08-06", 0.443], ["2016-08-06", 0.439], ["2016-08-06", 0.53], ["2016-08-07", 0.493], ["2016-08-08", 0.487], ["2016-08-08", 0.494], ["2016-08-08", 0.484], ["2016-08-09", 0.462], ["2016-08-09", 0.454], ["2016-08-10", 0.446], ["2016-08-10", 0.446], ["2016-08-10", 0.446], ["2016-08-12", 0.45], ["2016-08-13", 0.47], ["2016-08-13", 0.471], ["2016-08-16", 0.487], ["2016-08-17", 0.488], ["2016-08-17", 0.49], ["2016-08-18", 0.491], ["2016-08-19", 0.494], ["2016-08-22", 0.479], ["2016-08-23", 0.482], ["2016-08-25", 0.482], ["2016-08-25", 0.485], ["2016-08-28", 0.484], ["2016-08-28", 0.485], ["2016-08-31", 0.497], ["2016-09-01", 0.49], ["2016-09-01", 0.488], ["2016-09-01", 0.493], ["2016-09-02", 0.494], ["2016-09-02", 0.494], ["2016-09-02", 0.488], ["2016-09-06", 0.482], ["2016-09-07", 0.489], ["2016-09-11", 0.493], ["2016-09-12", 0.485], ["2016-09-12", 0.495], ["2016-09-12", 0.522], ["2016-09-12", 0.527], ["2016-09-12", 0.536], ["2016-09-13", 0.549], ["2016-09-13", 0.553], ["2016-09-14", 0.555], ["2016-09-14", 0.563], ["2016-09-14", 0.556], ["2016-09-14", 0.568], ["2016-09-14", 0.577], ["2016-09-15", 0.585], ["2016-09-15", 0.581], ["2016-09-15", 0.584], ["2016-09-16", 0.573], ["2016-09-16", 0.578], ["2016-09-16", 0.586], ["2016-09-16", 0.582], ["2016-09-16", 0.583], ["2016-09-16", 0.592], ["2016-09-17", 0.594], ["2016-09-17", 0.588], ["2016-09-17", 0.587], ["2016-09-17", 0.594], ["2016-09-17", 0.593], ["2016-09-17", 0.597], ["2016-09-18", 0.595], ["2016-09-18", 0.597], ["2016-09-18", 0.599], ["2016-09-18", 0.599], ["2016-09-18", 0.601], ["2016-09-18", 0.601], ["2016-09-18", 0.6], ["2016-09-18", 0.594], ["2016-09-19", 0.591], ["2016-09-19", 0.595], ["2016-09-19", 0.593], ["2016-09-19", 0.592], ["2016-09-19", 0.59], ["2016-09-20", 0.594], ["2016-09-20", 0.593], ["2016-09-20", 0.595], ["2016-09-20", 0.594], ["2016-09-20", 0.585], ["2016-09-21", 0.586], ["2016-09-21", 0.588], ["2016-09-21", 0.602], ["2016-09-22", 0.603], ["2016-09-22", 0.605], ["2016-09-22", 0.605], ["2016-09-23", 0.606], ["2016-09-23", 0.602], ["2016-09-23", 0.606], ["2016-09-24", 0.608], ["2016-09-24", 0.608], ["2016-09-24", 0.609], ["2016-09-24", 0.61], ["2016-09-24", 0.615], ["2016-09-24", 0.617], ["2016-09-24", 0.616]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/308/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Going to the moon is like a stroll to the corner grocery store compared to going to Mars. One-way travel to Mars can take several months, compared to three days when going to the moon, and the launch window comes around only once every two years. Astronauts traveling to Mars are exposed to high radiation levels, cramped living conditions for an extended time, the detrimental health effects of microgravity, and lack of access to advanced medical care in case something goes wrong. And if fictionalized accounts of missions to Mars (and even some real robotic missions) have taught us anything, it's that the chances of something going wrong are high.
Despite the challenges, Earth has had its sights on Mars for centuries. In 1948, NASA rocket guru Wernher von Braun published the first technical analysis of what it would take to go to Mars. Since then, dozens of plans have been put forward, each with a launch date around 20-30 years in the future.
NASA is actively preparing for a Mars mission. The Orion crew capsule and Space Launch System rocket, both still in development and testing, are designed to be able to go to Mars. The current target launch date for a manned Mars mission is around 2035.
Private enterprise, already in the business of sending cargo to the International Space Station, has its own designs on sending humans to Mars. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, says he's working on a blueprint for a Mars mission that would launch in 2025 - a full decade before NASA. He has dropped hints about a methane-powered rocket booster and a crew module called the Mars Colonial Transporter designed to take permanent colonists, not just interloping astronauts, to the Red Planet.
Because of the challenges involved in going to Mars, Musk has repeatedly delayed unveiling his full blueprint and timeline. In January 2015, he promised a reveal by the end of that year, then pushed it to early 2016. Most recently, he's pegged the International Astronautical Congress, taking place September 26-30 in Guadalajara, Mexico, as the venue for showing off his plan for Mars colonization.
Will Elon Musk finally reveal his blueprint for sending humans to Mars at the International Astronautical Congress in September 2016?
For this question to resolve as positive, a credible media outlet or SpaceX corporate statement must report that on or before September 30, 2016, while at the International Astronautical Congress, Elon Musk has presented a detailed plan for sending humans to Mars. | true | 2016-09-25 | SpaceX's blueprint to Mars presented in late September? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-07-17 | 2016-08-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-08", 0.67], ["2016-08-08", 0.635], ["2016-08-09", 0.56], ["2016-08-09", 0.55], ["2016-08-09", 0.542], ["2016-08-09", 0.535], ["2016-08-09", 0.469], ["2016-08-09", 0.459], ["2016-08-09", 0.463], ["2016-08-09", 0.426], ["2016-08-09", 0.438], ["2016-08-09", 0.418], ["2016-08-10", 0.413], ["2016-08-11", 0.419], ["2016-08-11", 0.457], ["2016-08-12", 0.46], ["2016-08-14", 0.459], ["2016-08-15", 0.444], ["2016-08-17", 0.447], ["2016-08-19", 0.437], ["2016-08-19", 0.432], ["2016-08-25", 0.433], ["2016-08-30", 0.42], ["2016-08-31", 0.403], ["2016-09-01", 0.407], ["2016-09-01", 0.399], ["2016-09-02", 0.385], ["2016-09-13", 0.373], ["2016-09-14", 0.36], ["2016-09-14", 0.358], ["2016-09-14", 0.371], ["2016-09-14", 0.36], ["2016-09-15", 0.372], ["2016-09-15", 0.367], ["2016-09-16", 0.357], ["2016-09-16", 0.355], ["2016-09-16", 0.366], ["2016-09-17", 0.361], ["2016-09-17", 0.36], ["2016-09-17", 0.364], ["2016-09-21", 0.365], ["2016-09-26", 0.368], ["2016-09-27", 0.373], ["2016-09-29", 0.375], ["2016-09-29", 0.369], ["2016-09-30", 0.366], ["2016-10-03", 0.361], ["2016-10-03", 0.349], ["2016-10-03", 0.339], ["2016-10-04", 0.339], ["2016-10-04", 0.341], ["2016-10-07", 0.341], ["2016-10-11", 0.338], ["2016-10-15", 0.338], ["2016-10-19", 0.335], ["2016-10-20", 0.331], ["2016-10-22", 0.338], ["2016-10-22", 0.338], ["2016-10-22", 0.338], ["2016-10-23", 0.338], ["2016-10-24", 0.324], ["2016-11-01", 0.324], ["2016-11-05", 0.322], ["2016-11-05", 0.322], ["2016-11-08", 0.322], ["2016-11-11", 0.326], ["2016-11-12", 0.325], ["2016-11-14", 0.32], ["2016-11-15", 0.32], ["2016-11-15", 0.318], ["2016-11-16", 0.317], ["2016-11-24", 0.317], ["2016-11-24", 0.314], ["2016-11-26", 0.314], ["2016-12-01", 0.311], ["2016-12-01", 0.311], ["2016-12-01", 0.306], ["2016-12-01", 0.306]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/309/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Turing machine is an abstract model of computation used for proofs in theoretical computer science. It is very simple in its formulation - a finite set of internal states, an infinitely long tape on which characters can be written, and a finite set of transition rules dictating how a current state and current character map to: writing a new character, possibly moving the tape, and changing from one of the internal states to another. Although simple and stripped-down, the functions it can compute are equivalent to those of other models of digital computers under assumptions of unlimited time and "tape".
Theorems can be proven characterizing the behavior of very simple Turing machines - for example, a machine with only one internal state that (when it is in that state) prints a character and moves the tape ahead will never stop.
It's also known as a consequence of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that there exist Turing machines complex enough that their behavior cannot be characterized by proof given the usual axioms of set theory (ZFC with the Axiom of Choice).
In May 2016, Adam Yedidia and Scott Aaronson published a paper demonstrating a Turing machine with 7,918 states (one tape, two possible symbols) that has behavior that is unprovable in a particular sense: the machine cannot be proven in ZFC to either run forever or not run forever, assuming that a slightly stronger formulation of set theory (Stationary Ramsey Property) is itself consistent.
In his blogpost announcing the paper, Aaronson speculated on how few states a Turing machine could have with this kind of unprovable behavior, and invited readers to improve upon this bound.
This question will resolve in the positive if, before July 1 2017, Scott Aaronson links from his blog to a paper that claims to have constructed a binary-tape-symbol Turing machine with fewer than 100 states satisfying this standard of unprovability, and Aaronson declares himself to be satisfied with the construction. | true | 2016-12-01 | Will a small Turing machine (< 100 states) be found with behavior that cannot be characterized by mathematical proof? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-18 | 2016-08-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-13", 0.85], ["2016-08-16", 0.634], ["2016-08-17", 0.619], ["2016-08-20", 0.616], ["2016-08-24", 0.612], ["2016-08-28", 0.617], ["2016-08-29", 0.618], ["2016-08-31", 0.594], ["2016-09-02", 0.575], ["2016-09-04", 0.59], ["2016-09-11", 0.586], ["2016-09-14", 0.607], ["2016-09-17", 0.637], ["2016-09-18", 0.667], ["2016-09-21", 0.651], ["2016-09-22", 0.658], ["2016-09-24", 0.652], ["2016-09-27", 0.65], ["2016-09-30", 0.654], ["2016-10-01", 0.659], ["2016-10-04", 0.668], ["2016-10-05", 0.67], ["2016-10-08", 0.668], ["2016-10-10", 0.669], ["2016-10-11", 0.667], ["2016-10-14", 0.663], ["2016-10-16", 0.668], ["2016-10-19", 0.666], ["2016-10-21", 0.67], ["2016-10-23", 0.658], ["2016-10-27", 0.658], ["2016-10-31", 0.659], ["2016-11-01", 0.657], ["2016-11-03", 0.654], ["2016-11-05", 0.649], ["2016-11-07", 0.654], ["2016-11-09", 0.653], ["2016-11-12", 0.655], ["2016-11-14", 0.654], ["2016-11-23", 0.658], ["2016-11-25", 0.658], ["2016-11-28", 0.659], ["2016-11-29", 0.655], ["2016-12-02", 0.655], ["2016-12-04", 0.654], ["2016-12-07", 0.651], ["2016-12-07", 0.651], ["2016-12-11", 0.65], ["2016-12-13", 0.651], ["2016-12-21", 0.652], ["2016-12-23", 0.652], ["2016-12-26", 0.652], ["2016-12-29", 0.651], ["2016-12-31", 0.652], ["2017-01-06", 0.651], ["2017-01-08", 0.651], ["2017-01-10", 0.651], ["2017-01-12", 0.651], ["2017-01-18", 0.647], ["2017-01-19", 0.644], ["2017-02-03", 0.644], ["2017-02-23", 0.645], ["2017-02-24", 0.645], ["2017-02-27", 0.641], ["2017-02-27", 0.642], ["2017-03-04", 0.64], ["2017-03-07", 0.64], ["2017-03-09", 0.641], ["2017-03-11", 0.636], ["2017-03-14", 0.637], ["2017-03-15", 0.637], ["2017-04-12", 0.637], ["2017-04-15", 0.633], ["2017-04-25", 0.635], ["2017-04-25", 0.636], ["2017-04-29", 0.638], ["2017-05-03", 0.638], ["2017-05-14", 0.639], ["2017-05-20", 0.641], ["2017-05-23", 0.64], ["2017-05-25", 0.641], ["2017-06-01", 0.64], ["2017-06-09", 0.64], ["2017-06-15", 0.637], ["2017-06-16", 0.637], ["2017-06-19", 0.634], ["2017-06-26", 0.633], ["2017-06-28", 0.634], ["2017-06-29", 0.632], ["2017-07-01", 0.636], ["2017-07-04", 0.638], ["2017-07-06", 0.637], ["2017-07-08", 0.638], ["2017-07-11", 0.639], ["2017-07-15", 0.641], ["2017-07-17", 0.64], ["2017-07-19", 0.631], ["2017-07-22", 0.628], ["2017-07-25", 0.628], ["2017-07-28", 0.628], ["2017-07-30", 0.626]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/314/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | Seems like it might be a good time to go into the air conditioner repair business.
In 2015, the average global temperature, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) data analysis, was the warmest on record, handily besting the previous mark which was set way back in 2014.
There is unambiguous evidence that climate change, driven by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration (as well as other greenhouse gases), is responsible for the relentless upward trend. Nonetheless, stochastic variations do lend a short-term veneer of unpredictability to near-term measurements.
A recently closed Metaculus question that asked whether 2016 will break the global heat record was quite popular -- 742 predictions were registered, ascribing an 85% chance of going over the top. Given the interest, it seems reasonable to roll the question out for the coming year:
Will 2017 again set a new record? Or will it fall off the recent record-setting pace?
This will resolve in the positive if the NASA GISS global average temperature for 2017 is published above that of any prior year for which records exist. As a practical matter, this will be either 2015 or (likely) 2016. | true | 2017-07-31 | Will 2017 be the warmest year on record? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-03-30 | 2016-08-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-17", 0.38], ["2016-08-17", 0.32], ["2016-08-17", 0.503], ["2016-08-18", 0.494], ["2016-08-18", 0.494], ["2016-08-18", 0.491], ["2016-08-19", 0.467], ["2016-08-19", 0.464], ["2016-08-19", 0.455], ["2016-08-20", 0.455], ["2016-08-20", 0.444], ["2016-08-23", 0.442], ["2016-08-24", 0.442], ["2016-08-31", 0.423], ["2016-08-31", 0.427], ["2016-09-01", 0.431], ["2016-09-01", 0.41], ["2016-09-01", 0.4], ["2016-09-02", 0.382], ["2016-09-03", 0.378], ["2016-09-05", 0.375], ["2016-09-05", 0.375], ["2016-09-05", 0.368], ["2016-09-06", 0.378], ["2016-09-12", 0.373], ["2016-09-13", 0.39], ["2016-09-14", 0.379], ["2016-09-14", 0.421], ["2016-09-15", 0.413], ["2016-09-15", 0.424], ["2016-09-15", 0.421], ["2016-09-15", 0.459], ["2016-09-16", 0.476], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-16", 0.494], ["2016-09-16", 0.486], ["2016-09-17", 0.5], ["2016-09-17", 0.509], ["2016-09-17", 0.522], ["2016-09-18", 0.515], ["2016-09-18", 0.514], ["2016-09-19", 0.519], ["2016-09-19", 0.53], ["2016-09-20", 0.541], ["2016-09-21", 0.551], ["2016-09-22", 0.551], ["2016-09-26", 0.547], ["2016-09-27", 0.55], ["2016-09-28", 0.553], ["2016-09-28", 0.553], ["2016-09-29", 0.553], ["2016-09-29", 0.561], ["2016-09-30", 0.562], ["2016-09-30", 0.55], ["2016-10-01", 0.558], ["2016-10-01", 0.558], ["2016-10-02", 0.564], ["2016-10-04", 0.564], ["2016-10-06", 0.566], ["2016-10-06", 0.572], ["2016-10-13", 0.572], ["2016-10-21", 0.574], ["2016-10-21", 0.574], ["2016-10-21", 0.568], ["2016-10-21", 0.566], ["2016-10-22", 0.568], ["2016-10-23", 0.568], ["2016-10-24", 0.574], ["2016-10-26", 0.57], ["2016-10-26", 0.56], ["2016-10-26", 0.557], ["2016-10-26", 0.549], ["2016-10-27", 0.528], ["2016-10-27", 0.527], ["2016-10-27", 0.527], ["2016-10-27", 0.513], ["2016-10-27", 0.513], ["2016-10-28", 0.511], ["2016-10-29", 0.504], ["2016-10-31", 0.502], ["2016-11-01", 0.502], ["2016-11-02", 0.499], ["2016-11-02", 0.499], ["2016-11-03", 0.492], ["2016-11-03", 0.487], ["2016-11-05", 0.487], ["2016-11-06", 0.488], ["2016-11-06", 0.488], ["2016-11-06", 0.495], ["2016-11-06", 0.503], ["2016-11-08", 0.5], ["2016-11-08", 0.498], ["2016-11-09", 0.492], ["2016-11-09", 0.492], ["2016-11-10", 0.49], ["2016-11-11", 0.49], ["2016-11-12", 0.488], ["2016-11-12", 0.488], ["2016-11-14", 0.485], ["2016-11-14", 0.485], ["2016-11-14", 0.486]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/315/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The global agricultural sector has been rapidly consolidating, as a three-year decline in crop prices has prompted agribusiness companies both to cut costs and to build in scale. The past year has seen two significant mergers: between Dow Chemical and DuPont in December 2015, and between Syngenta and China National Chemical Corp. in February 2016.
In May 2016, German multinational chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer approached American multinational agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto with a proposed acquisition. Bayer is a leading producer of pesticides, while Monsanto dominates the global market in seeds and crop genetics; together, Bayer proposed, the companies could create “a truly global agriculture leader.”
Monsanto rejected Bayer’s first bid of $62 billion ($122 per share), then rejected a revised bid of $64 billion ($125 per share)—a move some analysts considered overconfident. A top Bayer shareholder floated the possibility of a hostile bid to put pressure on Monsanto, though the company affirmed its commitment to a friendly negotiated deal.
In early August, Bayer signed confidentiality agreements to conduct due diligence on Monsanto, a process that is expected to take several weeks. Bayer’s examination of Monsanto’s financial accounts is a crucial step in any possible deal, but no guarantee has been made by either side.
The stakes for this deal are high: a merger between these two multinationals is considered the final step of the agricultural sector’s massive consolidation. Critics warn that the merger could have devastating effects on the global food supply and agricultural market. A white paper written by two former employees of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division argues that the deal is “presumptively anticompetitive” and that it violates a 2008 court order against Monsanto, concluding that “the antitrust enforcers must not allow this merger to proceed.” The European Commission is also keeping a close eye on the deal and promises to closely examine any merger for violations of European competition policy. In a broader context, Monsanto in particular has long been a target of both legal controversy and popular protest for its large-scale development of genetically modified organisms, the health and environmental effects of its products, and its history of aggressive litigation against small farmers.
By March 30, 2017, will Bayer and Monsanto receive final regulatory approval for a merger?
This question will resolve as positive if a credible media outlet reports on or before March 30, 2017 that Bayer and Monsanto have been granted approval for a merger from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice and from the European Commission. | true | 2016-11-15 | A merger of Bayer and Monsanto by Q1 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-01 | 2016-08-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-18", 0.5], ["2016-08-18", 0.78], ["2016-08-18", 0.815], ["2016-08-18", 0.797], ["2016-08-18", 0.797], ["2016-08-18", 0.786], ["2016-08-18", 0.818], ["2016-08-18", 0.775], ["2016-08-18", 0.747], ["2016-08-19", 0.754], ["2016-08-19", 0.732], ["2016-08-19", 0.696], ["2016-08-19", 0.714], ["2016-08-19", 0.704], ["2016-08-19", 0.694], ["2016-08-19", 0.685], ["2016-08-19", 0.685], ["2016-08-19", 0.699], ["2016-08-19", 0.677], ["2016-08-19", 0.698], ["2016-08-20", 0.679], ["2016-08-20", 0.669], ["2016-08-22", 0.625], ["2016-08-22", 0.632], ["2016-08-22", 0.614], ["2016-08-23", 0.603], ["2016-08-24", 0.579], ["2016-08-24", 0.578], ["2016-08-25", 0.568], ["2016-08-25", 0.567], ["2016-08-25", 0.56], ["2016-08-26", 0.56], ["2016-08-28", 0.559], ["2016-08-29", 0.552], ["2016-08-29", 0.549], ["2016-08-29", 0.545], ["2016-08-30", 0.517], ["2016-08-30", 0.513], ["2016-08-30", 0.498], ["2016-08-30", 0.494], ["2016-08-30", 0.465]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/316/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Sometimes, events in real life appear to have been cribbed from the scripts of Hollywood thrillers.
On August 16th, the New York Times, along with a number of other news outlets, reported on the release, by an entity referring to itself as the Shadow Brokers, of a 256 Mb compressed archive containing roughly 4,000 files of various types.
According to this security response post from Symantec, the archive contains installation scripts, configuration files and exploits targeting a range of routers and firewall tools. The leaked files have been linked to a sophisticated actor known as the Equation Group, which itself appears, according to experts, to be associated with the U.S. National Security Agency's highly classified Tailored Access Operations unit.
The files appear to be of considerable significance. Cisco Systems, for example, notes that the leak illuminates a high-severity "zero-day" vulnerability that had gone undetected for years in every supported version of the company's Adaptive Security Appliance firewall.
The released files appear to date from mid-2013, around the time of Edward Snowden's leak of NSA-related documents. In a somewhat cartoonish manner, the Shadow Brokers state in broken english that they are in possession of further files, whose release they claim they will grant to the winner of an apparently purposefully unsophisticated, and as-yet unsuccessful bitcoin auction:
“We hack Equation Group. We find many many Equation Group cyber weapons. You see pictures. We give you some Equation Group files free…But not all, we are auction the best files.”
A series of tweets by Edward Snowden encapsulates the widely held suspicion that the Shadow Brokers are associated with Russian state cyberespionage, and that the timing of the archive leak is related to recent hacks of internal e-mails and other files of the Democratic National Committee.
Wikileaks has entered the story, by stating that they are in possession of the full Equation Group archive, and that they intend to release the files, specifically, "a pristine copy of the files in due course"
Will Wikileaks release a material augmentation to the leaked Equation Group files on or before September 1, 2016? In order to resolve in the positive, the release must be reported in either the New York Times or the Washington Post, and the reporting article(s) must quote experts (either with or without attribution) attesting to the significance of any additional files. | true | 2016-08-31 | Will Wikileaks release a significant augmentation to the Equation Group cyberespionage archive? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-23 | 2016-08-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-31", 0.68], ["2016-08-31", 0.47], ["2016-09-01", 0.537], ["2016-09-01", 0.585], ["2016-09-01", 0.582], ["2016-09-01", 0.568], ["2016-09-01", 0.573], ["2016-09-01", 0.582], ["2016-09-01", 0.57], ["2016-09-01", 0.562], ["2016-09-01", 0.578], ["2016-09-01", 0.611], ["2016-09-01", 0.619], ["2016-09-02", 0.643], ["2016-09-02", 0.641], ["2016-09-02", 0.633], ["2016-09-02", 0.628], ["2016-09-07", 0.652], ["2016-09-12", 0.651], ["2016-09-13", 0.649], ["2016-09-14", 0.665], ["2016-09-14", 0.683], ["2016-09-15", 0.687], ["2016-09-17", 0.692], ["2016-09-18", 0.703], ["2016-09-21", 0.716], ["2016-09-26", 0.713], ["2016-09-26", 0.704], ["2016-09-27", 0.7], ["2016-09-29", 0.7], ["2016-09-29", 0.697], ["2016-10-06", 0.704], ["2016-10-18", 0.699], ["2016-10-23", 0.695], ["2016-10-24", 0.697], ["2016-10-24", 0.696], ["2016-10-24", 0.688], ["2016-10-24", 0.688], ["2016-10-25", 0.685], ["2016-10-25", 0.682], ["2016-10-25", 0.682], ["2016-10-25", 0.682], ["2016-11-02", 0.682], ["2016-11-02", 0.682], ["2016-11-08", 0.682], ["2016-11-21", 0.68], ["2016-11-23", 0.68], ["2016-12-06", 0.669], ["2016-12-06", 0.675], ["2016-12-09", 0.673], ["2016-12-21", 0.67], ["2016-12-31", 0.67], ["2017-01-01", 0.668], ["2017-01-01", 0.666], ["2017-01-01", 0.666], ["2017-01-02", 0.668], ["2017-01-02", 0.667], ["2017-01-08", 0.667], ["2017-01-20", 0.667], ["2017-01-21", 0.668], ["2017-01-21", 0.669], ["2017-01-22", 0.668], ["2017-01-22", 0.668], ["2017-01-22", 0.664]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/317/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | In April 2016, three nonprofits—the Alliance for Justice, the National Consumer Law Center, and the National Veterans Services Program—filed a class-action lawsuit against the government, alleging that the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AO) has been violating the E-Government Act of 2002 by charging excessive fees to access court records through PACER.
PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) describes itself as “an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information online from [federal courts]”. The AO charges a fee to download documents on PACER. When web access to PACER opened in 1998, the AO charged $0.07 per page.
Until 2002, a federal statute required the AO to charge a fee to access PACER: [italics added]
The Judicial Conference shall hereafter prescribe reasonable fees […] for collection by the courts […] for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.
However, in 2002, the E-Government Act was signed into law and amended this statute to its current form by “striking ‘shall hereafter’ and inserting ‘may, only to the extent necessary,’”. Regardless, in 2005, the AO increased the fee from $0.07 to $0.08 per page, and in 2012, to $0.10 per page.
In their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs in this suit allege that “[these fees] far exceed the cost of providing the records, and thus violate the E-Government Act”, and state: [emphasis in original]
The E-Government Act’s sponsor says that the AO is violating the law. In early 2009, Senator Joe Lieberman (the E-Government Act’s sponsor) wrote the AO “to inquire if [it] is complying” with the law.
[…]
[In 2010], in his annual letter to the Appropriations Committee, Senator Lieberman expressed his “concerns” about the AO’s interpretation [of the E-Government Act]. “[D]espite the technological innovations that should have led to reduced costs in the past eight years,” he observed, the “cost for these documents has gone up.” It has done so because the AO uses the fees to fund “initiatives that are unrelated to providing public access via PACER.” He reiterated his view that this is “against the requirement of the E-Government Act,” which permits “a payment system that is used only to recover the direct cost of distributing documents via PACER.” Other technology-related projects, he stressed, “should be funded through direct appropriations.”
As of August 16, there are two pending motions in this suit:
The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification to represent “[a]ll individuals and entities who have paid fees for the use of PACER within the past six years”, stating that on behalf of this class, they will seek “a full refund of excess fees charged within the [past six years], plus a declaration that the fees violate the E-Government Act”.
The government filed a motion to “dismiss this action for failure to state a claim within this Court’s jurisdiction and under the ‘first-to-file’ rule”, or for “summary judgment in its favor […] because there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”.
The parties have filed the following documents relating to these motions:
Apr 21: Plaintiffs filed complaint against the government.
May 2: Plaintiffs filed motion to certify class action and proposed this order.
Jul 25: Government opposed plaintiffs' motion.
Aug 4: Plaintiffs replied in support of their motion.
Jun 27: Government filed motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Jul 29: Plaintiffs opposed government's motion.
Aug 16: Government replied in support of its motion.
On August 16, the court granted a joint motion for a three-phased schedule of proceedings. Following this schedule, the suit is currently in phase I and will move on to phase II if “the Motion to Dismiss is denied, and the Court grants certification of a class, in whole or in part”.
We ask not about the final outcome of this suit, but merely about the outcomes of the pending motions. Will this suit continue to phase II of its schedule?
This question will resolve as positive if, by May 2017,
the court denies the government's motion to dismiss, and
the court grants certification of a class for the plaintiffs, in whole or in part.
For timely resolution, we will consider only the first rulings on these motions by the DC federal trial court (where the case is being held), and ignore any appeal. These rulings will be available on… PACER, of course. | true | 2017-01-30 | Will the DC federal court grant class certification for an ongoing lawsuit against the government for “charging excessive fees to access court records through PACER”? | metaculus | 1 |
2021-03-15 | 2016-09-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-04", 0.37], ["2016-09-05", 0.496], ["2016-09-05", 0.48], ["2016-09-05", 0.482], ["2016-09-05", 0.496], ["2016-09-05", 0.5], ["2016-09-06", 0.504], ["2016-09-07", 0.536], ["2016-09-10", 0.559], ["2016-09-12", 0.559], ["2016-09-13", 0.571], ["2016-09-13", 0.556], ["2016-09-14", 0.574], ["2016-09-14", 0.611], ["2016-09-15", 0.595], ["2016-09-16", 0.606], ["2016-09-16", 0.61], ["2016-09-16", 0.606], ["2016-09-17", 0.611], ["2016-09-17", 0.618], ["2016-09-17", 0.631], ["2016-09-17", 0.643], ["2016-09-19", 0.644], ["2016-09-21", 0.652], ["2016-09-21", 0.662], ["2016-09-24", 0.672], ["2016-09-25", 0.681], ["2016-09-25", 0.694], ["2016-09-26", 0.699], ["2016-09-27", 0.698], ["2016-09-29", 0.694], ["2016-09-29", 0.706], ["2016-09-30", 0.706], ["2016-09-30", 0.694], ["2016-10-03", 0.694], ["2016-10-06", 0.701], ["2016-10-18", 0.693], ["2016-10-18", 0.688], ["2016-10-19", 0.691], ["2016-10-20", 0.691], ["2016-10-22", 0.704], ["2016-10-24", 0.704], ["2016-10-24", 0.701], ["2016-10-25", 0.703], ["2016-10-25", 0.703], ["2016-11-05", 0.696], ["2016-11-05", 0.696], ["2016-11-05", 0.686], ["2016-11-10", 0.686], ["2016-11-23", 0.686], ["2016-12-07", 0.68], ["2016-12-21", 0.684], ["2016-12-21", 0.674], ["2016-12-31", 0.68], ["2017-01-06", 0.68], ["2017-01-12", 0.672], ["2017-01-13", 0.677], ["2017-01-24", 0.668], ["2017-02-02", 0.668], ["2017-02-22", 0.666], ["2017-02-22", 0.669], ["2017-02-23", 0.669], ["2017-02-24", 0.674], ["2017-02-24", 0.677], ["2017-02-26", 0.677], ["2017-03-02", 0.674], ["2017-03-15", 0.674], ["2017-03-21", 0.671], ["2017-04-14", 0.672], ["2017-04-14", 0.672], ["2017-04-15", 0.672], ["2017-05-02", 0.672], ["2017-05-02", 0.672], ["2017-05-12", 0.672], ["2017-05-14", 0.664], ["2017-05-14", 0.663], ["2017-05-15", 0.664], ["2017-05-18", 0.664], ["2017-05-20", 0.666], ["2017-05-21", 0.667], ["2017-05-25", 0.67], ["2017-06-01", 0.669], ["2017-06-08", 0.669], ["2017-06-08", 0.663], ["2017-06-08", 0.661], ["2017-06-08", 0.661], ["2017-06-09", 0.663], ["2017-06-09", 0.661], ["2017-06-09", 0.659], ["2017-06-09", 0.658], ["2017-06-10", 0.658], ["2017-06-11", 0.662], ["2017-06-12", 0.662], ["2017-06-12", 0.662], ["2017-06-12", 0.662], ["2017-06-12", 0.663], ["2017-06-14", 0.663], ["2017-06-14", 0.667], ["2017-06-14", 0.667], ["2017-06-14", 0.663], ["2017-06-14", 0.66]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/321/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | America's shift toward renewable energy leans heavily on solar power, a technology that can be installed on homes and relies on a source of energy that is clean and essentially unlimited.
Solar power utilizes photovoltaic technology to convert light energy into electricity. Once the solar panels are manufactured, they produce no carbon dioxide emissions. Installations range from single-family rooftop residential panels all the way up to large utility-scale solar farms.
To help clean energy gain wide adoption and to spur the creation of jobs in the green economy, the U.S. Department of Energy launched the SunShot initiative with the goal of decreasing the price of solar power by 75% between 2010 and 2020.
In 2010, residential solar power installations cost $6.20 per watt (direct current), commercial installations ran $5.00 per watt, and utility-scale installations cost $4.10 per watt.
SunShot, through targeted project funding opportunities, seeks to reduce the cost of solar technology, reduce the cost of integrating solar panels with electrical grids, and accelerate the spread of solar power throughout the country.
By 2016, SunShot reports that the goal is within reach. Residential systems are averaging $3.21 per watt, and utility-scale installations are as low as $1.24 per watt.
Will the SunShot Initiative's goals of decreasing the price of solar power by 75% between 2010 and 2020 be met?
To resolve as positive, a credible news outlet, Department of Energy press release, Solar Energies Industries Association report, or other public report must report that the average prices for installed solar panels is at or below $1.50 per watt (DC) for residential installations, $1.25 for commercial, and $1 for utility-scale installations on or before December 31, 2020. | true | 2017-06-15 | 1 dollar/watt solar energy by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-08-08 | 2016-09-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-04", 0.25], ["2016-09-04", 0.365], ["2016-09-05", 0.353], ["2016-09-05", 0.328], ["2016-09-05", 0.363], ["2016-09-06", 0.369], ["2016-09-07", 0.417], ["2016-09-10", 0.448], ["2016-09-13", 0.431], ["2016-09-14", 0.416], ["2016-09-14", 0.441], ["2016-09-15", 0.456], ["2016-09-16", 0.471], ["2016-09-16", 0.477], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-16", 0.483], ["2016-09-17", 0.484], ["2016-09-19", 0.482], ["2016-09-19", 0.471], ["2016-09-21", 0.49], ["2016-09-25", 0.507], ["2016-09-26", 0.51], ["2016-09-27", 0.51], ["2016-09-28", 0.525], ["2016-09-28", 0.518], ["2016-09-30", 0.519], ["2016-10-07", 0.53], ["2016-10-12", 0.53], ["2016-10-18", 0.532], ["2016-10-20", 0.532], ["2016-10-21", 0.532], ["2016-10-24", 0.532], ["2016-10-24", 0.526], ["2016-10-24", 0.526], ["2016-11-10", 0.533], ["2016-11-23", 0.535], ["2016-12-07", 0.539], ["2016-12-21", 0.538], ["2017-01-01", 0.538], ["2017-01-02", 0.539], ["2017-01-02", 0.542], ["2017-02-20", 0.542], ["2017-02-20", 0.545], ["2017-02-23", 0.541], ["2017-02-23", 0.541], ["2017-02-23", 0.553], ["2017-02-25", 0.553], ["2017-02-27", 0.555], ["2017-03-03", 0.555], ["2017-03-09", 0.548], ["2017-03-09", 0.551], ["2017-03-10", 0.55], ["2017-05-08", 0.55], ["2017-05-12", 0.552], ["2017-05-14", 0.555], ["2017-05-25", 0.559], ["2017-06-04", 0.559], ["2017-06-09", 0.561], ["2017-06-12", 0.56], ["2017-06-13", 0.563], ["2017-06-19", 0.563], ["2017-06-21", 0.554], ["2017-07-18", 0.554], ["2017-08-04", 0.55], ["2017-08-04", 0.55], ["2017-08-05", 0.55], ["2017-08-07", 0.554], ["2017-08-12", 0.554], ["2017-08-12", 0.551], ["2017-08-18", 0.547], ["2017-08-29", 0.547], ["2017-08-29", 0.545], ["2017-08-30", 0.54], ["2017-09-03", 0.54], ["2017-09-03", 0.54], ["2017-09-12", 0.535], ["2017-10-04", 0.537], ["2017-10-07", 0.536], ["2017-10-23", 0.536], ["2017-11-12", 0.536], ["2017-11-14", 0.535], ["2017-11-15", 0.531], ["2017-11-16", 0.53], ["2017-11-21", 0.531], ["2017-11-24", 0.531], ["2017-11-24", 0.531], ["2017-11-26", 0.531], ["2017-11-29", 0.527], ["2017-12-02", 0.527], ["2017-12-03", 0.528], ["2017-12-08", 0.528], ["2017-12-17", 0.525], ["2017-12-20", 0.528], ["2017-12-21", 0.528], ["2017-12-26", 0.528], ["2017-12-28", 0.528], ["2017-12-29", 0.527], ["2017-12-31", 0.53], ["2017-12-31", 0.529], ["2017-12-31", 0.527], ["2017-12-31", 0.527]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/322/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Social Sciences | Linguists estimate that humans use around 7,000 languages. Only a few are considered global or widespread languages. The others, although spoken by small regional groups, are often key to the identity and heritage of their respective cultures.
Only 102 languages are considered "International" or "National" and are spoken by 60% of the world's population, despite comprising only 1.4% of all documented modern languages. Globalization, including internet connectivity, international trade, and international travel elevate the importance of these top languages, particularly the six languages with the most speakers: Chinese, Spanish, English, Arabic, Hindi, and Portuguese.
Globalization can endanger languages as well because rising generations learn regional and national languages instead of local or traditional dialects. Estimates of endangered languages range from around 20% to around 50% of all documented languages. Hundreds of languages have already been lost, and the current language death rate is between four and six languages per year. Ethnologue, an annual report on language status, reports that 360 languages reported as "living" in their first 1951 report have since been classified as "extinct." 423 languages are considered "nearly extinct," meaning that the only user are aging speakers who have little opportunity to use the language in everyday life.
But technology can also help preserve and revitalize languages, with digital documentation and language resources aiming to save some of the most critically endangered languages. Linguists also track languages that are "reawakening," including seven in the United States currently enjoying a resurgence.
Will language loss rates increase by the end of the decade?
This question will resolve as positive if the 2021 edition of Ethnologue lists more than 380 extinct languages since 1951, which would indicate a language loss rate greater than four per year, and an acceleration in language loss. | true | 2018-01-01 | 20 more languages extinct by 2021? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-01-03 | 2016-09-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-11", 0.5], ["2016-09-12", 0.549], ["2016-09-12", 0.535], ["2016-09-13", 0.512], ["2016-09-13", 0.508], ["2016-09-14", 0.49], ["2016-09-14", 0.47], ["2016-09-14", 0.474], ["2016-09-15", 0.475], ["2016-09-16", 0.468], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-17", 0.485], ["2016-09-19", 0.503], ["2016-09-19", 0.486], ["2016-09-19", 0.48], ["2016-09-20", 0.479], ["2016-09-21", 0.495], ["2016-09-24", 0.48], ["2016-09-26", 0.476], ["2016-09-26", 0.473], ["2016-09-26", 0.474], ["2016-09-27", 0.474], ["2016-09-29", 0.472], ["2016-09-29", 0.472], ["2016-09-29", 0.468], ["2016-10-03", 0.481], ["2016-10-18", 0.478], ["2016-10-18", 0.478], ["2016-10-20", 0.468], ["2016-10-20", 0.464], ["2016-10-21", 0.472], ["2016-10-23", 0.468], ["2016-10-23", 0.462], ["2016-10-24", 0.462], ["2016-10-24", 0.471], ["2016-10-26", 0.449], ["2016-10-31", 0.446], ["2016-11-01", 0.443], ["2016-11-05", 0.445], ["2016-11-10", 0.445], ["2016-12-21", 0.448], ["2016-12-22", 0.443], ["2016-12-31", 0.437], ["2017-01-01", 0.437], ["2017-01-04", 0.447], ["2017-01-24", 0.444], ["2017-01-24", 0.445], ["2017-02-16", 0.445], ["2017-03-12", 0.444], ["2017-03-12", 0.439], ["2017-04-25", 0.435], ["2017-05-14", 0.435], ["2017-05-25", 0.432], ["2017-06-02", 0.432], ["2017-06-09", 0.43], ["2017-07-13", 0.427], ["2017-07-17", 0.432], ["2017-07-17", 0.425], ["2017-07-18", 0.422], ["2017-07-25", 0.42], ["2017-07-25", 0.417], ["2017-07-26", 0.415], ["2017-07-29", 0.418], ["2017-07-30", 0.416], ["2017-08-04", 0.417], ["2017-08-04", 0.415], ["2017-08-04", 0.412], ["2017-08-05", 0.412], ["2017-08-06", 0.412], ["2017-08-06", 0.412], ["2017-08-07", 0.409], ["2017-08-08", 0.403], ["2017-08-09", 0.399], ["2017-08-09", 0.396], ["2017-08-09", 0.396], ["2017-08-12", 0.391], ["2017-08-12", 0.391], ["2017-08-12", 0.384], ["2017-08-13", 0.384], ["2017-08-15", 0.381], ["2017-08-17", 0.381], ["2017-08-25", 0.375], ["2017-08-29", 0.375], ["2017-08-29", 0.375], ["2017-08-31", 0.37], ["2017-08-31", 0.373], ["2017-09-01", 0.37], ["2017-09-03", 0.37], ["2017-09-05", 0.369], ["2017-09-05", 0.367], ["2017-09-06", 0.364], ["2017-09-07", 0.363], ["2017-09-07", 0.36], ["2017-09-07", 0.356], ["2017-09-08", 0.354], ["2017-09-10", 0.351], ["2017-09-13", 0.351], ["2017-09-14", 0.343], ["2017-09-14", 0.344], ["2017-09-14", 0.352], ["2017-09-14", 0.344]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/324/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The September 2016 issue of National Geographic features a story titled "Why There’s New Hope About Ending Blindness". 39 million people worldwide are affected by total blindness, while hundreds of millions more experience some degree of vision loss.
While not every form of blindness is treatable or preventable, the article lists several methods in development to restore at least some vision. Although the goal is to end preventable blindness before 2020, the technology is still in testing and the greatest barrier is delivering treatments to the people who need them.
Two treatment methods focus on repairing damage in the retina itself. Gene therapy targets genetic disorders in eyes by inserting a functional replacement gene into a carrier virus, which incorporates itself into retinal cells. Stem cell therapy aims to replenish damaged or degraded retinas by placing targeted populations of stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell type in the body, in a position to form new rods and cones, the cells essential to sight. Gene therapy is already in clinical use in patients, while stem cell therapy is still in the trial stage.
Another route is a retinal implant. Bionic eyes work just like natural eyes, by collecting and focusing light and relaying the light signals to the brain. Only a handful of people have received an implant so far, and the images produced are little more than areas of light and dark - but the technology is improving.
The World Health Organization reports that 80% of all blindness is preventable or treatable and that the only major remaining non-treatable cause of blindness is age-related macular degeneration. Current treatment efforts can only slow the course of the disease and cannot restore lost sight.
But stem cell trials. . .
Will age-related macular degeneration be preventable or treatable by 2020?
For this question to resolve as positive, a credible news outlet, or press release from the World Health Organization, National Federation of the Blind, or other organization must report that age-related macular degeneration is preventable or treatable, by any means, before December 31, 2020. | true | 2017-09-15 | All major causes of blindness preventable or treatable by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-10-20 | 2016-09-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-14", 0.92], ["2016-09-14", 0.72], ["2016-09-14", 0.54], ["2016-09-14", 0.497], ["2016-09-14", 0.498], ["2016-09-14", 0.505], ["2016-09-14", 0.527], ["2016-09-14", 0.524], ["2016-09-14", 0.552], ["2016-09-14", 0.579], ["2016-09-14", 0.575], ["2016-09-14", 0.635], ["2016-09-14", 0.656], ["2016-09-14", 0.707], ["2016-09-14", 0.72], ["2016-09-14", 0.728], ["2016-09-14", 0.735], ["2016-09-14", 0.749], ["2016-09-14", 0.754], ["2016-09-14", 0.764], ["2016-09-15", 0.763], ["2016-09-15", 0.767], ["2016-09-15", 0.767], ["2016-09-15", 0.763], ["2016-09-16", 0.772], ["2016-09-16", 0.78], ["2016-09-16", 0.788], ["2016-09-16", 0.795], ["2016-09-16", 0.799], ["2016-09-16", 0.806], ["2016-09-16", 0.806], ["2016-09-16", 0.811], ["2016-09-16", 0.816], ["2016-09-17", 0.819], ["2016-09-17", 0.824], ["2016-09-17", 0.829], ["2016-09-18", 0.828], ["2016-09-18", 0.832], ["2016-09-18", 0.836], ["2016-09-18", 0.838], ["2016-09-18", 0.84], ["2016-09-18", 0.844], ["2016-09-19", 0.847], ["2016-09-19", 0.846], ["2016-09-19", 0.847], ["2016-09-19", 0.852], ["2016-09-19", 0.85], ["2016-09-19", 0.85], ["2016-09-19", 0.844], ["2016-09-20", 0.846], ["2016-09-20", 0.847], ["2016-09-20", 0.846], ["2016-09-20", 0.849], ["2016-09-20", 0.852], ["2016-09-21", 0.855], ["2016-09-21", 0.857], ["2016-09-23", 0.856], ["2016-09-23", 0.857], ["2016-09-23", 0.858], ["2016-09-24", 0.86], ["2016-09-25", 0.862], ["2016-09-26", 0.862], ["2016-09-26", 0.864], ["2016-09-26", 0.864], ["2016-09-26", 0.865], ["2016-09-27", 0.864], ["2016-09-27", 0.863], ["2016-09-27", 0.865], ["2016-09-28", 0.871], ["2016-09-28", 0.87], ["2016-09-28", 0.871], ["2016-09-28", 0.876], ["2016-09-29", 0.876], ["2016-09-29", 0.881], ["2016-09-29", 0.883], ["2016-09-29", 0.879], ["2016-09-29", 0.879], ["2016-09-29", 0.881], ["2016-09-29", 0.883], ["2016-09-29", 0.884], ["2016-09-29", 0.885], ["2016-09-29", 0.885], ["2016-09-29", 0.886], ["2016-09-30", 0.887], ["2016-09-30", 0.888], ["2016-09-30", 0.888], ["2016-09-30", 0.891], ["2016-09-30", 0.89], ["2016-09-30", 0.889], ["2016-09-30", 0.89], ["2016-09-30", 0.89], ["2016-09-30", 0.891], ["2016-09-30", 0.891], ["2016-09-30", 0.891], ["2016-09-30", 0.889], ["2016-10-01", 0.889], ["2016-10-01", 0.893], ["2016-10-01", 0.899], ["2016-10-02", 0.899], ["2016-10-02", 0.903], ["2016-10-02", 0.903]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/325/ | Dramatic recent progress in narrow (and arguably general) purpose AI has led to a myriad of practical but nascent technologies including autonomous vehicles, automated call-answering systems, highly automated factories, medical and legal expert systems, and so on.
While the automation of repetitive physical labor is an old story, the advent of AI/robotic systems to perform essentially any repetitive physical labor, as well as many non-repetitive physical tasks and also repetitive or non-repetitive cognitive tasks, is likely to dramatically change the dynamics governing human labor and its place in the global economy.
In their book, Brynjolfsson & McAfee argue that we are in the early stages of this process, but that it is already underway and has contributed significantly to income inequality and other difficulties in the labor pool. It is thus quite possible that the cause of much of the anger and frustration being channeled by the Trump (and previously Sanders) campaign is fundamentally caused by an automation process that is likely just getting started.
However, while a significant topic of conversation in tech and some economic circles, and while politicians love to talk about jobs, the automation of labor has played little to no role in the presidential election thus far. Will this continue to be the case? | Politics & Governance | Will the total time devoted to questions (and answers) directly referring to AI and/or robotic automation of labor in the presidential debates be less than 5 minutes?
The presidential debate schedule currently calls for three debates of around 90 minutes apiece. Resolution is positive if less than 5 minutes of this ~270 minutes is devoted to questions and answers directly discussing AI and robotic automation of labor. (The clock stops as soon as the discussion is steered into general talking points on jobs, or other non-AI-related issues.) If additional debates are added to the schedule they count as well. (Note: this is a relaunching of a very similar question from the primary race.) | true | 2016-10-03 | Will AI automation of jobs be essentially ignored in the US presidential race? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-06-22 | 2016-09-20 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-22", 0.99], ["2016-09-23", 0.87], ["2016-09-23", 0.667], ["2016-09-23", 0.635], ["2016-09-23", 0.552], ["2016-09-23", 0.513], ["2016-09-23", 0.51], ["2016-09-23", 0.514], ["2016-09-23", 0.518], ["2016-09-23", 0.511], ["2016-09-23", 0.539], ["2016-09-23", 0.536], ["2016-09-23", 0.533], ["2016-09-23", 0.531], ["2016-09-23", 0.529], ["2016-09-24", 0.551], ["2016-09-24", 0.577], ["2016-09-25", 0.573], ["2016-09-25", 0.566], ["2016-09-25", 0.544], ["2016-09-25", 0.542], ["2016-09-26", 0.522], ["2016-09-26", 0.522], ["2016-09-27", 0.521], ["2016-09-28", 0.532], ["2016-09-29", 0.532], ["2016-09-29", 0.537], ["2016-09-29", 0.548], ["2016-09-29", 0.548], ["2016-09-30", 0.543], ["2016-09-30", 0.543], ["2016-10-07", 0.535], ["2016-10-18", 0.547], ["2016-10-19", 0.555], ["2016-10-19", 0.556], ["2016-10-20", 0.556], ["2016-10-20", 0.572], ["2016-10-20", 0.563], ["2016-10-21", 0.563], ["2016-10-21", 0.556], ["2016-10-23", 0.556], ["2016-10-23", 0.557], ["2016-11-01", 0.554], ["2016-11-04", 0.554], ["2016-11-07", 0.551], ["2016-11-07", 0.551], ["2016-11-07", 0.545], ["2016-11-08", 0.547], ["2016-11-14", 0.546], ["2016-11-14", 0.546], ["2016-11-17", 0.556], ["2016-11-18", 0.56], ["2016-11-23", 0.56], ["2016-11-29", 0.557], ["2016-12-06", 0.557], ["2016-12-06", 0.555], ["2016-12-06", 0.557], ["2016-12-08", 0.56], ["2016-12-09", 0.561], ["2016-12-13", 0.561], ["2016-12-13", 0.558], ["2016-12-14", 0.56], ["2016-12-16", 0.56], ["2016-12-21", 0.545], ["2016-12-21", 0.545], ["2016-12-22", 0.544], ["2016-12-26", 0.544]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/337/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Social Sciences | In most developed countries the birth rate is below the natural replacement rate of about 2.1 births per female. The past few decades have seen a pattern where developing countries undergo a demographic transition as they develop, giving lower birth rates and longer lifespans at the same time as economic developments.
World population forecasts which include economic development and demographic transition then predict an eventual peak to the world's population.
The most prominent world population forecast is produced every two years by the United Nations. In their latest version from 2015 the world population is, in the most likely scenario, projected to continue growing thru 2100.
On the other hand, the 2014 population projection from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis attempts a more refined analysis of the role of female education in demographic transition and forecasts a population peak before 2100.
Neither the UN nor IIASA approaches takes into account growth-limiting factors like food availability, disease, or climate change.
Since it is a long time to wait to find out when the population peak will occur, for this question we will focus only on the most prominent UN projection.
Will the 2017 revision of the UN World Population Prospects project a population peak by 2100 in its most likely scenario?
Resolution is positive if the 2017 update shows a "median" in the probabilistic projections (see this link but select WORLD from the menu) with a population maximum earlier than 2100. | true | 2017-01-01 | World population forecast to peak before 2100? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-10 | 2016-09-20 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-21", 0.28], ["2016-09-22", 0.298], ["2016-09-22", 0.3], ["2016-09-22", 0.34], ["2016-09-22", 0.321], ["2016-09-22", 0.33], ["2016-09-22", 0.32], ["2016-09-22", 0.328], ["2016-09-22", 0.328], ["2016-09-22", 0.322], ["2016-09-22", 0.308], ["2016-09-22", 0.315], ["2016-09-23", 0.327], ["2016-09-23", 0.335], ["2016-09-23", 0.329], ["2016-09-23", 0.334], ["2016-09-23", 0.324], ["2016-09-24", 0.318], ["2016-09-24", 0.301], ["2016-09-25", 0.292], ["2016-09-25", 0.293], ["2016-09-25", 0.294], ["2016-09-25", 0.284], ["2016-09-25", 0.277], ["2016-09-25", 0.28], ["2016-09-26", 0.283], ["2016-09-26", 0.28], ["2016-09-26", 0.278], ["2016-09-26", 0.298], ["2016-09-27", 0.302], ["2016-09-27", 0.304], ["2016-09-27", 0.306], ["2016-09-27", 0.306], ["2016-09-27", 0.307], ["2016-09-27", 0.304], ["2016-09-29", 0.304], ["2016-09-29", 0.305], ["2016-09-30", 0.302], ["2016-09-30", 0.305], ["2016-10-01", 0.302], ["2016-10-01", 0.301], ["2016-10-01", 0.299], ["2016-10-02", 0.298], ["2016-10-03", 0.299], ["2016-10-04", 0.311], ["2016-10-05", 0.311], ["2016-10-06", 0.313], ["2016-10-06", 0.316], ["2016-10-06", 0.319], ["2016-10-07", 0.319], ["2016-10-09", 0.317], ["2016-10-09", 0.317], ["2016-10-09", 0.319], ["2016-10-09", 0.319], ["2016-10-10", 0.317], ["2016-10-11", 0.317], ["2016-10-14", 0.317], ["2016-10-14", 0.318], ["2016-10-14", 0.319], ["2016-10-17", 0.31], ["2016-10-18", 0.31], ["2016-10-18", 0.309], ["2016-10-18", 0.317], ["2016-10-18", 0.317], ["2016-10-19", 0.315], ["2016-10-19", 0.315], ["2016-10-20", 0.317], ["2016-10-20", 0.332], ["2016-10-20", 0.329], ["2016-10-20", 0.323], ["2016-10-20", 0.323], ["2016-10-20", 0.329], ["2016-10-20", 0.331], ["2016-10-21", 0.323], ["2016-10-21", 0.321], ["2016-10-21", 0.321], ["2016-10-21", 0.319], ["2016-10-21", 0.319], ["2016-10-22", 0.321], ["2016-10-23", 0.321], ["2016-10-23", 0.325], ["2016-10-23", 0.332], ["2016-10-23", 0.337], ["2016-10-23", 0.348], ["2016-10-23", 0.358], ["2016-10-23", 0.356], ["2016-10-23", 0.357], ["2016-10-24", 0.363], ["2016-10-25", 0.363], ["2016-10-25", 0.363], ["2016-10-27", 0.363], ["2016-10-27", 0.352], ["2016-10-27", 0.354], ["2016-10-28", 0.354], ["2016-10-28", 0.356], ["2016-10-29", 0.356], ["2016-10-29", 0.354], ["2016-10-29", 0.356], ["2016-10-30", 0.356], ["2016-10-31", 0.354], ["2016-10-31", 0.354]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/338/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The next US presidential election will be held Tuesday Nov. 8 2016, and the results very likely known that evening.
We can model stock prices on the morning of Nov. 8 as a probability-weighted average of the stock values conditioned on Clinton's being elected and on Trump's being elected. After the probabilities collapse to 0 and 1 or 1 and 0, the stock prices should adjust accordingly.
In a previous question it's been noted that even 2.5% changes in the stock market are rare; but a comment under that question predicted that one would occur shortly after this upcoming election.
Will the S&P 500 change by > 2.5% from its opening on Nov. 8 to its closing on Nov. 9?
A sister question will ask about whether the change will be up or down. | true | 2016-11-01 | 2.5% S&P 500 change on November 9? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-10 | 2016-09-21 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-21", 0.66], ["2016-09-22", 0.666], ["2016-09-22", 0.664], ["2016-09-22", 0.682], ["2016-09-22", 0.675], ["2016-09-22", 0.677], ["2016-09-22", 0.706], ["2016-09-22", 0.711], ["2016-09-22", 0.714], ["2016-09-22", 0.723], ["2016-09-22", 0.725], ["2016-09-22", 0.712], ["2016-09-22", 0.705], ["2016-09-22", 0.694], ["2016-09-23", 0.701], ["2016-09-23", 0.701], ["2016-09-23", 0.698], ["2016-09-23", 0.694], ["2016-09-24", 0.696], ["2016-09-24", 0.701], ["2016-09-24", 0.704], ["2016-09-24", 0.718], ["2016-09-24", 0.731], ["2016-09-25", 0.739], ["2016-09-25", 0.735], ["2016-09-25", 0.747], ["2016-09-25", 0.753], ["2016-09-26", 0.753], ["2016-09-26", 0.757], ["2016-09-26", 0.757], ["2016-09-27", 0.765], ["2016-09-27", 0.763], ["2016-09-27", 0.76], ["2016-09-27", 0.763], ["2016-09-27", 0.761], ["2016-09-28", 0.753], ["2016-09-29", 0.754], ["2016-09-29", 0.76], ["2016-09-29", 0.767], ["2016-09-29", 0.762], ["2016-09-29", 0.762], ["2016-09-29", 0.765], ["2016-09-29", 0.775], ["2016-09-29", 0.772], ["2016-09-30", 0.772], ["2016-09-30", 0.779], ["2016-09-30", 0.782], ["2016-10-01", 0.782], ["2016-10-01", 0.782], ["2016-10-02", 0.782], ["2016-10-02", 0.784], ["2016-10-03", 0.786], ["2016-10-04", 0.787], ["2016-10-05", 0.787], ["2016-10-05", 0.786], ["2016-10-06", 0.79], ["2016-10-07", 0.79], ["2016-10-07", 0.788], ["2016-10-09", 0.787], ["2016-10-11", 0.787], ["2016-10-14", 0.788], ["2016-10-15", 0.79], ["2016-10-16", 0.79], ["2016-10-17", 0.787], ["2016-10-18", 0.787], ["2016-10-18", 0.791], ["2016-10-18", 0.791], ["2016-10-18", 0.79], ["2016-10-19", 0.789], ["2016-10-19", 0.79], ["2016-10-20", 0.777], ["2016-10-20", 0.777], ["2016-10-20", 0.779], ["2016-10-21", 0.779], ["2016-10-21", 0.779], ["2016-10-21", 0.779], ["2016-10-21", 0.78], ["2016-10-21", 0.777], ["2016-10-21", 0.777], ["2016-10-22", 0.778], ["2016-10-22", 0.774], ["2016-10-23", 0.774], ["2016-10-23", 0.775], ["2016-10-23", 0.775], ["2016-10-23", 0.778], ["2016-10-23", 0.778], ["2016-10-23", 0.774], ["2016-10-23", 0.778], ["2016-10-23", 0.77], ["2016-10-23", 0.767], ["2016-10-23", 0.767], ["2016-10-24", 0.767], ["2016-10-24", 0.769], ["2016-10-24", 0.769], ["2016-10-25", 0.768], ["2016-10-25", 0.768], ["2016-10-25", 0.769], ["2016-10-27", 0.773], ["2016-10-29", 0.773], ["2016-10-31", 0.773], ["2016-10-31", 0.773]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/339/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The US presidential election takes place Nov. 8, 2016. Either Clinton or Trump will presumably be declared winner that evening.
The stock market has currently (and will up to the 8th) 'priced in' the probability of a Clinton or Trump victory. But is the stock value conditioned on a Clinton victory higher or lower than conditioned on a Trump victory? That will be decided on Nov. 9.
Will the S&P 500 closing price at the end of trading on Nov. 9, compared to the morning of the 8th, correlate with a Clinton victory?
Question resolves as positive if:
Clinton wins and the S&P 500 rises by > 0.1% OR
Trump wins and the S&P 500 falls by > 0.1%
If Trump wins and prices go up OR Clinton wins and prices go down (by the same amount), question resolves negatively. If neither candidate is declared winner on the 8th, question resolves as ambiguous. Question also resolves as ambiguous if the price stays within 0.1%. | true | 2016-11-01 | Stock market rise correlated with Clinton victory? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-25 | 2016-09-29 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-05", 0.295], ["2016-10-05", 0.26], ["2016-10-05", 0.277], ["2016-10-05", 0.252], ["2016-10-05", 0.204], ["2016-10-05", 0.253], ["2016-10-05", 0.335], ["2016-10-05", 0.359], ["2016-10-05", 0.359], ["2016-10-05", 0.323], ["2016-10-05", 0.302], ["2016-10-05", 0.294], ["2016-10-05", 0.294], ["2016-10-05", 0.276], ["2016-10-05", 0.258], ["2016-10-05", 0.242], ["2016-10-05", 0.242], ["2016-10-05", 0.242], ["2016-10-06", 0.222], ["2016-10-06", 0.222], ["2016-10-06", 0.221], ["2016-10-06", 0.205], ["2016-10-06", 0.205], ["2016-10-07", 0.198], ["2016-10-07", 0.195], ["2016-10-07", 0.195], ["2016-10-07", 0.191], ["2016-10-07", 0.186], ["2016-10-07", 0.189], ["2016-10-07", 0.189], ["2016-10-07", 0.189], ["2016-10-08", 0.234], ["2016-10-09", 0.223], ["2016-10-10", 0.222], ["2016-10-12", 0.215], ["2016-10-12", 0.218], ["2016-10-13", 0.218], ["2016-10-16", 0.204], ["2016-10-16", 0.196], ["2016-10-16", 0.196], ["2016-10-18", 0.203], ["2016-10-19", 0.202], ["2016-10-19", 0.201], ["2016-10-19", 0.201], ["2016-10-19", 0.208], ["2016-10-19", 0.208], ["2016-10-20", 0.208], ["2016-10-20", 0.208], ["2016-10-20", 0.202], ["2016-10-20", 0.197], ["2016-10-20", 0.192], ["2016-10-20", 0.189], ["2016-10-20", 0.189], ["2016-10-23", 0.184], ["2016-10-23", 0.19], ["2016-10-23", 0.19], ["2016-10-23", 0.186], ["2016-10-23", 0.178], ["2016-10-24", 0.178], ["2016-10-27", 0.153], ["2016-10-31", 0.15], ["2016-11-02", 0.153], ["2016-11-02", 0.153], ["2016-11-03", 0.152], ["2016-11-03", 0.159], ["2016-11-03", 0.156], ["2016-11-03", 0.156], ["2016-11-03", 0.163], ["2016-11-08", 0.163], ["2016-11-08", 0.163], ["2016-11-09", 0.16], ["2016-11-11", 0.159], ["2016-11-12", 0.156], ["2016-11-16", 0.171], ["2016-11-16", 0.17], ["2016-11-16", 0.169], ["2016-11-17", 0.172], ["2016-11-17", 0.172], ["2016-11-23", 0.17], ["2016-11-29", 0.168], ["2016-12-04", 0.166], ["2016-12-08", 0.167], ["2016-12-09", 0.167], ["2016-12-13", 0.168], ["2016-12-19", 0.174], ["2016-12-19", 0.174], ["2016-12-20", 0.175], ["2016-12-20", 0.175], ["2016-12-20", 0.174], ["2016-12-21", 0.17], ["2016-12-21", 0.169], ["2016-12-21", 0.166], ["2016-12-21", 0.166], ["2016-12-21", 0.169], ["2016-12-22", 0.169], ["2016-12-22", 0.167], ["2016-12-26", 0.175], ["2016-12-27", 0.173], ["2016-12-29", 0.172], ["2016-12-29", 0.172], ["2016-12-29", 0.171]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/340/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Twitter is apparently looking to sell itself off, due to poor revenue growth. Disney, Google, Salesforce, and Microsoft are all potential buyers.
Will Disney successfully buy Twitter by the end of Q2 2017?
This question resolves if and when Twitter is purchased and owned by Disney. On the off chance that a company other than Disney buys Twitter, then sells it to Disney before the end of Q2, this will also resolve as a "yes" result. | true | 2017-01-01 | Will Disney own Twitter by the end of Q2 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-10-15 | 2016-09-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-30", 0.875], ["2016-09-30", 0.82], ["2016-09-30", 0.837], ["2016-10-01", 0.862], ["2016-10-01", 0.874], ["2016-10-01", 0.874], ["2016-10-01", 0.856], ["2016-10-01", 0.843], ["2016-10-01", 0.83], ["2016-10-01", 0.83], ["2016-10-01", 0.829], ["2016-10-01", 0.829], ["2016-10-01", 0.836], ["2016-10-02", 0.823], ["2016-10-02", 0.823], ["2016-10-02", 0.832], ["2016-10-02", 0.832], ["2016-10-02", 0.834], ["2016-10-02", 0.845], ["2016-10-02", 0.845], ["2016-10-03", 0.858], ["2016-10-03", 0.858], ["2016-10-03", 0.866], ["2016-10-04", 0.878], ["2016-10-07", 0.878], ["2016-10-12", 0.816], ["2016-10-12", 0.816], ["2016-10-14", 0.794], ["2016-10-15", 0.803], ["2016-10-15", 0.812]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/341/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Currently discussions between users and administrators of Metaculus are conducted in the comment sections of questions. Sometimes this makes sense, for example as relates to the resolution of that particular question. But there is no forum for meta discussion of features like the new scoring algorithm or new site features.
Will Metaculus add a discussion forum of some sort allowing users and administrators to discuss such topics?
This will resolve positive if such a forum is added by December 1, 2017.
Note that this question itself, if accepted, will NOT count as a positive resolution. But it could serve as a location for such meta discussion in lieu of or until another forum exists. | true | 2017-01-01 | Will Metaculus add a meta discussion feature? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-10-10 | 2016-10-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-02", 0.4], ["2016-10-02", 0.4], ["2016-10-02", 0.423], ["2016-10-02", 0.41], ["2016-10-02", 0.41], ["2016-10-02", 0.463], ["2016-10-02", 0.426], ["2016-10-02", 0.409], ["2016-10-02", 0.416], ["2016-10-02", 0.416], ["2016-10-03", 0.433], ["2016-10-03", 0.402], ["2016-10-03", 0.412], ["2016-10-03", 0.411], ["2016-10-03", 0.411], ["2016-10-03", 0.415], ["2016-10-03", 0.396], ["2016-10-03", 0.399], ["2016-10-03", 0.409], ["2016-10-03", 0.399], ["2016-10-03", 0.405], ["2016-10-03", 0.405], ["2016-10-03", 0.402], ["2016-10-03", 0.402], ["2016-10-03", 0.407], ["2016-10-03", 0.412], ["2016-10-03", 0.412], ["2016-10-04", 0.415], ["2016-10-04", 0.414], ["2016-10-04", 0.401], ["2016-10-04", 0.399], ["2016-10-04", 0.399], ["2016-10-05", 0.401], ["2016-10-05", 0.405], ["2016-10-05", 0.405], ["2016-10-05", 0.401], ["2016-10-05", 0.407], ["2016-10-05", 0.407], ["2016-10-05", 0.408], ["2016-10-06", 0.42], ["2016-10-06", 0.42], ["2016-10-06", 0.42], ["2016-10-06", 0.415], ["2016-10-06", 0.415], ["2016-10-07", 0.419], ["2016-10-07", 0.419], ["2016-10-08", 0.418], ["2016-10-08", 0.416], ["2016-10-08", 0.413], ["2016-10-09", 0.413], ["2016-10-09", 0.398], ["2016-10-09", 0.392], ["2016-10-09", 0.396], ["2016-10-09", 0.386], ["2016-10-09", 0.385], ["2016-10-09", 0.39], ["2016-10-09", 0.398]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/342/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | During the first Clinton-Trump presidential debate on September 26, 2016, the S&P 500 E-mini stock index futures, which trade nearly around the clock five days per week, increased in value by ~0.7% during the course of the 90-minute debate. A move of this magnitude, which represented a ~$175 billion dollar increase in the consensus view of US equity market capitalization, during evening hours, is extremely unusual.
As discussed in this article, the market's rise was correlated with Trump's poor debate performance. Prediction market activity showed that the consensus odds of a Clinton victory rose steadily through the debate. The simultaneous rise in both the market and in Clinton's chances appears to be a marker of concern that an economic downturn will arise if Trump wins the election.
The Second Clinton-Trump Presidential Debate is scheduled for 9:00 PM - 10:30 PM (ET) on Sunday, October 9. The CME Globex platform is scheduled to be open and trading during the entire debate window.
Prior to 10:30 PM ET on 10/09/2016, will the traded E-mini futures price change by more than 0.5% from the in-force traded price at 9:00 PM? | true | 2016-10-10 | Will the second Clinton-Trump debate move the market in real time? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-09 | 2016-10-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-03", 0.22], ["2016-10-03", 0.22], ["2016-10-03", 0.337], ["2016-10-03", 0.5], ["2016-10-03", 0.5], ["2016-10-03", 0.408], ["2016-10-03", 0.395], ["2016-10-03", 0.395], ["2016-10-03", 0.381], ["2016-10-03", 0.356], ["2016-10-04", 0.362], ["2016-10-04", 0.377], ["2016-10-04", 0.387], ["2016-10-04", 0.387], ["2016-10-04", 0.397], ["2016-10-05", 0.386], ["2016-10-05", 0.4], ["2016-10-05", 0.4], ["2016-10-05", 0.394], ["2016-10-07", 0.394], ["2016-10-08", 0.391], ["2016-10-08", 0.408], ["2016-10-09", 0.413], ["2016-10-12", 0.413], ["2016-10-12", 0.423], ["2016-10-18", 0.423], ["2016-10-18", 0.425], ["2016-10-19", 0.425], ["2016-10-19", 0.418], ["2016-10-20", 0.42], ["2016-10-20", 0.428], ["2016-10-20", 0.449], ["2016-10-20", 0.449], ["2016-10-20", 0.451], ["2016-10-20", 0.437], ["2016-10-20", 0.437], ["2016-10-21", 0.428], ["2016-10-21", 0.42], ["2016-10-21", 0.42], ["2016-10-21", 0.417], ["2016-10-22", 0.414], ["2016-10-23", 0.406], ["2016-10-23", 0.404], ["2016-10-24", 0.381], ["2016-10-25", 0.379], ["2016-10-27", 0.374], ["2016-11-02", 0.374], ["2016-11-02", 0.369], ["2016-11-02", 0.367], ["2016-11-03", 0.378], ["2016-11-03", 0.371], ["2016-11-03", 0.375], ["2016-11-04", 0.376], ["2016-11-04", 0.376], ["2016-11-04", 0.383], ["2016-11-05", 0.389], ["2016-11-06", 0.383], ["2016-11-07", 0.383], ["2016-11-08", 0.382], ["2016-11-08", 0.375], ["2016-11-08", 0.374], ["2016-11-08", 0.376], ["2016-11-11", 0.376], ["2016-11-24", 0.376], ["2016-11-26", 0.372], ["2016-11-26", 0.372], ["2016-11-26", 0.372], ["2016-11-29", 0.376], ["2016-12-04", 0.373], ["2016-12-09", 0.373], ["2016-12-16", 0.372], ["2016-12-20", 0.366], ["2016-12-21", 0.362], ["2016-12-21", 0.362], ["2016-12-21", 0.362], ["2016-12-21", 0.363], ["2016-12-22", 0.365], ["2016-12-22", 0.365], ["2016-12-23", 0.363], ["2016-12-26", 0.363], ["2016-12-26", 0.361], ["2016-12-27", 0.359], ["2016-12-27", 0.357], ["2016-12-30", 0.358], ["2016-12-30", 0.358], ["2016-12-31", 0.358]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/343/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Deutsche Bank, one of the world's major financial institutions, is experiencing problems that threaten to undermine the confidence of its clients and investors. The U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a $14 billion fine associated with actions that the bank undertook in connection with the 2008 financial crisis. Deutsche Bank is also substantially leveraged, it has exposure to a wide array of derivative contracts, and it faces an environment in which its profitability lags the cost of capital.
Deutsche Bank reports that it has an adequate cash cushion to weather foreseeable difficulties. Many observers believe that the D.O.J.'s $14 billion figure simply represents a starting point for negotiations, and that the final fine will not materially weaken the bank. On the other hand, the bank's stock price has fallen substantially over the past year, and some are worried that a Lehman-like collapse could trigger a replay of the financial crisis. This article in the Financial Times outlines some of the possible paths forward for Deutsche Bank.
Prior to January 1, 2017, will the German Government provide emergency financing to Deutsche Bank to stave off a default by the bank on its obligations? For this question to resolve in the positive, this assistance could come in the form (1) of a government guarantee to backstop a discounted capital raise, (2) a direct injection of liquidity, (3) a forced merger with a bank in which the German Government already has an onwership stake, or (4) a purchase (or equivalent) of a >10% share in Deutsche Bank itself. | true | 2017-01-01 | Will the German Government bail out Deutsche Bank? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-09-22 | 2016-10-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-06", 0.46], ["2016-10-06", 0.235], ["2016-10-06", 0.283], ["2016-10-06", 0.29], ["2016-10-06", 0.29], ["2016-10-06", 0.358], ["2016-10-07", 0.284], ["2016-10-07", 0.291], ["2016-10-07", 0.291], ["2016-10-07", 0.305], ["2016-10-07", 0.327], ["2016-10-07", 0.327], ["2016-10-07", 0.374], ["2016-10-07", 0.374], ["2016-10-07", 0.374], ["2016-10-07", 0.425], ["2016-10-07", 0.404], ["2016-10-07", 0.404], ["2016-10-08", 0.437], ["2016-10-08", 0.459], ["2016-10-09", 0.462], ["2016-10-10", 0.469], ["2016-10-10", 0.461], ["2016-10-11", 0.461], ["2016-10-12", 0.456], ["2016-10-13", 0.456], ["2016-10-14", 0.48], ["2016-10-14", 0.502], ["2016-10-14", 0.502], ["2016-10-15", 0.507], ["2016-10-18", 0.508], ["2016-10-20", 0.508], ["2016-10-20", 0.526], ["2016-10-20", 0.526], ["2016-10-21", 0.526], ["2016-10-22", 0.537], ["2016-10-22", 0.537], ["2016-10-22", 0.545], ["2016-10-22", 0.543], ["2016-10-22", 0.542], ["2016-10-23", 0.542], ["2016-10-23", 0.543], ["2016-10-23", 0.543], ["2016-10-23", 0.55], ["2016-10-23", 0.536], ["2016-10-23", 0.542], ["2016-10-24", 0.546], ["2016-10-24", 0.548], ["2016-10-24", 0.548], ["2016-10-24", 0.552], ["2016-10-24", 0.552], ["2016-10-24", 0.552], ["2016-10-25", 0.556], ["2016-10-25", 0.563], ["2016-10-25", 0.563], ["2016-10-25", 0.563], ["2016-11-03", 0.563], ["2016-11-05", 0.577], ["2016-11-05", 0.571], ["2016-11-10", 0.569], ["2016-11-12", 0.569], ["2016-11-23", 0.572], ["2016-12-03", 0.572], ["2016-12-08", 0.575], ["2016-12-12", 0.577], ["2016-12-15", 0.577], ["2016-12-15", 0.578], ["2016-12-21", 0.579], ["2016-12-21", 0.579], ["2016-12-31", 0.579], ["2017-01-01", 0.581], ["2017-01-13", 0.581], ["2017-01-21", 0.598], ["2017-01-21", 0.598], ["2017-03-02", 0.598], ["2017-03-10", 0.598], ["2017-03-20", 0.598], ["2017-03-28", 0.594], ["2017-03-29", 0.594], ["2017-04-18", 0.594], ["2017-04-19", 0.59], ["2017-05-02", 0.591], ["2017-05-02", 0.591], ["2017-05-12", 0.591], ["2017-05-14", 0.592], ["2017-05-14", 0.596], ["2017-05-14", 0.595], ["2017-05-18", 0.593], ["2017-05-20", 0.59], ["2017-05-21", 0.591], ["2017-05-25", 0.592], ["2017-05-28", 0.593], ["2017-05-30", 0.595], ["2017-05-31", 0.595], ["2017-05-31", 0.597], ["2017-05-31", 0.6], ["2017-05-31", 0.6]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/344/ | Angry Birds is a game requiring prediction of the physics-based effects of different-property flying-impaired projectiles on various porcine-sourced structures. This includes aiming the birds, using their varied properties, and using explosions and other effects.
Video games comprise an interesting arena for the training and testing of AI and machine learning (ML) systems. Game-playing AI systems have been steadily advancing both in highly ruled-based (but difficult!) games like Chess and Go, and videogames in which the AI system is just given the same input and output stream as a human player and must analyze the video.
For several years, an Angry Birds AI competition has been held to evaluate and encourage game-playing ML systems to play Angry Birds. In this competition the entrants are provided "a basic game playing software that includes a computer vision module, a trajectory planning module, and the game interface that works with the Chrome version of Angry Birds."
Part of the competition is an Man vs Machine Challenge, pitting the best ML systems against highly skilled humans.
In the 2016 competition, the human and AI players competed on four levels over the course of 10 minutes. Although some AIs completed four levels, none completed all four (some humans did, albeit with difficulty.) The best human players ended with approximately double the best AI scores. This is actually a bit less good than a followup to the 2015 challenge in which an AI came within a factor of 2/3 of the best human scores. | Science & Tech | Will the top AI score in the 2017 Angry Birds Man vs Machine Challenge outscore the top human?
Result concerns only the official challenge (not a followup held as in 2015), and is contingent on such a challenge being held (i.e. the question resolves as ambiguous if there is no competition.) | true | 2017-06-01 | Will AI defeat human in the 2017 Angry Birds challenge? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-02-26 | 2016-10-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-09", 0.01], ["2016-10-09", 0.377], ["2016-10-09", 0.236], ["2016-10-09", 0.236], ["2016-10-10", 0.205], ["2016-10-10", 0.25], ["2016-10-10", 0.238], ["2016-10-10", 0.321], ["2016-10-10", 0.329], ["2016-10-10", 0.319], ["2016-10-11", 0.308], ["2016-10-12", 0.365], ["2016-10-12", 0.395], ["2016-10-13", 0.388], ["2016-10-13", 0.389], ["2016-10-13", 0.413], ["2016-10-13", 0.423], ["2016-10-13", 0.427], ["2016-10-15", 0.431], ["2016-10-16", 0.42], ["2016-10-18", 0.425], ["2016-10-19", 0.417], ["2016-10-20", 0.404], ["2016-10-20", 0.406], ["2016-10-20", 0.393], ["2016-10-20", 0.407], ["2016-10-21", 0.395], ["2016-10-21", 0.399], ["2016-10-21", 0.399], ["2016-10-21", 0.408], ["2016-10-22", 0.416], ["2016-10-22", 0.412], ["2016-10-23", 0.412], ["2016-10-24", 0.418], ["2016-10-25", 0.404], ["2016-10-25", 0.41], ["2016-10-25", 0.41], ["2016-10-27", 0.398], ["2016-11-01", 0.407], ["2016-11-03", 0.418], ["2016-11-10", 0.418], ["2016-11-11", 0.428], ["2016-11-12", 0.434], ["2016-11-24", 0.434], ["2016-11-26", 0.439], ["2016-11-30", 0.451], ["2016-11-30", 0.451], ["2016-12-21", 0.464], ["2017-01-02", 0.463], ["2017-01-03", 0.466], ["2017-01-03", 0.463], ["2017-01-04", 0.463], ["2017-01-04", 0.463], ["2017-01-04", 0.455], ["2017-01-10", 0.455], ["2017-01-10", 0.459], ["2017-01-10", 0.459], ["2017-01-11", 0.459], ["2017-01-11", 0.465], ["2017-01-22", 0.473], ["2017-01-31", 0.468], ["2017-01-31", 0.467], ["2017-01-31", 0.467], ["2017-02-21", 0.471], ["2017-02-22", 0.474], ["2017-02-22", 0.476], ["2017-02-23", 0.483], ["2017-02-24", 0.488], ["2017-03-02", 0.489], ["2017-03-10", 0.487], ["2017-03-10", 0.487], ["2017-03-10", 0.487], ["2017-03-12", 0.487], ["2017-03-12", 0.49], ["2017-03-18", 0.49], ["2017-03-18", 0.492], ["2017-03-18", 0.492], ["2017-03-22", 0.491], ["2017-03-30", 0.484], ["2017-04-15", 0.485], ["2017-04-18", 0.484], ["2017-04-18", 0.485], ["2017-04-19", 0.485], ["2017-04-19", 0.49], ["2017-04-26", 0.49], ["2017-04-26", 0.494], ["2017-04-28", 0.494], ["2017-04-29", 0.496], ["2017-04-29", 0.499], ["2017-04-29", 0.498], ["2017-05-02", 0.504], ["2017-05-08", 0.51], ["2017-05-10", 0.51], ["2017-05-11", 0.512], ["2017-05-12", 0.521], ["2017-05-12", 0.521], ["2017-05-14", 0.519], ["2017-05-14", 0.519], ["2017-05-15", 0.518], ["2017-05-15", 0.517], ["2017-05-15", 0.517]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/345/ | Human beings are no longer the best players of the games of Chess or Go, but humans are still fighting the good fight on the poker table. Simple variants of poker have been conquered by the bots, but more complex versions are still being defended.
Texas HoldEm is the most popular form of poker, and its simplest variant (Heads-up Limit HoldEm) is widely believed to have been solved, with poker programs consistently outperforming human players. This variant is simple in two ways: "Heads-up" means that there are only two players at the table, and "Limit" means that bets and raises can only be made in fixed amounts, with a limited number of reraises.
The least restricted version of HoldEm is multi-player No Limit Holdem, where there are multiple players at a table, and bets/reraises can range freely between a minimum amount and the entire amount of a player's chips. To date in 2016, humans have eked out narrow victories in Heads-up No Limit Holdem, and no computer program has as yet made a serious showing in a multi-player No Limit HoldEm challenge.
This dominance of the felt by humans is no doubt temporary, and victory by the machines is inevitable. When will humans be forced to acknowledge not only that they are descended from fish, but that fish they remain (as far as silicon-based sharks are concerned)? | Science & Tech | This question will resolve positively if by the end of 2018 there is an publicly-announced online poker challenge that pits multiple expert human players (at least 5) against a single poker bot for a cash-game match of a pre-declared number of hands that exceeds 10,000, and the bot comes out ahead of all human players.
Fine Print
All the human players in the challenge must be in either the top 100 of the Hendon Mob all-time money list or the top 100 of the Hendon Mob Global Poker Index Ranking at the time of play.
If multiple challenges are conducted, and the automated player loses the first one, then victory for the bots will not be declared until bots have won a majority of such challenges to date. (This attempts to correct for intrinsic variance, so that a bot cannot simply keep entering such challenges until it gets lucky.) | true | 2017-05-16 | Will a poker bot beat the best human players at online multi-player No Limit Texas HoldEm? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-03 | 2016-10-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-12", 0.69], ["2016-10-12", 0.72], ["2016-10-13", 0.72], ["2016-10-13", 0.582], ["2016-10-13", 0.576], ["2016-10-13", 0.576], ["2016-10-13", 0.645], ["2016-10-13", 0.634], ["2016-10-13", 0.634], ["2016-10-14", 0.673], ["2016-10-15", 0.669], ["2016-10-15", 0.688], ["2016-10-16", 0.662], ["2016-10-18", 0.656], ["2016-10-19", 0.659], ["2016-10-19", 0.659], ["2016-10-19", 0.665], ["2016-10-19", 0.661], ["2016-10-19", 0.674], ["2016-10-20", 0.681], ["2016-10-20", 0.675], ["2016-10-20", 0.675], ["2016-10-20", 0.636], ["2016-10-22", 0.639], ["2016-10-22", 0.647], ["2016-10-23", 0.631], ["2016-10-24", 0.62], ["2016-10-24", 0.62], ["2016-11-03", 0.597], ["2016-11-04", 0.605], ["2016-11-04", 0.605], ["2016-11-05", 0.606], ["2016-11-05", 0.606], ["2016-11-06", 0.608], ["2016-11-16", 0.597], ["2016-11-16", 0.597], ["2016-11-18", 0.603], ["2016-11-23", 0.6], ["2016-12-06", 0.6], ["2016-12-21", 0.606], ["2016-12-21", 0.608], ["2016-12-21", 0.61], ["2016-12-21", 0.608], ["2016-12-21", 0.608], ["2016-12-23", 0.605], ["2016-12-31", 0.591], ["2017-01-01", 0.591], ["2017-01-06", 0.568], ["2017-03-09", 0.567], ["2017-05-01", 0.567], ["2017-05-02", 0.553], ["2017-05-06", 0.552], ["2017-05-08", 0.552], ["2017-05-08", 0.548], ["2017-05-09", 0.544], ["2017-05-10", 0.539], ["2017-05-10", 0.528], ["2017-05-14", 0.528], ["2017-05-20", 0.521], ["2017-05-23", 0.515], ["2017-06-01", 0.513], ["2017-06-07", 0.509], ["2017-06-08", 0.505], ["2017-06-09", 0.504], ["2017-06-11", 0.504], ["2017-06-11", 0.505], ["2017-06-13", 0.497], ["2017-06-13", 0.495], ["2017-06-13", 0.486], ["2017-06-14", 0.486], ["2017-06-14", 0.486], ["2017-06-14", 0.481], ["2017-06-14", 0.478]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/346/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Diabetes affects more than 29 million Americans. It's a disease of the pancreas, an organ that, among other functions, monitors the body's blood sugar levels and releases the hormone insulin as needed to keep blood sugar under control.
Diabetes results from a malfunction in the pancreas, requiring people with the disease to monitor their own blood sugar levels and deliver insulin as needed, either through a hypodermic syringe or an insulin pump, which requires user input as to when and how much insulin to deliver.
In September 2016, a device from Medtronic gained FDA approval as the first artificial pancreas, an automated insulin pump that automatically carries out blood sugar detection and insulin delivery without the user needing to manually program a pump. It is designed around existing insulin pump technology but with an additional algorithms to automatically regulate blood sugar. This is a boon to people with diabetes, particularly for night-time insulin delivery.
Some human input is still required, but only for large meals, exercise, and recalibrating the device with manual blood sugar testing every 12 hours.
Medtronic's device is a milestone in diabetes therapy (and resolved a previous version of this question before it even got launched!), but the first artificial pancreas will be far from the last. A device made by Insulet, claims to go up to 72 hours with no user input. Other companies are developing their own devices as well.
As of September 2016, Insulet is still enrolling people to participate in its trial study in preparation for their own FDA application.
Will an artificial pancreas competitor secure FDA approval by the end of 2017?
For this question to resolve as positive, a device manufactured by a company other than Medtronic and intended to serve as an artificial pancreas that automatically delivers insulin based on sensor readings must appear on the FDA's recently approved devices list on or before Dec. 31, 2017.
(Updated 10/13/16 to add "that automatically delivers insulin based on sensor readings" to resolution criteria.) | true | 2017-06-15 | Artificial pancreas goes mainstream in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-01-03 | 2016-10-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-12", 0.54], ["2016-10-13", 0.553], ["2016-10-13", 0.553], ["2016-10-13", 0.633], ["2016-10-13", 0.626], ["2016-10-13", 0.649], ["2016-10-13", 0.649], ["2016-10-14", 0.711], ["2016-10-14", 0.701], ["2016-10-15", 0.701], ["2016-10-15", 0.689], ["2016-10-15", 0.685], ["2016-10-15", 0.719], ["2016-10-15", 0.717], ["2016-10-16", 0.719], ["2016-10-16", 0.712], ["2016-10-16", 0.712], ["2016-10-17", 0.711], ["2016-10-17", 0.708], ["2016-10-17", 0.709], ["2016-10-18", 0.702], ["2016-10-19", 0.702], ["2016-10-19", 0.723], ["2016-10-20", 0.723], ["2016-10-20", 0.693], ["2016-10-20", 0.693], ["2016-10-21", 0.674], ["2016-10-21", 0.677], ["2016-10-22", 0.689], ["2016-10-23", 0.689], ["2016-10-23", 0.703], ["2016-10-23", 0.713], ["2016-10-24", 0.713], ["2016-10-24", 0.704], ["2016-10-24", 0.704], ["2016-10-25", 0.695], ["2016-10-25", 0.685], ["2016-10-27", 0.688], ["2016-11-03", 0.692], ["2016-11-03", 0.701], ["2016-11-03", 0.709], ["2016-11-04", 0.717], ["2016-11-05", 0.714], ["2016-11-05", 0.72], ["2016-11-10", 0.717], ["2016-11-10", 0.717], ["2016-11-10", 0.717], ["2016-11-10", 0.717], ["2016-11-10", 0.715], ["2016-11-12", 0.716], ["2016-11-13", 0.718], ["2016-11-16", 0.723], ["2016-11-18", 0.704], ["2016-11-18", 0.71], ["2016-11-23", 0.7], ["2016-11-29", 0.7], ["2016-12-01", 0.699], ["2016-12-06", 0.701], ["2016-12-21", 0.701], ["2016-12-21", 0.697], ["2016-12-23", 0.689], ["2017-01-01", 0.683], ["2017-01-04", 0.683], ["2017-01-24", 0.684], ["2017-03-04", 0.686], ["2017-03-07", 0.688], ["2017-03-10", 0.683], ["2017-03-15", 0.677], ["2017-03-20", 0.679], ["2017-03-22", 0.679], ["2017-03-24", 0.682], ["2017-03-24", 0.682], ["2017-03-30", 0.687], ["2017-05-08", 0.685], ["2017-05-14", 0.685], ["2017-05-15", 0.685], ["2017-05-15", 0.686], ["2017-05-17", 0.687], ["2017-05-18", 0.69], ["2017-05-19", 0.69], ["2017-05-20", 0.692], ["2017-05-20", 0.691], ["2017-05-21", 0.691], ["2017-05-28", 0.695], ["2017-05-28", 0.694], ["2017-05-29", 0.694], ["2017-05-29", 0.696], ["2017-05-31", 0.698], ["2017-05-31", 0.695], ["2017-06-01", 0.695], ["2017-06-05", 0.699], ["2017-06-09", 0.697], ["2017-06-11", 0.693], ["2017-06-11", 0.692], ["2017-06-14", 0.69], ["2017-06-14", 0.688], ["2017-06-14", 0.69], ["2017-06-14", 0.689], ["2017-06-14", 0.688], ["2017-06-14", 0.687], ["2017-06-14", 0.675]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/347/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | One of the prominent environmental storylines of the 1980s and 1990s was the hole in the ozone layer. After a sweeping ban on ozone-depleting chemicals in 1987, the degradation of the ozone layer appears to have slowed, and is now poised for recovery.
Ozone is a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms. A layer of ozone sits about 6 miles above the earth, in the stratosphere, and protects earth from harmful wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation. Ozone reacts very easily with other chemicals, however. Chlorine and bromine can knock an oxygen atom off of an ozone molecule, leaving an oxygen atom that cannot perform the same protective function as ozone.
Chloroflurocarbons, chemicals used in refrigeration, are particularly effective in destroying ozone molecules. After a seasonal hole in the ozone layer was first discovered in 1985, however, international cooperation yielded an agreement in 1987 to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Since then, the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere that poses a danger to ozone has peaked and is beginning to decline. The size of the ozone hole reached its largest recorded extent in 2006, at 30 million square kilometers, but hasn't surpassed that number since. A running five-year average of ozone hole size from NASA data shows values ranging from 20.7-24 million square kilometers post-2000. The size of the hole appears to have plateaued. Forecasts point to a slow, steady recovery by mid-century, but there is not yet convincing evidence that the ozone hole has actually decreased in size.
Will the annual maximum Antarctic ozone hole size begin its recovery by 2020?
For this question to resolve as positive, an atmospheric science report, NASA, (or data from another credible group that reproduces the same existing NASA data) must report results showing that the running five-year average of the mean September-October ozone hole size drops below 20.7 million square kilometers on or before December 31, 2020. | true | 2017-06-15 | Will the hole in the Ozone layer shrink in the next 5 years? | metaculus | 1 |
2023-01-18 | 2016-10-11 | ["https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/17/worlds-oldest-known-person-french-nun-lucile-randon-sister-andree-dies-at-118", "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11646193/Worlds-oldest-person-French-nun-Sister-Andre-dies-118-retirement-home.html"] | binary | [["2016-10-13", 0.67], ["2016-10-24", 0.586], ["2016-11-03", 0.593], ["2016-11-10", 0.568], ["2016-11-23", 0.58], ["2016-12-06", 0.58], ["2016-12-14", 0.584], ["2016-12-26", 0.587], ["2017-01-13", 0.587], ["2017-01-24", 0.591], ["2017-02-06", 0.593], ["2017-02-21", 0.595], ["2017-02-26", 0.58], ["2017-04-11", 0.582], ["2017-04-26", 0.577], ["2017-05-04", 0.581], ["2017-05-14", 0.575], ["2017-05-23", 0.575], ["2017-06-04", 0.576], ["2017-06-19", 0.574], ["2017-06-30", 0.578], ["2017-07-18", 0.578], ["2017-07-28", 0.58], ["2017-08-04", 0.577], ["2017-08-18", 0.526], ["2017-09-02", 0.521], ["2017-09-16", 0.519], ["2017-09-30", 0.5], ["2017-10-15", 0.496], ["2017-10-25", 0.496], ["2017-10-31", 0.499], ["2017-11-13", 0.498], ["2017-11-22", 0.495], ["2017-12-01", 0.497], ["2017-12-08", 0.494], ["2017-12-24", 0.493], ["2018-01-03", 0.497], ["2018-01-17", 0.499], ["2018-01-25", 0.499], ["2018-02-04", 0.498], ["2018-02-25", 0.496], ["2018-03-10", 0.496], ["2018-03-24", 0.497], ["2018-04-05", 0.5], ["2018-04-12", 0.503], ["2018-04-22", 0.503], ["2018-04-30", 0.498], ["2018-05-12", 0.496], ["2018-05-21", 0.498], ["2018-06-03", 0.494], ["2018-06-12", 0.494], ["2018-06-23", 0.494], ["2018-07-04", 0.496], ["2018-07-10", 0.493], ["2018-07-20", 0.499], ["2018-08-03", 0.487], ["2018-08-10", 0.481], ["2018-08-25", 0.472], ["2018-09-10", 0.464], ["2018-09-17", 0.46], ["2018-09-28", 0.46], ["2018-10-07", 0.46], ["2018-10-15", 0.458], ["2018-10-28", 0.454], ["2018-11-09", 0.454], ["2018-11-19", 0.452], ["2018-11-26", 0.451], ["2018-12-07", 0.449], ["2018-12-17", 0.446], ["2018-12-26", 0.448], ["2019-01-06", 0.447], ["2019-01-16", 0.445], ["2019-01-23", 0.443], ["2019-02-01", 0.442], ["2019-02-11", 0.433], ["2019-02-20", 0.431], ["2019-03-02", 0.43], ["2019-03-10", 0.431], ["2019-03-21", 0.429], ["2019-04-12", 0.429], ["2019-04-23", 0.428], ["2019-05-05", 0.427], ["2019-05-14", 0.419], ["2019-05-24", 0.418], ["2019-06-03", 0.416], ["2019-06-11", 0.415], ["2019-06-23", 0.412], ["2019-07-03", 0.411], ["2019-07-16", 0.409], ["2019-07-28", 0.407], ["2019-08-10", 0.406], ["2019-08-18", 0.404], ["2019-08-26", 0.404], ["2019-09-05", 0.404], ["2019-09-17", 0.405], ["2019-10-01", 0.404], ["2019-10-15", 0.403], ["2019-10-27", 0.4], ["2019-11-11", 0.399], ["2019-11-24", 0.396], ["2019-11-27", 0.388]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/348/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | We are all aware that, unfortunately, that there is a fairly strict upper limit on the lifespace of humans. In particular this article reports research suggesting a "the maximum human lifespan at an average of 115 years, with an absolute limit of 125 years." The research suggests that "the probability in a given year of seeing one person live to 125 anywhere in the world is less than 1 in 10,000." The maximum documented lifespan in history belongs to Jeanne Clement, a French woman who died at the age of 122 in 1997.
Given that this previous record is close to the maximum, and may be an outlier, it may or may not be surpassed in the near future. This suggests the question:
Will any of the current top 30 of oldest living persons as of Oct. 11, 2016 reach the age of 120?
This question resolves positively if one (or more) person of verified age in the current Wikipedia list celebrates his or her 120th birthday before or on the 23rd of March 2024. (The earliest resolution would be the birthday of Mrs Emma Morano, from Italy, on the 29th of November 2019.) | true | 2019-11-28 | Will one of the verified oldest living persons in the world reach 120 years of age? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-06-02 | 2016-10-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-17", 0.72], ["2016-10-17", 0.607], ["2016-10-17", 0.55], ["2016-10-17", 0.54], ["2016-10-17", 0.533], ["2016-10-17", 0.486], ["2016-10-18", 0.466], ["2016-10-18", 0.466], ["2016-10-18", 0.467], ["2016-10-18", 0.468], ["2016-10-18", 0.474], ["2016-10-18", 0.478], ["2016-10-20", 0.479], ["2016-10-20", 0.481], ["2016-10-21", 0.481], ["2016-10-24", 0.489], ["2016-10-24", 0.501], ["2016-10-24", 0.501], ["2016-10-24", 0.469], ["2016-10-25", 0.469], ["2016-10-25", 0.47], ["2016-10-25", 0.47], ["2016-10-25", 0.47], ["2016-10-26", 0.47], ["2016-10-26", 0.466], ["2016-10-26", 0.46], ["2016-10-26", 0.456], ["2016-11-02", 0.445], ["2016-11-02", 0.445], ["2016-11-03", 0.445], ["2016-11-03", 0.45], ["2016-11-04", 0.472], ["2016-11-10", 0.473], ["2016-11-10", 0.473], ["2016-11-16", 0.472], ["2016-11-23", 0.473], ["2016-11-24", 0.474], ["2016-12-21", 0.474], ["2017-01-01", 0.482], ["2017-02-25", 0.468], ["2017-02-26", 0.469], ["2017-04-21", 0.467], ["2017-05-12", 0.465], ["2017-05-14", 0.465], ["2017-05-14", 0.466], ["2017-05-18", 0.466], ["2017-05-21", 0.462], ["2017-05-25", 0.466], ["2017-06-09", 0.467], ["2017-06-12", 0.467], ["2017-06-29", 0.465], ["2017-07-18", 0.465], ["2017-07-18", 0.47], ["2017-07-29", 0.47], ["2017-08-02", 0.466], ["2017-08-02", 0.465], ["2017-08-07", 0.465], ["2017-08-08", 0.461], ["2017-08-08", 0.461], ["2017-08-12", 0.459], ["2017-08-14", 0.468], ["2017-08-17", 0.468], ["2017-08-18", 0.464], ["2017-08-20", 0.464], ["2017-08-23", 0.462], ["2017-08-23", 0.462], ["2017-08-25", 0.462], ["2017-08-27", 0.459], ["2017-08-27", 0.459], ["2017-08-28", 0.456], ["2017-08-28", 0.456], ["2017-08-29", 0.457], ["2017-08-31", 0.457], ["2017-08-31", 0.457], ["2017-08-31", 0.457], ["2017-08-31", 0.457], ["2017-09-01", 0.457], ["2017-09-01", 0.457]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/350/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Striving to create solutions for world problems through incentive based competitions, the non-profit foundation XPRIZE announced back in December of 2015 a three year global competition with a prize purse totaling in $7M USD for the sake of pursuing deeper understanding of our oceans. Named The Shell Ocean Discovery XPRIZE, this competition is part of a 10-year XPRIZE Ocean Initiative whose mission is to address critical ocean issues and have committed to launch five multi-million dollar prizes by 2020. Competing teams will perform a series of tasks for two rounds. Judged by an expert panel, the main challenge is to explore the oceans by creating high-resolution bathymetric maps of the seafloor and capturing high resolution images of life and features in the undersea environment. Eligible teams ("Pursuant to the America COMPETES Act, only Teams that: (a) are companies domiciled in the United States of America; or (b) are comprised solely of a single (or multiple) United States citizen(s), shall be eligible to compete for and/or win any portion of the NOAA Bonus Prize.") can enter the additional challenge of detecting and locating anomalies in the water column for specified object or feature of the ocean via its biological or chemical signature tracking.
A common method for detail mapping of the sea floor is via sonar based measurements. Generally, sonar systems aboard ships can map the ocean floor to a resolution of ~100 m in deepest regions (~11000 m depth) and a resolution of ~10 m nearshore (~10 m depth) across a narrow strip below the ship. Thus far only ~7% of the sea floor has been mapped to this resolution, and some very small areas has been mapped to extremely high level detail, of 1 m or less, using the same method. For each XPRIZE competing team, their mappings must have a vertical resolution of 0.5 m and horizontal resolution of 5 m, with a minimum 20% mapping at 2,000 m depth and 50% mapping at 4,000 m depth of competition area, in round one and round two, respectively.
Here is the breakdown of the prizes. Of the entire $7M prize,
i) The two teams with highest scores for the high resolution seafloor mapping and high definition imagery after final round will be awarded Grand Prize. First Place will receive $4M and Second Place $1M. First Place will be awarded $5M if there is no Second Place. ii) A total of $1M will be shared equally between up to the ten teams with highest score for the high resolution seafloor mapping and high definition imagery after first round. iii) Eligible team(s) with successful detection of specified object or feature of the ocean environment by tracking its biological or chemical signature to its source will be awarded the NOAA Bonus Prize of $1M in round one. If no teams win in round one, eligible teams with promising technologies may compete in round 2 for this bonus.
How likely is it for the Grand Prize winning team of the $5M to win also the NOAA Bonus Prize?
For this question to resolve positively, the $5M Grand Prize winning team will also receive the NOAA Bonus Prize either in round one or round two. | true | 2017-09-01 | How strong will the winning effort of the Ocean Discovery X-PRIZE be? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-09 | 2016-10-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-17", 0.57], ["2016-10-17", 0.707], ["2016-10-18", 0.707], ["2016-10-18", 0.698], ["2016-10-18", 0.676], ["2016-10-18", 0.676], ["2016-10-18", 0.724], ["2016-10-18", 0.724], ["2016-10-18", 0.738], ["2016-10-18", 0.738], ["2016-10-18", 0.759], ["2016-10-18", 0.759], ["2016-10-19", 0.749], ["2016-10-19", 0.744], ["2016-10-19", 0.754], ["2016-10-19", 0.754], ["2016-10-19", 0.765], ["2016-10-20", 0.76], ["2016-10-20", 0.76], ["2016-10-20", 0.762], ["2016-10-20", 0.749], ["2016-10-20", 0.745], ["2016-10-20", 0.75], ["2016-10-20", 0.711], ["2016-10-20", 0.711], ["2016-10-21", 0.725], ["2016-10-21", 0.732], ["2016-10-21", 0.732], ["2016-10-21", 0.732], ["2016-10-21", 0.734], ["2016-10-21", 0.727], ["2016-10-21", 0.727], ["2016-10-21", 0.726], ["2016-10-22", 0.724], ["2016-10-22", 0.713], ["2016-10-22", 0.725], ["2016-10-22", 0.729], ["2016-10-23", 0.729], ["2016-10-23", 0.733], ["2016-10-23", 0.736], ["2016-10-23", 0.732], ["2016-10-23", 0.732], ["2016-10-23", 0.729], ["2016-10-23", 0.733], ["2016-10-23", 0.73], ["2016-10-23", 0.744], ["2016-10-23", 0.744], ["2016-10-23", 0.748], ["2016-10-23", 0.738], ["2016-10-24", 0.738], ["2016-10-24", 0.742], ["2016-10-24", 0.743], ["2016-10-24", 0.745], ["2016-10-24", 0.748], ["2016-10-24", 0.753], ["2016-10-24", 0.751], ["2016-10-24", 0.752], ["2016-10-24", 0.754], ["2016-10-25", 0.755], ["2016-10-25", 0.759], ["2016-10-25", 0.76], ["2016-10-25", 0.76], ["2016-10-25", 0.764], ["2016-10-26", 0.766], ["2016-10-26", 0.759], ["2016-10-26", 0.76], ["2016-10-26", 0.76], ["2016-10-26", 0.762], ["2016-10-27", 0.765], ["2016-10-27", 0.767], ["2016-10-27", 0.769], ["2016-10-27", 0.769], ["2016-11-01", 0.766], ["2016-11-01", 0.769], ["2016-11-01", 0.769], ["2016-11-02", 0.769], ["2016-11-02", 0.766], ["2016-11-02", 0.766], ["2016-11-02", 0.765], ["2016-11-03", 0.765], ["2016-11-03", 0.762], ["2016-11-03", 0.763], ["2016-11-03", 0.763], ["2016-11-04", 0.765], ["2016-11-04", 0.765], ["2016-11-04", 0.762], ["2016-11-04", 0.759], ["2016-11-05", 0.761], ["2016-11-05", 0.763], ["2016-11-05", 0.763], ["2016-11-05", 0.76], ["2016-11-05", 0.76], ["2016-11-05", 0.762], ["2016-11-05", 0.764], ["2016-11-05", 0.763], ["2016-11-06", 0.763], ["2016-11-06", 0.763], ["2016-11-06", 0.761], ["2016-11-06", 0.762], ["2016-11-06", 0.758], ["2016-11-07", 0.76]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/352/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | The US election will be held Tuesday November 8. Early results generally allow the major news organizations to "call" the election on Tuesday evening, and the loser to concede to the victor – a notable exception being Bush v. Gore 2000, which led to weeks of controversy and was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court.
This year, in addition to the perennial possibility of a close election requiring recounts, there are concerns being raised by both candidates about potential manipulation of the election results.
Clinton's concerns are based on the reported hack of the DNC's email servers, emails from which have appears on Wikileaks, which has been reported by US intelligence to "with high confidence" be orchestrated by the Russian government, as well as reports of Russian hacking of US election systems
The basis for Trump's concerns (other than his position in the polls) is unclear.
Will the election be decided by the beginning of the day, November 11?
Question resolves positively if Clinton or Trump publicly concedes the election prior to midnight EDT November 10. | true | 2016-11-07 | Will the US election be decided by Nov. 11? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-12-20 | 2016-10-21 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-23", 0.49], ["2016-10-23", 0.37], ["2016-10-23", 0.33], ["2016-10-23", 0.33], ["2016-10-23", 0.308], ["2016-10-23", 0.308], ["2016-10-23", 0.375], ["2016-10-23", 0.354], ["2016-10-23", 0.397], ["2016-10-23", 0.397], ["2016-10-23", 0.445], ["2016-10-24", 0.423], ["2016-10-24", 0.423], ["2016-10-24", 0.423], ["2016-10-24", 0.451], ["2016-10-24", 0.451], ["2016-10-24", 0.502], ["2016-10-24", 0.471], ["2016-10-24", 0.473], ["2016-10-24", 0.506], ["2016-10-24", 0.506], ["2016-10-24", 0.506], ["2016-10-24", 0.525], ["2016-10-24", 0.525], ["2016-10-24", 0.525], ["2016-10-24", 0.538], ["2016-10-24", 0.545], ["2016-10-24", 0.545], ["2016-10-24", 0.555], ["2016-10-24", 0.535], ["2016-10-24", 0.536], ["2016-10-24", 0.522], ["2016-10-25", 0.516], ["2016-10-25", 0.524], ["2016-10-25", 0.524], ["2016-10-25", 0.524], ["2016-10-25", 0.524], ["2016-10-25", 0.523], ["2016-10-25", 0.528], ["2016-10-25", 0.528], ["2016-10-25", 0.526], ["2016-10-25", 0.525], ["2016-10-25", 0.525], ["2016-10-25", 0.514], ["2016-10-25", 0.52], ["2016-10-25", 0.522], ["2016-10-25", 0.522], ["2016-10-25", 0.534], ["2016-10-25", 0.525], ["2016-10-26", 0.525], ["2016-10-26", 0.531], ["2016-10-26", 0.531], ["2016-10-26", 0.531], ["2016-10-26", 0.533], ["2016-10-26", 0.533], ["2016-10-26", 0.532], ["2016-10-26", 0.533], ["2016-10-27", 0.539], ["2016-10-27", 0.536], ["2016-10-29", 0.539], ["2016-10-30", 0.539], ["2016-10-31", 0.542], ["2016-10-31", 0.542], ["2016-11-01", 0.541]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/355/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | An often unstated assumption behind predictions of the U.S. Presidential race is that the electors chosen to vote in the Electoral College will vote for the popular vote winner in their state (except for some electors from Nebraska and Maine, who vote based on the popular vote winner in their congressional district).
To maximize the chance of this happening, many states have enacted laws to punish electors who do not follow the wishes of the voters in their state. These laws range from fines as high as $1000 to a 4th-degree misdemeanor.
At least three 2016 electors (in Texas, Georgia, and Washington) have threatened not to vote for either Trump or Clinton, even if those candidates win the popular vote in their state.
Will there be at least one "faithless elector" in the 2016 election?
Resolution is positive if the actual final electoral vote taken in the electoral college diverges from the consensus projected electoral vote results based on the popular vote results in each state and/or congressional district. | true | 2016-11-01 | Will there be any faithless electors in the 2016 U.S. Electoral College? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-01-27 | 2016-10-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-10-23", 0.48], ["2016-10-23", 0.262], ["2016-10-23", 0.262], ["2016-10-23", 0.293], ["2016-10-23", 0.26], ["2016-10-23", 0.316], ["2016-10-23", 0.314], ["2016-10-23", 0.309], ["2016-10-23", 0.311], ["2016-10-23", 0.296], ["2016-10-23", 0.319], ["2016-10-23", 0.319], ["2016-10-23", 0.3], ["2016-10-23", 0.302], ["2016-10-23", 0.302], ["2016-10-23", 0.3], ["2016-10-23", 0.293], ["2016-10-23", 0.293], ["2016-10-24", 0.303], ["2016-10-24", 0.299], ["2016-10-24", 0.299], ["2016-10-24", 0.314], ["2016-10-24", 0.304], ["2016-10-24", 0.304], ["2016-10-24", 0.298], ["2016-10-24", 0.277], ["2016-10-24", 0.274], ["2016-10-25", 0.278], ["2016-10-25", 0.278], ["2016-10-25", 0.279], ["2016-10-25", 0.279], ["2016-10-25", 0.272], ["2016-10-27", 0.274], ["2016-10-27", 0.273], ["2016-10-27", 0.268], ["2016-10-28", 0.258], ["2016-10-28", 0.254], ["2016-10-29", 0.251], ["2016-11-02", 0.251], ["2016-11-03", 0.248], ["2016-11-03", 0.261], ["2016-11-04", 0.256], ["2016-11-05", 0.261], ["2016-11-05", 0.257], ["2016-11-06", 0.257], ["2016-11-08", 0.264], ["2016-11-08", 0.264], ["2016-11-10", 0.262], ["2016-11-10", 0.26], ["2016-11-10", 0.266], ["2016-11-13", 0.261], ["2016-11-15", 0.261], ["2016-11-16", 0.263], ["2016-11-16", 0.275], ["2016-11-17", 0.277], ["2016-11-17", 0.276], ["2016-11-19", 0.276], ["2016-11-23", 0.281], ["2016-11-26", 0.278], ["2016-11-27", 0.278], ["2016-11-27", 0.278], ["2016-11-28", 0.278], ["2016-12-07", 0.276], ["2016-12-07", 0.276], ["2016-12-15", 0.272], ["2016-12-15", 0.273], ["2016-12-16", 0.269], ["2016-12-21", 0.271], ["2016-12-22", 0.271], ["2016-12-22", 0.269], ["2016-12-22", 0.269], ["2016-12-22", 0.274], ["2016-12-22", 0.283], ["2016-12-23", 0.282], ["2016-12-23", 0.289], ["2016-12-24", 0.287], ["2016-12-26", 0.287], ["2016-12-26", 0.291], ["2016-12-26", 0.288], ["2016-12-26", 0.288], ["2016-12-29", 0.286], ["2016-12-31", 0.285], ["2017-01-01", 0.292], ["2017-01-01", 0.287], ["2017-01-01", 0.283], ["2017-01-02", 0.28], ["2017-01-02", 0.276], ["2017-01-04", 0.276], ["2017-01-05", 0.277], ["2017-01-07", 0.276], ["2017-01-08", 0.276], ["2017-01-08", 0.275], ["2017-01-08", 0.272], ["2017-01-13", 0.27], ["2017-01-16", 0.269], ["2017-01-17", 0.267], ["2017-01-19", 0.263], ["2017-01-20", 0.263], ["2017-01-20", 0.262], ["2017-01-20", 0.262], ["2017-01-20", 0.261]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/357/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Few science stories rise to the occasion of occasioning push notifications from both the New York Times and NPR. Planet Nine was among a handful of recent examples.
In mid-January of 2016, two Caltech Professors -- Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown -- kicked the news media into high gear by predicting the existence of a new, but as-yet unseen, planet in the outer solar system. They asserted that Neptune et al.'s erstwhile sibling has an orbital period of about 20,000 years, and a super-Earth mass more than sufficient to bring the planet count back up to nine.
Batygin and Brown's paper, despite containing a bracing dose of secular perturbation theory, has been downloaded over 300,000 times, and presents indirect dynamical evidence for Planet Nine. Its presence is inferred through the gravitational sculpting that it has produced in the trajectories of the most distant Pluto-like worlds that lie beyond Neptune's orbit.
Follow-up papers by (among others) Fienga et al., Holman and Payne and Malhotra et al. have added credibility and detail to the Planet Nine hypothesis.
Based on the host of recent results, Metaculus now calculates a most probable current sky position for Planet Nine of RA=2h, Dec=0 deg. This area of the sky is currently close to optimal visibility for a planet at opposition. At the most probable location, the planet's current distance would be r~600 AU, and the expected V magnitude is 21. A number of groups have engaged in the hunt, and there is something of an emerging consensus that if the planet is to be found, it'll be found sooner rather than later. As an example, Mike Brown gives sixteen months. This second update to our original, now closed, Planet Nine question is thus in order:
Will the discovery by direct observation of a new solar system planet having characteristics substantially similar to those described in the Batygin-Brown paper, be announced in a peer-reviewed paper prior to the Jan. 20, 2017 first anniversary of the Batygin-Brown prediction?
(For this question to resolve as "Yes", the new solar system planet should have an inferred radius larger than that of Earth, an orbital period greater than 5,000 years, and an orbital eccentricity e > 0.25). | true | 2017-01-20 | Will Planet Nine Emerge from Hiding Soon? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-03 | 2016-11-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-20", 0.24], ["2016-11-20", 0.24], ["2016-11-20", 0.25], ["2016-11-21", 0.262], ["2016-11-21", 0.262], ["2016-11-21", 0.243], ["2016-11-21", 0.243], ["2016-11-21", 0.277], ["2016-11-21", 0.292], ["2016-11-21", 0.292], ["2016-11-22", 0.291], ["2016-11-22", 0.291], ["2016-11-22", 0.267], ["2016-11-22", 0.3], ["2016-11-23", 0.281], ["2016-11-23", 0.281], ["2016-11-24", 0.284], ["2016-11-27", 0.287], ["2016-11-27", 0.298], ["2016-11-29", 0.296], ["2016-12-01", 0.31], ["2016-12-05", 0.31], ["2016-12-06", 0.317], ["2016-12-06", 0.314], ["2016-12-06", 0.312], ["2016-12-06", 0.326], ["2016-12-09", 0.324], ["2016-12-16", 0.324], ["2016-12-21", 0.356], ["2016-12-21", 0.363], ["2016-12-21", 0.363], ["2016-12-21", 0.369], ["2016-12-21", 0.375], ["2016-12-22", 0.378], ["2016-12-22", 0.386], ["2016-12-23", 0.382], ["2016-12-23", 0.382], ["2016-12-24", 0.381], ["2016-12-24", 0.381], ["2016-12-26", 0.381], ["2016-12-29", 0.388], ["2016-12-30", 0.389], ["2016-12-30", 0.391], ["2016-12-31", 0.391]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/366/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Recently there have been several warnings on the volume of corporate debt in China (by the IMF, Financial Times, etc.), which is likely to affect the country's financial sector because State Owned Enterprises under stress are being "bailed out" by State Owned Banks e.g. through debt restructuring or loan-for-equity swaps.
Indeed the amount of outstanding credit is not only in terms of credit/GDP, but in credit/GDP gap (the deviation from the trend). This measure has been defended as the best predictor of financial crises. As a result, some have even started to argue that 2017 will be the year things come to head – just as other important financial crises took place in years ending in 7.
On the other hand, the Chinese government has recognized the high amount of leverage in the country’s corporate sector, and launched policy measures to reduce leverage (e.g. M&Es, liquidate zombie companies).
While analysts do acknowledge these measures, some argue that they will not be enough. Hence, a key question in financial markets at present is:
Will China’s debt accumulation lead to a crash in 2017?
Resolution is positive if both:
China's rate of GDP growth reported for 2017 is less than 5%, and
The highest point on Google trends, searched in California, for "China financial Crisis" hits twice the value that it attained in 2015. | true | 2016-12-31 | Will there be a financial crisis in China in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-11-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-06", 0.6], ["2016-11-06", 0.45], ["2016-11-06", 0.45], ["2016-11-06", 0.45], ["2016-11-06", 0.42], ["2016-11-07", 0.42], ["2016-11-07", 0.34], ["2016-11-07", 0.355], ["2016-11-07", 0.34], ["2016-11-07", 0.363], ["2016-11-07", 0.354], ["2016-11-07", 0.37], ["2016-11-07", 0.412], ["2016-11-07", 0.412], ["2016-11-07", 0.405], ["2016-11-07", 0.405], ["2016-11-07", 0.411], ["2016-11-07", 0.415], ["2016-11-07", 0.415], ["2016-11-08", 0.453], ["2016-11-08", 0.453], ["2016-11-08", 0.469], ["2016-11-08", 0.466], ["2016-11-08", 0.466], ["2016-11-08", 0.47], ["2016-11-09", 0.47], ["2016-11-09", 0.473], ["2016-11-09", 0.497], ["2016-11-09", 0.497], ["2016-11-09", 0.491], ["2016-11-09", 0.49], ["2016-11-10", 0.489], ["2016-11-10", 0.489], ["2016-11-10", 0.505], ["2016-11-11", 0.505], ["2016-11-12", 0.491], ["2016-11-12", 0.489], ["2016-11-12", 0.494], ["2016-11-12", 0.493], ["2016-11-13", 0.493], ["2016-11-13", 0.49], ["2016-11-13", 0.492], ["2016-11-14", 0.492], ["2016-11-14", 0.48], ["2016-11-15", 0.477], ["2016-11-15", 0.473], ["2016-11-15", 0.473], ["2016-11-15", 0.473], ["2016-11-16", 0.471], ["2016-11-16", 0.471], ["2016-11-16", 0.472], ["2016-11-16", 0.475], ["2016-11-16", 0.475], ["2016-11-16", 0.474], ["2016-11-16", 0.474], ["2016-11-17", 0.478], ["2016-11-17", 0.478], ["2016-11-17", 0.47], ["2016-11-18", 0.466], ["2016-11-18", 0.469], ["2016-11-19", 0.469], ["2016-11-19", 0.469], ["2016-11-19", 0.467], ["2016-11-19", 0.467], ["2016-11-19", 0.468], ["2016-11-20", 0.468], ["2016-11-20", 0.468], ["2016-11-21", 0.465], ["2016-11-21", 0.465], ["2016-11-22", 0.463], ["2016-11-23", 0.45], ["2016-11-23", 0.45], ["2016-11-24", 0.453], ["2016-11-24", 0.453], ["2016-11-24", 0.453], ["2016-11-26", 0.454], ["2016-11-26", 0.454], ["2016-11-27", 0.449], ["2016-11-27", 0.439], ["2016-11-27", 0.439], ["2016-11-28", 0.44], ["2016-11-29", 0.44], ["2016-11-29", 0.433], ["2016-11-30", 0.432], ["2016-11-30", 0.432]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/368/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | A hypothetical object called a time crystal was first proposed by Frank Wilczek in 2012. Once just a mathematical curiosity, its existence may have been experimentally confirmed by a team of physicists who observed predicted time crystal behavior in an interacting spin chain of trapped atomic ions. The work is reported in a pre-print submitted to arXiv in September 2016.
Initially, many doubted that such quantum systems could exist for the unusual property of periodic motion in the ground state. Like ordinary crystals which form repeating patterns in the crystal structure created by spontaneous translational symmetry breaking in three dimensions, time crystals extend to the fourth dimension: time. Observing time crystals would imply observing the breaking of time translation symmetry. Time crystals exhibit repetition (crystalline behavior) in both space and time, and the growth of repeating lattices in time does not consume nor produce any energy despite of perpetual motion in the ground state.
But the required spontaneously broken time translation symmetry had not been observed before, and the lack of a precise definition for time crystals created difficulty in the past for realizing such a physical system. Previously, researchers showed that when they considered both the ground state and states in thermal equilibrium, time translation symmetry could not be broken.
Later, another team, using the idea of a non-equilibrium driven system, showed time translation symmetry can be spontaneously broken in a large class of many-body-localized driven systems with discrete time translation symmetry. A paper on this work titled Floquet Time Crystals was published on August 2016 in Phys. Rev. Lett. The preprint version on arXiv has been cited 9 times as of question writing, as reported by Google Scholar.
Will this paper have at least 9 more citations, by the end of 2016?
Certainly, the discovery has large implications in the understanding of states of matter in both equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems. It also implies observing time translation symmetry being spontaneously broken for the first time.
More citations mean that the paper is achieving greater scientific impact, and this is part of an ongoing small-scale experiment to look at predictions of paper citation rates on various timescales.
For the question to resolve positively, a Google Scholar search must report a minimum of 18 citations of the paper Floquet Time Crystals on or before Dec 31st, 2016. | true | 2016-11-30 | How important are "time crystals"? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-14 | 2016-11-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-06", 0.61], ["2016-11-06", 0.765], ["2016-11-06", 0.765], ["2016-11-06", 0.765], ["2016-11-07", 0.66], ["2016-11-07", 0.56], ["2016-11-07", 0.56], ["2016-11-07", 0.598], ["2016-11-07", 0.598], ["2016-11-07", 0.584], ["2016-11-08", 0.643], ["2016-11-08", 0.632], ["2016-11-08", 0.629], ["2016-11-08", 0.622], ["2016-11-08", 0.582], ["2016-11-09", 0.582], ["2016-11-09", 0.577], ["2016-11-09", 0.605], ["2016-11-10", 0.602], ["2016-11-12", 0.607], ["2016-11-12", 0.604], ["2016-11-12", 0.586], ["2016-11-12", 0.586], ["2016-11-12", 0.58], ["2016-11-12", 0.583], ["2016-11-12", 0.556], ["2016-11-14", 0.558], ["2016-11-15", 0.553], ["2016-11-15", 0.553], ["2016-11-16", 0.559], ["2016-11-17", 0.559], ["2016-11-24", 0.559], ["2016-11-27", 0.557], ["2016-12-21", 0.554], ["2017-01-01", 0.563], ["2017-01-01", 0.564], ["2017-01-06", 0.564], ["2017-02-05", 0.554], ["2017-02-16", 0.554], ["2017-02-17", 0.554], ["2017-02-23", 0.553], ["2017-02-27", 0.544], ["2017-03-05", 0.543], ["2017-03-07", 0.545], ["2017-03-18", 0.545], ["2017-04-13", 0.543], ["2017-04-15", 0.543], ["2017-04-15", 0.537], ["2017-04-16", 0.536], ["2017-04-16", 0.541], ["2017-04-17", 0.533], ["2017-04-20", 0.535], ["2017-04-24", 0.531], ["2017-04-25", 0.535], ["2017-04-25", 0.532], ["2017-04-30", 0.532], ["2017-04-30", 0.548], ["2017-04-30", 0.547], ["2017-04-30", 0.546]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/369/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Millions of people worldwide are afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, a neurological disease that breaks down brain functions, eventually leading to death. Alzheimer's is most prevalent in older people, with the risk of developing the disease doubling every five years after age 65.
The main culprits identified by scientists are called amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. Both are dense, sticky masses that cluster and interfere with neuron function. Existing medications for Alzheimer's disease attempt to treat the symptoms and stave off further damage – in both cases the effect is modest. There is no current cure.
In 2015, an Australian team published the results of a study showing that focused ultrasound waves restored memory function in mice whose brains contained Alzheimer's-type plaques. The sound waves opened up the blood-brain barrier and activated cells that typically clean up cellular wastes. The cells, called microglia, cleared away the plaques, restoring memory function in 75 percent of the mice, with no apparent detrimental effects. The team hopes to begin human trials of the non-invasive treatment in 2017.
Will an ultrasound-based Alzheimer's treatment begin clinical trials in humans in 2017?
For this question to resolve as positive, the Australian clinical trial registry must report the commencement of a trial using scanning ultrasound to clear amyloid plaques and/or neurofibrillary tangles in humans on or before December 31, 2017. | true | 2017-05-01 | New ultrasound Alzheimer's treatment to clinical trial in humans by end of 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-05-01 | 2016-11-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-05", 0.75], ["2016-11-05", 0.51], ["2016-11-05", 0.485], ["2016-11-05", 0.485], ["2016-11-05", 0.572], ["2016-11-05", 0.572], ["2016-11-06", 0.511], ["2016-11-06", 0.511], ["2016-11-06", 0.517], ["2016-11-07", 0.517], ["2016-11-07", 0.535], ["2016-11-07", 0.559], ["2016-11-07", 0.55], ["2016-11-08", 0.55], ["2016-11-08", 0.553], ["2016-11-09", 0.553], ["2016-11-09", 0.543], ["2016-11-09", 0.543], ["2016-11-09", 0.509], ["2016-11-09", 0.51], ["2016-11-10", 0.489], ["2016-11-10", 0.494], ["2016-11-12", 0.49], ["2016-11-14", 0.488], ["2016-11-14", 0.492], ["2016-11-16", 0.492], ["2016-11-17", 0.492], ["2016-11-18", 0.511], ["2016-11-20", 0.511], ["2016-11-21", 0.523], ["2016-11-26", 0.509], ["2016-11-27", 0.508], ["2016-11-27", 0.508], ["2016-12-05", 0.52], ["2016-12-14", 0.52], ["2016-12-14", 0.512], ["2016-12-21", 0.502], ["2016-12-21", 0.502], ["2016-12-21", 0.502], ["2016-12-22", 0.507], ["2016-12-26", 0.509], ["2017-01-01", 0.507], ["2017-01-01", 0.502], ["2017-01-01", 0.504], ["2017-01-01", 0.495], ["2017-01-02", 0.495], ["2017-01-02", 0.495], ["2017-01-02", 0.495], ["2017-01-04", 0.495], ["2017-01-04", 0.498], ["2017-01-05", 0.488], ["2017-01-05", 0.483], ["2017-01-07", 0.483], ["2017-01-10", 0.478], ["2017-01-10", 0.482], ["2017-01-11", 0.477], ["2017-01-14", 0.476]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/370/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | For many years, solid metallic hydrogen has been a theoretical substance. It appears that it has been created in the lab for the first time, as reported in this paper.
From the arXiv entry, It is unclear whether this paper is under referee for publication, or where.
Will this paper on solid metallic hydrogen have high impact?
Question resolves positive if the preprint above, or a published paper substantially equivalent to the preprint, receives at least 50 citations by May 1 2017. | true | 2017-01-15 | Solid metallic hydrogen: how much impact? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-04 | 2016-11-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-05", 0.275], ["2016-11-05", 0.207], ["2016-11-05", 0.14], ["2016-11-05", 0.165], ["2016-11-06", 0.154], ["2016-11-06", 0.172], ["2016-11-06", 0.198], ["2016-11-06", 0.208], ["2016-11-06", 0.25], ["2016-11-06", 0.281], ["2016-11-06", 0.265], ["2016-11-06", 0.259], ["2016-11-06", 0.269], ["2016-11-07", 0.269], ["2016-11-07", 0.282], ["2016-11-07", 0.298], ["2016-11-07", 0.298], ["2016-11-08", 0.297], ["2016-11-08", 0.297], ["2016-11-08", 0.303], ["2016-11-09", 0.302], ["2016-11-09", 0.306], ["2016-11-09", 0.306], ["2016-11-09", 0.306], ["2016-11-09", 0.273], ["2016-11-09", 0.273], ["2016-11-10", 0.279], ["2016-11-10", 0.283], ["2016-11-12", 0.28], ["2016-11-14", 0.282], ["2016-11-16", 0.282], ["2016-11-17", 0.3], ["2016-11-18", 0.327], ["2016-11-23", 0.327], ["2016-11-24", 0.339], ["2016-11-26", 0.339], ["2016-11-27", 0.336], ["2016-12-21", 0.344], ["2017-01-01", 0.352], ["2017-01-01", 0.353], ["2017-01-02", 0.349], ["2017-01-06", 0.343], ["2017-01-22", 0.341], ["2017-01-22", 0.336], ["2017-01-23", 0.336], ["2017-01-28", 0.328], ["2017-01-28", 0.342], ["2017-02-04", 0.343], ["2017-02-05", 0.336], ["2017-02-09", 0.336], ["2017-02-23", 0.336], ["2017-02-24", 0.341], ["2017-02-27", 0.331], ["2017-03-06", 0.333], ["2017-03-11", 0.325], ["2017-03-14", 0.323], ["2017-03-23", 0.327], ["2017-03-24", 0.322], ["2017-03-24", 0.315], ["2017-03-25", 0.312], ["2017-03-25", 0.312], ["2017-03-25", 0.31], ["2017-03-27", 0.309], ["2017-03-28", 0.308], ["2017-03-29", 0.308], ["2017-03-30", 0.303], ["2017-03-31", 0.299], ["2017-04-06", 0.298], ["2017-04-08", 0.295], ["2017-04-11", 0.293], ["2017-04-11", 0.293], ["2017-04-11", 0.293], ["2017-04-11", 0.293], ["2017-04-11", 0.293], ["2017-04-11", 0.293], ["2017-04-12", 0.292], ["2017-04-14", 0.291], ["2017-04-14", 0.291], ["2017-04-14", 0.29], ["2017-04-14", 0.291], ["2017-04-14", 0.289], ["2017-04-15", 0.289]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/371/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Solid metallic hydrogen has apparently been recently created in the lab. If verified, this could be a big deal (see accompanying question on citations), as the substance has been theorized for decades and may have very interesting properties.
Among these, there has been speculation that it may superconduct, and that this superconductivity may be maintained even to room temperature, which would be a revolutionary discovery.
As of the preprint's preparation, there was apparently a sample sitting in a cryostat in the lab:
As of the writing of this article we are maintaining the first sample of the first element in the form of solid metallic hydrogen at liquid nitrogen temperature in a cryostat. This valuable sample may survive warming to room temperature and the DAC could be extracted from the cryostat for greatly enhanced observation and further study. Another possibility is to cool to liquid helium temperatures and slowly release the load to see if SMH is metastable. An important future measurement is to study this metal for high temperature superconductivity.
Will a solid metallic hydrogen sample superconduct at room temperature?
Resolution is positive if a preprint or published paper credibly reports experimental measurements of superconductivity in solid metallic hydrogen at 0 degrees centigrade or above (we'll allow a cold room) prior to start of 2018. | true | 2017-04-15 | Solid metallic hydrogen: will it superconduct at room temperature? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-05 | 2016-11-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-14", 0.46], ["2016-11-14", 0.393], ["2016-11-14", 0.393], ["2016-11-14", 0.358], ["2016-11-14", 0.36], ["2016-11-14", 0.4], ["2016-11-14", 0.4], ["2016-11-14", 0.4], ["2016-11-14", 0.369], ["2016-11-14", 0.369], ["2016-11-14", 0.377], ["2016-11-14", 0.365], ["2016-11-14", 0.365], ["2016-11-14", 0.335], ["2016-11-14", 0.313], ["2016-11-14", 0.313], ["2016-11-14", 0.316], ["2016-11-15", 0.324], ["2016-11-15", 0.331], ["2016-11-15", 0.332], ["2016-11-15", 0.329], ["2016-11-15", 0.334], ["2016-11-15", 0.351], ["2016-11-16", 0.349], ["2016-11-16", 0.348], ["2016-11-16", 0.354], ["2016-11-17", 0.35], ["2016-11-17", 0.352], ["2016-11-17", 0.35], ["2016-11-18", 0.35], ["2016-11-19", 0.338], ["2016-11-19", 0.337], ["2016-11-19", 0.339], ["2016-11-19", 0.339], ["2016-11-20", 0.339], ["2016-11-20", 0.334], ["2016-11-21", 0.343], ["2016-11-21", 0.34], ["2016-11-22", 0.341], ["2016-11-23", 0.341], ["2016-11-24", 0.344], ["2016-11-26", 0.344], ["2016-11-26", 0.345], ["2016-11-27", 0.343], ["2016-11-27", 0.348], ["2016-11-28", 0.347], ["2016-11-28", 0.347], ["2016-11-28", 0.348], ["2016-11-29", 0.35], ["2016-11-30", 0.351], ["2016-11-30", 0.351], ["2016-11-30", 0.351], ["2016-11-30", 0.352], ["2016-11-30", 0.353], ["2016-11-30", 0.353], ["2016-12-01", 0.363], ["2016-12-01", 0.357], ["2016-12-01", 0.357], ["2016-12-01", 0.362], ["2016-12-02", 0.361], ["2016-12-03", 0.362], ["2016-12-03", 0.362], ["2016-12-03", 0.364], ["2016-12-03", 0.364], ["2016-12-03", 0.361], ["2016-12-03", 0.358], ["2016-12-03", 0.358]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/374/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | On 4 December, Italy will hold a referendum on constitutional reform. Italians are asked to approve the amending of the Italian Constitution to reform the appointment and powers of the Parliament of Italy, as well as the partition of powers of State, Regions, and administrative entities.
Opposition parties, and part of the majority itself, have harshly criticised the bill, claiming that it is badly written and that it will unsettle the balance of power between parliament and government.
This referendum has been compared to the Brexit vote held in Britain earlier this year. While it will not have any direct effect on Italy's position in the EU, the vote has come to be viewed as a vote of confidence in Matteo Renzi’s government, who strongly supports it. Should the he lose the consultation, it may trigger early elections that may in turn propel an eurosceptic party such as the 5-star movement into power.
Will the Italians vote in favor of the proposed constitutional reform?
Resolution is positive if the referendum passes. | true | 2016-12-03 | Will the Italian constitutional referendum pass? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-04 | 2016-11-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-16", 0.5], ["2016-11-16", 0.567], ["2016-11-16", 0.567], ["2016-11-17", 0.542], ["2016-11-17", 0.542], ["2016-11-17", 0.543], ["2016-11-17", 0.517], ["2016-11-17", 0.532], ["2016-11-17", 0.525], ["2016-11-17", 0.533], ["2016-11-17", 0.559], ["2016-11-19", 0.559], ["2016-11-20", 0.558], ["2016-11-20", 0.555], ["2016-11-21", 0.559], ["2016-11-21", 0.564], ["2016-11-22", 0.564], ["2016-11-22", 0.58], ["2016-11-23", 0.58], ["2016-11-24", 0.577], ["2016-11-25", 0.594], ["2016-11-25", 0.591], ["2016-11-26", 0.591], ["2016-11-26", 0.586], ["2016-11-26", 0.59], ["2016-11-27", 0.59], ["2016-11-27", 0.611], ["2016-11-27", 0.605], ["2016-11-27", 0.6], ["2016-11-27", 0.596], ["2016-11-28", 0.601], ["2016-11-29", 0.6], ["2016-11-29", 0.6], ["2016-11-30", 0.6], ["2016-11-30", 0.596], ["2016-12-01", 0.592], ["2016-12-02", 0.592], ["2016-12-02", 0.593], ["2016-12-03", 0.59], ["2016-12-03", 0.59], ["2016-12-03", 0.59], ["2016-12-03", 0.592], ["2016-12-04", 0.593], ["2016-12-04", 0.593], ["2016-12-04", 0.591], ["2016-12-04", 0.591], ["2016-12-04", 0.59], ["2016-12-04", 0.568]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/376/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Presidential elections were held in Austria on 24 April 2016, with a second round run-off on 22 May 2016. However, the results of the second round were annulled and a re-vote is due to take place on 4 December 2016.
In the first round of the election, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party of Austria received the most votes. Alexander Van der Bellen, a member of the Austrian Greens contesting as an independent, placed second. Since none received a majority of the vote went head-to-head in the second round in May, but the Constitutional Court invalidated the consultation, since Hofer had lost to Van der Bellen by 30,863 votes and the Court invalidated more than twice the number of ballots.
While Hofer is generally considered ahead, polls still show the presidential contest as a dead heat.
Will Norbert Hofer be elected president after the second round re-vote 4 December?
This question resolves as negative if Alexander Van der Bellen is declared as the winner or if a winner has not been chosen by 4 January 2017. | true | 2016-12-04 | Hofer for president in Austria on 4 December? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-11-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-14", 0.82], ["2016-11-15", 0.837], ["2016-11-16", 0.835], ["2016-11-17", 0.801], ["2016-11-17", 0.789], ["2016-11-19", 0.796], ["2016-11-20", 0.796], ["2016-11-20", 0.798], ["2016-11-21", 0.801], ["2016-11-22", 0.795], ["2016-11-23", 0.801], ["2016-11-24", 0.776], ["2016-11-26", 0.781], ["2016-11-27", 0.761], ["2016-11-28", 0.757], ["2016-11-29", 0.754], ["2016-11-30", 0.78], ["2016-12-04", 0.784], ["2016-12-05", 0.784], ["2016-12-05", 0.784], ["2016-12-07", 0.783], ["2016-12-09", 0.779], ["2016-12-10", 0.784], ["2016-12-20", 0.79], ["2016-12-20", 0.792], ["2016-12-21", 0.793], ["2016-12-22", 0.802], ["2016-12-22", 0.788], ["2016-12-23", 0.789], ["2016-12-27", 0.789], ["2016-12-29", 0.793], ["2017-01-01", 0.784], ["2017-01-02", 0.787], ["2017-01-02", 0.789], ["2017-01-03", 0.792], ["2017-01-04", 0.792], ["2017-01-05", 0.787], ["2017-01-06", 0.789], ["2017-01-12", 0.791], ["2017-01-13", 0.788], ["2017-01-14", 0.791], ["2017-01-15", 0.791], ["2017-01-16", 0.785], ["2017-01-20", 0.783], ["2017-01-20", 0.782], ["2017-01-22", 0.782], ["2017-01-24", 0.782], ["2017-01-24", 0.784], ["2017-01-25", 0.779], ["2017-01-25", 0.78], ["2017-01-29", 0.779], ["2017-01-30", 0.773], ["2017-01-31", 0.764], ["2017-02-01", 0.763], ["2017-02-02", 0.765], ["2017-02-03", 0.765], ["2017-02-05", 0.764], ["2017-02-05", 0.764], ["2017-02-06", 0.764], ["2017-02-07", 0.766], ["2017-02-08", 0.767], ["2017-02-15", 0.767], ["2017-02-15", 0.768], ["2017-02-16", 0.77], ["2017-02-17", 0.77], ["2017-02-18", 0.776], ["2017-02-18", 0.777], ["2017-02-19", 0.776], ["2017-02-22", 0.777], ["2017-02-23", 0.777], ["2017-02-24", 0.778], ["2017-02-24", 0.778], ["2017-02-26", 0.778], ["2017-02-27", 0.779], ["2017-03-01", 0.779], ["2017-03-01", 0.782], ["2017-03-03", 0.784], ["2017-03-03", 0.784], ["2017-03-04", 0.779], ["2017-03-07", 0.774], ["2017-03-09", 0.776], ["2017-03-10", 0.78], ["2017-03-11", 0.779], ["2017-03-12", 0.781], ["2017-03-12", 0.781], ["2017-03-13", 0.782], ["2017-03-14", 0.782], ["2017-03-14", 0.783], ["2017-03-15", 0.777], ["2017-03-20", 0.777], ["2017-03-22", 0.775], ["2017-03-22", 0.78], ["2017-03-23", 0.779], ["2017-03-24", 0.779], ["2017-03-27", 0.779], ["2017-03-28", 0.779], ["2017-03-29", 0.779], ["2017-03-30", 0.78], ["2017-03-31", 0.782], ["2017-03-31", 0.782], ["2017-04-01", 0.782]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/377/ | Donald J. Trump is the President-Elect of the U.S., making it extremely likely that he will assume the Presidential office in January 2017.
In addition to the usual mortal risks that might prevent a president from serving the second year of his term, the likelihood of either resignation or impeachment seem somewhat higher in Trump's case than for some previous Presidents-Elect. By some accounts he spent part of his campaign not believing that he would get the job, and may find it not to his liking. He also has legal cases pending, and due to his public-sector inexperience may be comparatively unaware of the the borderline between traditional exercise of presidential power and impeachable offenses. | Politics & Governance | This question will resolve true if Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States on January 1, 2018 | true | 2017-04-01 | Will Donald Trump be the President of the United States on January 1, 2018? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-01-09 | 2016-11-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-15", 0.62], ["2016-11-15", 0.62], ["2016-11-16", 0.58], ["2016-11-16", 0.58], ["2016-11-16", 0.538], ["2016-11-16", 0.538], ["2016-11-16", 0.53], ["2016-11-16", 0.537], ["2016-11-16", 0.533], ["2016-11-16", 0.533], ["2016-11-16", 0.529], ["2016-11-16", 0.544], ["2016-11-16", 0.544], ["2016-11-18", 0.552], ["2016-11-19", 0.552], ["2016-11-19", 0.551], ["2016-11-19", 0.557], ["2016-11-19", 0.547], ["2016-11-20", 0.544], ["2016-11-20", 0.544], ["2016-11-20", 0.541], ["2016-11-20", 0.541], ["2016-11-21", 0.541], ["2016-11-21", 0.555], ["2016-11-21", 0.555], ["2016-11-22", 0.552], ["2016-11-22", 0.552], ["2016-11-22", 0.548], ["2016-11-23", 0.547], ["2016-11-23", 0.517], ["2016-11-23", 0.522], ["2016-11-24", 0.521], ["2016-11-25", 0.521], ["2016-11-25", 0.517], ["2016-11-25", 0.513], ["2016-11-26", 0.512], ["2016-11-27", 0.511], ["2016-11-27", 0.51], ["2016-11-27", 0.51], ["2016-11-28", 0.522], ["2016-11-28", 0.516], ["2016-11-29", 0.528], ["2016-11-30", 0.528], ["2016-11-30", 0.524], ["2016-12-01", 0.524], ["2016-12-02", 0.523], ["2016-12-02", 0.513], ["2016-12-03", 0.51], ["2016-12-03", 0.51], ["2016-12-03", 0.506], ["2016-12-05", 0.504], ["2016-12-05", 0.499], ["2016-12-05", 0.499], ["2016-12-05", 0.5], ["2016-12-07", 0.499], ["2016-12-07", 0.499], ["2016-12-08", 0.499], ["2016-12-08", 0.505], ["2016-12-09", 0.504], ["2016-12-09", 0.504], ["2016-12-10", 0.507], ["2016-12-10", 0.506], ["2016-12-10", 0.506], ["2016-12-11", 0.504], ["2016-12-11", 0.505], ["2016-12-12", 0.504], ["2016-12-12", 0.504], ["2016-12-13", 0.5], ["2016-12-13", 0.5], ["2016-12-13", 0.497], ["2016-12-13", 0.503], ["2016-12-13", 0.509], ["2016-12-14", 0.509], ["2016-12-14", 0.507], ["2016-12-14", 0.507]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/378/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In January 2016, a paper was published in Phys. Rev. Lett. by a group physicists at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, reporting findings from their research on the possible existence of dark photons – a hypothetical elementary particle first proposed in 2008 as a force carrier particle for dark matter.
Not much attention was gained with this paper, which discussed a potential new particle of mass ~ 17 MeV found via radioactive decay anomaly. At the time the particle type was not determined. Later, another team of physicists from the University of California, Irvine (UCI) examined the work done by the Hungarian team along with relevant results from previous experiments. Calling it the protophobic X boson, their findings suggest the particle may not be a matter particle nor is it a dark photon. Instead, it could be a force carrier acting in a range comparable to that of an atomic nucleus and only with electrons and neutrons. Their work is reported in a paper published in August 2016 in Phys. Rev. Lett. SPIRES currently lists 18 citations to the Feng et al. paper
The never-before-seen characteristic of the protophobic X boson implies the possible existence of a fifth fundamental force of nature in addition to the four known forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear force.
Naturally, the announcement intrigued the physics community; while some theorists greeted the news with skepticism, several experiments are now underway to finding conclusive evidence of dark photons, and physics beyond the standard model.
As a gauge of this paper's importance and how much attention is being paid to it, we ask: Will the Feng et al. paper increase its citation rate over the next two months?
Given 18 citations in ~5 months, we'll adopt a criterion that the paper attain 8 additional citations in the next two, i.e. have 26 or more citations on Jan 10, 2017, per this SPIRES search. | true | 2016-12-15 | More attention to potential evidence for a fifth fundamental force? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-03-09 | 2016-11-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-20", 0.25], ["2016-11-20", 0.31], ["2016-11-20", 0.343], ["2016-11-20", 0.375], ["2016-11-20", 0.375], ["2016-11-20", 0.375], ["2016-11-20", 0.333], ["2016-11-20", 0.329], ["2016-11-20", 0.329], ["2016-11-21", 0.338], ["2016-11-21", 0.373], ["2016-11-21", 0.38], ["2016-11-21", 0.381], ["2016-11-21", 0.381], ["2016-11-22", 0.391], ["2016-11-22", 0.389], ["2016-11-23", 0.389], ["2016-11-23", 0.4], ["2016-11-27", 0.406], ["2016-11-27", 0.406], ["2016-11-28", 0.404], ["2016-12-05", 0.404], ["2016-12-09", 0.406], ["2016-12-16", 0.406], ["2016-12-21", 0.38], ["2016-12-21", 0.38], ["2016-12-22", 0.382], ["2016-12-26", 0.384], ["2016-12-29", 0.384], ["2016-12-30", 0.386]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/380/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Founded as an advocacy and educational outreach organization, The Life You Can Save help raise donations where a majority of their received funds goes to some of the world’s best charities for fighting global poverty.
Based on public standard, the organization suggests a minimum donation to charity, which is ~ 1% of one's annual income. Last year, the organization influenced online donations to their recommended charities, resulted in $1.2 million; a total of $1.55 million was distributed, about double the amount received in 2014. Funds received include online donations from the general public, as well as offline giving in large amounts by wealthy families. The organization reported the full breakdown of money moved last year in the 2015 impact report:
In 2015 we moved $1.55 million to our recommended charities. This is a conservative estimate, and perhaps an extremely conservative one--as discussed in the Offline Donations section below, our true impact could have been several million dollars greater. Our operating expenses were ~$280,000 meaning we conservatively moved ~$5.5 to outstanding charities for each dollar we spent.
The various reasons for potential overestimation and underestimation are discussed in their report, as mentioned above. But generally, it appears that, their estimation is on the conservative side.
Will the total funding received for 2016 double the amount from 2015?
The Life You Can Save’s 2016 Year in Review is expected to be published around early March of 2017. Resolution is positive if this report indicates a movement of $3 million or more to recommended charities. | true | 2016-12-31 | More "Live(s) you can save" in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-31 | 2016-11-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-27", 0.2], ["2016-11-27", 0.175], ["2016-11-27", 0.12], ["2016-11-27", 0.097], ["2016-11-27", 0.097], ["2016-11-27", 0.252], ["2016-11-28", 0.258], ["2016-11-28", 0.25], ["2016-11-28", 0.25], ["2016-11-28", 0.247], ["2016-11-28", 0.255], ["2016-11-28", 0.255], ["2016-11-28", 0.242], ["2016-11-28", 0.242], ["2016-11-29", 0.256], ["2016-11-30", 0.251], ["2016-12-03", 0.257], ["2016-12-06", 0.257], ["2016-12-06", 0.266], ["2016-12-12", 0.264], ["2016-12-21", 0.264], ["2016-12-21", 0.279], ["2016-12-23", 0.31], ["2016-12-29", 0.314], ["2016-12-30", 0.314], ["2017-01-01", 0.333], ["2017-01-01", 0.333], ["2017-01-01", 0.334], ["2017-02-05", 0.334], ["2017-05-14", 0.34], ["2017-05-25", 0.336], ["2017-06-09", 0.339], ["2017-06-12", 0.337], ["2017-06-13", 0.337], ["2017-06-29", 0.334], ["2017-07-18", 0.328], ["2017-07-20", 0.326], ["2017-07-26", 0.329], ["2017-08-02", 0.328], ["2017-08-04", 0.331], ["2017-08-08", 0.324], ["2017-08-08", 0.326], ["2017-08-12", 0.326], ["2017-08-12", 0.328], ["2017-08-23", 0.328], ["2017-09-03", 0.332], ["2017-09-06", 0.332], ["2017-09-12", 0.33], ["2017-09-14", 0.33], ["2017-09-30", 0.332], ["2017-09-30", 0.333], ["2017-10-02", 0.334], ["2017-10-04", 0.335], ["2017-10-04", 0.335], ["2017-10-04", 0.334], ["2017-10-07", 0.335], ["2017-10-11", 0.334], ["2017-10-21", 0.332], ["2017-10-23", 0.333], ["2017-10-26", 0.332], ["2017-10-31", 0.333], ["2017-10-31", 0.333], ["2017-11-01", 0.335], ["2017-11-02", 0.335], ["2017-11-03", 0.335], ["2017-11-10", 0.336], ["2017-11-12", 0.334], ["2017-11-12", 0.335], ["2017-11-14", 0.335], ["2017-11-14", 0.335]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/383/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | To advance laser physics, European scientists are constructing the Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI) project, to eventually include four sites and some of the most powerful lasers in the world. Three of the facilities are currently under construction in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania, while the fourth site is yet to be determined.
Each facility is a "pillar" of the ELI. The Czech facility, called ELI-Beamlines, will develop short-pulse radiation sources. ELI-ALPS (Attosecond Light Pulse Source), in Hungary, will feature lasers with short pulses and high repetition rate over a broad range of frequencies. The Romanian facility will be called ELI-NP (nuclear physics) and will use the most powerful laser in the world to explore basic nuclear physics and develop applications such as destruction of nuclear waste or cancer radiotherapy. All three sites are slated to be operational by 2018.
Construction of ambitious physics facilities can be fraught with difficulties and delays, however. CERN's Large Hadron Collider, for example, was initially expected to be completed in 2005, but operations did not commence until 2009. The National Ignition Facility in California was originally estimated to be completed in 2002, but also experienced delays until dedication in 2009.
Will the first three pillars of ELI be completed as scheduled in 2018?
For this question to resolve as positive, an ELI press release or report from a credible news outlet must report that the last of the three pillars is complete and operational (taking at least test data using essentially the full system) on or before December 31, 2018. | true | 2017-11-15 | Will the Extreme Light Infrastructure facility come online as planned in 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-24 | 2016-11-26 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-26", 0.52], ["2016-11-27", 0.335], ["2016-11-27", 0.315], ["2016-11-27", 0.28], ["2016-11-27", 0.28], ["2016-11-27", 0.22], ["2016-11-27", 0.178], ["2016-11-27", 0.19], ["2016-11-27", 0.194], ["2016-11-27", 0.194], ["2016-11-27", 0.249], ["2016-11-27", 0.256], ["2016-11-27", 0.256], ["2016-11-28", 0.268], ["2016-11-28", 0.268], ["2016-11-28", 0.254], ["2016-11-28", 0.256], ["2016-11-28", 0.247], ["2016-11-28", 0.241], ["2016-11-28", 0.238], ["2016-11-29", 0.238], ["2016-11-30", 0.234], ["2016-11-30", 0.234], ["2016-12-02", 0.218], ["2016-12-03", 0.215], ["2016-12-03", 0.209], ["2016-12-03", 0.209], ["2016-12-04", 0.205], ["2016-12-05", 0.197], ["2016-12-05", 0.197], ["2016-12-05", 0.208], ["2016-12-06", 0.219], ["2016-12-07", 0.219], ["2016-12-07", 0.214], ["2016-12-07", 0.231], ["2016-12-07", 0.242], ["2016-12-08", 0.242], ["2016-12-09", 0.233], ["2016-12-09", 0.226], ["2016-12-09", 0.221], ["2016-12-10", 0.221], ["2016-12-11", 0.222], ["2016-12-11", 0.222], ["2016-12-11", 0.208], ["2016-12-11", 0.207], ["2016-12-12", 0.214], ["2016-12-13", 0.214]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/385/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Launched on Kickstarter, Project Blue is a crowdfunding campaign consists of scientists and experts from various nonprofit organizations and is led by a former NASA astrophysics director and the CEO of the BoldlyGo Institute. The campaign is currently seeking a $1M pledge by Dec 20, 2016, to help build a new space-based telescope with one objective: the direct imaging of Earth-like planets orbiting Alpha Centauri, our nearest star system. The project hopes to find other "Pale Blue Dots", Earthlike planets with environments that can sustain life.
If the pledge amount is met, the $1M will go towards the initial stage of analysis, design, and mission simulations. Project funding will not be provided unless the $1M goal is met by the deadline.
A $4M budget is set for the second stage of development, in which technologies will be tested and telescope's design would be completed. The entire mission, with a 2020 launch date, is estimated to cost roughly $50M.
The reason behind such a modest budget is that unlike traditional space missions with significantly larger project scopes (such as the Hubble Space Telescope), the only purpose of Project Blue is to create a planet-hunting space telescope, thus making it a high-risk, high-reward mission. Its sole focus on the Alpha Centauri system, while keeping the cost down, is very risky in comparison to a mission that could view hundreds or thousands of stars.
Project Blue is a collaborative science initiative, with collective participation from institutions and the general public. As of writing, $82,210 is pledged, with 24 days to go.
Will the project obtain the initial funding of $1M required to move forward by the deadline?
For this to question to resolve positively, contributions to Project Blue must total at least $1M by Dec 20, 2016, as reported on Kickstarter. | true | 2016-12-15 | Will the "Project Blue" campaign to kick-start a planet-imaging camera of Alpha Centauri reach its goal on Kickstarter? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-14 | 2016-11-28 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-29", 0.25], ["2016-11-29", 0.275], ["2016-11-29", 0.187], ["2016-11-30", 0.308], ["2016-11-30", 0.308], ["2016-11-30", 0.296], ["2016-11-30", 0.19], ["2016-11-30", 0.167], ["2016-11-30", 0.2], ["2016-11-30", 0.2], ["2016-11-30", 0.216], ["2016-11-30", 0.239], ["2016-11-30", 0.245], ["2016-11-30", 0.241], ["2016-11-30", 0.227], ["2016-11-30", 0.216], ["2016-12-01", 0.222], ["2016-12-01", 0.256], ["2016-12-01", 0.249], ["2016-12-01", 0.254], ["2016-12-01", 0.254], ["2016-12-01", 0.243], ["2016-12-01", 0.245], ["2016-12-01", 0.247], ["2016-12-02", 0.26], ["2016-12-02", 0.26], ["2016-12-02", 0.257], ["2016-12-03", 0.265], ["2016-12-03", 0.268], ["2016-12-03", 0.268], ["2016-12-03", 0.269], ["2016-12-03", 0.276], ["2016-12-04", 0.265], ["2016-12-04", 0.265], ["2016-12-04", 0.274], ["2016-12-04", 0.29], ["2016-12-05", 0.288], ["2016-12-05", 0.288], ["2016-12-05", 0.289], ["2016-12-05", 0.278], ["2016-12-05", 0.278], ["2016-12-06", 0.283]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/386/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | After a contentious U.S. election resulted in the unexpected victory of Donald Trump, various groups have called for a recount of votes in the decisive states. Green party candidate Jill Stein has been joined by Democrat Hillary Clinton in this. It seems a recount in Wisconsin is certain and recounts of Michigan and Pennsylvania are possible as well.
Deadlines for initiation of recounts are closing in the next few days; states must finalize their slates of electors for the electoral college by December 13.
Will any of these recounts change the margin of victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by more than 0.1% of the total votes in that state?
Resolution is positive if |((Trump Recount - Clinton Recount) - (Trump Original - Clinton Original))/(Original Total Votes)| > 0.001 for any state which carries out a recount. | true | 2016-12-06 | Will recounts appreciably change US presidential vote count? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-09-19 | 2016-11-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-01", 0.61], ["2016-12-01", 0.497], ["2016-12-01", 0.498], ["2016-12-01", 0.49], ["2016-12-02", 0.49], ["2016-12-03", 0.524], ["2016-12-03", 0.539], ["2016-12-03", 0.558], ["2016-12-04", 0.558], ["2016-12-05", 0.515], ["2016-12-06", 0.515], ["2016-12-06", 0.495], ["2016-12-06", 0.526], ["2016-12-09", 0.526], ["2016-12-12", 0.53], ["2016-12-13", 0.521], ["2016-12-14", 0.532], ["2016-12-15", 0.532], ["2016-12-18", 0.53], ["2016-12-21", 0.528], ["2016-12-21", 0.545], ["2016-12-21", 0.562], ["2016-12-22", 0.578], ["2016-12-22", 0.578], ["2016-12-23", 0.589], ["2016-12-24", 0.589], ["2016-12-26", 0.594], ["2016-12-31", 0.593], ["2017-01-01", 0.593], ["2017-01-02", 0.602], ["2017-01-06", 0.603], ["2017-01-08", 0.594], ["2017-01-26", 0.593], ["2017-02-03", 0.593], ["2017-02-05", 0.61], ["2017-02-10", 0.603], ["2017-02-14", 0.603], ["2017-02-21", 0.605], ["2017-02-22", 0.61], ["2017-02-24", 0.61], ["2017-02-28", 0.621], ["2017-03-03", 0.627], ["2017-03-03", 0.627], ["2017-03-04", 0.626], ["2017-03-05", 0.628], ["2017-03-09", 0.625], ["2017-03-09", 0.625], ["2017-03-10", 0.606], ["2017-03-10", 0.602], ["2017-03-10", 0.604], ["2017-03-11", 0.602], ["2017-03-11", 0.605], ["2017-03-14", 0.609], ["2017-03-21", 0.613], ["2017-03-21", 0.611], ["2017-03-22", 0.611], ["2017-03-28", 0.608], ["2017-04-01", 0.61], ["2017-04-13", 0.61], ["2017-04-13", 0.613], ["2017-04-14", 0.61], ["2017-04-14", 0.614], ["2017-04-14", 0.614], ["2017-04-15", 0.613], ["2017-04-19", 0.612], ["2017-04-26", 0.613], ["2017-04-29", 0.619], ["2017-04-30", 0.619], ["2017-05-01", 0.622], ["2017-05-01", 0.621], ["2017-05-02", 0.617], ["2017-05-04", 0.62], ["2017-05-04", 0.619], ["2017-05-06", 0.619], ["2017-05-10", 0.62], ["2017-05-13", 0.626], ["2017-05-14", 0.626], ["2017-05-14", 0.63], ["2017-05-17", 0.63], ["2017-05-18", 0.629], ["2017-05-18", 0.627], ["2017-05-18", 0.629], ["2017-05-20", 0.631], ["2017-05-21", 0.635], ["2017-05-21", 0.635], ["2017-05-22", 0.631], ["2017-05-22", 0.631], ["2017-05-24", 0.631], ["2017-05-24", 0.628], ["2017-05-26", 0.63], ["2017-05-26", 0.627], ["2017-05-27", 0.627], ["2017-05-27", 0.626], ["2017-05-27", 0.622], ["2017-05-29", 0.622], ["2017-05-29", 0.622], ["2017-05-30", 0.622], ["2017-05-30", 0.623], ["2017-05-31", 0.624], ["2017-05-31", 0.627], ["2017-05-31", 0.634]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/388/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | A key observable (and important effect) of global climate change is the extent of the Arctic ice sheet, which varies seasonally but also has a significant downward secular trend, presumably tied to global temperature increase.
The total extent of the sheet as a function of time is tracked in detail via a combination of satellite data and can be seen here as an image and here as a function of time. (A second interactive chart is here.)
Arctic sea ice shrank to its smallest recorded extent in September of 2012. Thankfully, 2016 ice sheet coverage did not shrink to an area smaller than that of 2012. See here for the previous Metaculus question where we asked about the possibility for 2016 to reach record low).
Will the extent of the Arctic ice sheet reach its lowest yet recorded value in 2017?
The resolution will be positive if the 2017 curve dips below the lowest point on the 2012 curve at the ADS website. | true | 2017-06-01 | Will 2017 see the smallest extent of Arctic Sea ice in recorded history? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-12-21 | 2016-11-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-01", 0.21], ["2016-12-01", 0.205], ["2016-12-01", 0.24], ["2016-12-01", 0.24], ["2016-12-01", 0.284], ["2016-12-01", 0.263], ["2016-12-01", 0.23], ["2016-12-01", 0.221], ["2016-12-03", 0.221], ["2016-12-03", 0.221], ["2016-12-05", 0.234], ["2016-12-05", 0.222], ["2016-12-06", 0.222], ["2016-12-06", 0.215], ["2016-12-12", 0.211], ["2016-12-18", 0.211], ["2016-12-20", 0.229], ["2016-12-21", 0.229], ["2016-12-21", 0.243], ["2016-12-21", 0.247], ["2016-12-21", 0.241], ["2016-12-21", 0.249], ["2016-12-22", 0.25], ["2016-12-22", 0.25], ["2016-12-22", 0.243], ["2016-12-23", 0.235], ["2016-12-31", 0.235], ["2017-01-01", 0.227], ["2017-01-01", 0.22], ["2017-01-01", 0.223], ["2017-01-01", 0.223], ["2017-01-01", 0.238], ["2017-01-01", 0.236], ["2017-01-01", 0.237], ["2017-01-01", 0.237], ["2017-01-01", 0.249], ["2017-01-01", 0.244], ["2017-01-01", 0.237], ["2017-01-01", 0.237], ["2017-01-01", 0.234], ["2017-01-02", 0.236], ["2017-01-02", 0.234], ["2017-01-02", 0.229], ["2017-01-02", 0.227], ["2017-01-02", 0.232], ["2017-01-02", 0.232], ["2017-01-03", 0.231], ["2017-01-05", 0.227], ["2017-01-05", 0.226], ["2017-02-05", 0.231], ["2017-02-16", 0.23], ["2017-02-18", 0.231], ["2017-02-22", 0.231], ["2017-03-10", 0.229], ["2017-03-10", 0.226], ["2017-03-14", 0.225], ["2017-03-15", 0.222], ["2017-03-22", 0.222], ["2017-03-23", 0.219], ["2017-03-28", 0.223], ["2017-04-14", 0.221], ["2017-04-14", 0.219], ["2017-04-14", 0.22], ["2017-04-14", 0.219], ["2017-04-15", 0.216], ["2017-04-16", 0.216], ["2017-04-25", 0.217], ["2017-05-01", 0.213], ["2017-05-02", 0.213], ["2017-05-02", 0.212], ["2017-05-06", 0.21], ["2017-05-08", 0.206], ["2017-05-08", 0.206], ["2017-05-08", 0.204], ["2017-05-08", 0.202], ["2017-05-14", 0.202], ["2017-05-14", 0.2], ["2017-05-14", 0.199], ["2017-05-14", 0.2], ["2017-05-15", 0.2], ["2017-05-16", 0.2], ["2017-05-16", 0.199], ["2017-05-18", 0.196], ["2017-05-20", 0.194], ["2017-05-20", 0.194], ["2017-05-20", 0.193], ["2017-05-21", 0.19], ["2017-05-21", 0.188], ["2017-05-23", 0.19], ["2017-05-25", 0.19], ["2017-05-30", 0.187], ["2017-05-31", 0.186], ["2017-05-31", 0.186], ["2017-05-31", 0.185], ["2017-05-31", 0.185], ["2017-05-31", 0.185], ["2017-05-31", 0.185], ["2017-05-31", 0.185], ["2017-05-31", 0.185], ["2017-05-31", 0.183], ["2017-05-31", 0.183]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/389/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Ted Koppel, of ABC News and Nightline fame, has been sounding the alarm about the vulnerability of the electrical grids in the U.S. to intentional sabotage.
In his book Lights Out, Koppel argues that the U.S. grid(s) are both so interconnected and so fragile that a well-crafted attack could knock out power for a multi-state region, leaving residents without electric power for months.
It is very reasonable to be concerned about such risk; however, Koppel's claims have been met with criticism and referred as "exaggeration".
For the purposes of this question, an attack with less dramatic impact will do:
Between Dec 1, 2016 and Dec 1, 2017, will an intentional attack on our electrical power infrastructure knock out power for more than 30% of residents in one of the ten most populous U.S. cities for a period of 72 hours or more?
For a positive resolution, there must be a public statement by either a law enforcement organization or a utility company confirming that the outage was not an accident. | true | 2017-06-01 | Will there be an attack on the electrical grid for a major U.S. city in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-04-04 | 2016-11-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-01", 0.145], ["2016-12-01", 0.181], ["2016-12-02", 0.167], ["2016-12-03", 0.192], ["2016-12-03", 0.237], ["2016-12-05", 0.237], ["2016-12-05", 0.261], ["2016-12-06", 0.262], ["2016-12-07", 0.262], ["2016-12-07", 0.28], ["2016-12-08", 0.27], ["2016-12-12", 0.263], ["2016-12-13", 0.285], ["2016-12-18", 0.28], ["2016-12-21", 0.28], ["2016-12-22", 0.292], ["2016-12-23", 0.272], ["2017-01-01", 0.269], ["2017-01-06", 0.263], ["2017-01-13", 0.263], ["2017-01-15", 0.265], ["2017-01-18", 0.258], ["2017-01-18", 0.259], ["2017-01-24", 0.269], ["2017-02-02", 0.271], ["2017-04-14", 0.281], ["2017-05-01", 0.281], ["2017-05-12", 0.289], ["2017-05-14", 0.296], ["2017-05-14", 0.298], ["2017-05-18", 0.294], ["2017-05-19", 0.294], ["2017-05-20", 0.303], ["2017-05-21", 0.289], ["2017-05-21", 0.289], ["2017-05-31", 0.289], ["2017-05-31", 0.288], ["2017-06-01", 0.284], ["2017-06-04", 0.28], ["2017-06-09", 0.281], ["2017-06-19", 0.279], ["2017-06-19", 0.279], ["2017-06-21", 0.276], ["2017-06-22", 0.275], ["2017-06-23", 0.275], ["2017-06-29", 0.276], ["2017-07-01", 0.272], ["2017-07-05", 0.269], ["2017-07-07", 0.272], ["2017-07-11", 0.272], ["2017-07-12", 0.27], ["2017-07-13", 0.268], ["2017-07-14", 0.264], ["2017-07-14", 0.259], ["2017-07-17", 0.259], ["2017-07-18", 0.257], ["2017-07-18", 0.252], ["2017-07-19", 0.248], ["2017-07-20", 0.248], ["2017-07-22", 0.248], ["2017-07-27", 0.249], ["2017-07-28", 0.25], ["2017-07-29", 0.25], ["2017-07-30", 0.248], ["2017-07-30", 0.247], ["2017-07-30", 0.247], ["2017-08-02", 0.244], ["2017-08-04", 0.244], ["2017-08-05", 0.223], ["2017-08-05", 0.221], ["2017-08-06", 0.213], ["2017-08-06", 0.204], ["2017-08-07", 0.202], ["2017-08-07", 0.201], ["2017-08-08", 0.2], ["2017-08-09", 0.198], ["2017-08-09", 0.196], ["2017-08-10", 0.195], ["2017-08-11", 0.194], ["2017-08-11", 0.197], ["2017-08-12", 0.195], ["2017-08-14", 0.193], ["2017-08-15", 0.192], ["2017-08-17", 0.191], ["2017-08-17", 0.191], ["2017-08-22", 0.189], ["2017-08-22", 0.189], ["2017-08-23", 0.189], ["2017-08-24", 0.188], ["2017-08-24", 0.183], ["2017-08-25", 0.183], ["2017-08-26", 0.182], ["2017-08-27", 0.18], ["2017-08-27", 0.18], ["2017-08-28", 0.177], ["2017-08-28", 0.177], ["2017-08-29", 0.175], ["2017-08-29", 0.176], ["2017-08-30", 0.175], ["2017-08-31", 0.157], ["2017-08-31", 0.155]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/391/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | A major recent advance in genetic engineering has occurred in the past several years with the discovery of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), a bacterial DNA sequence that codes for a protein (Cas9) and RNA combination that can locate a specific DNA sequence and splice the DNA strand at that location. This enables dramatically simplified genetic editing and engineering relative to recombinant DNA technologies.
The CRISPR system has been used successfully in complex organisms including adult mice and embryonic humans.
The ease and low cost of CRISPR techniques have opened the doors to the creation of novel organisms both by professional biologists and also by amateur self-described 'biohackers.' For example, there is now an "iGEM" yearly competition for DIY genetic engineering (modification of existing organisms) and synthetic biology (generation of qualitatively novel organisms.) Another example is a current crowdfunded campaign to produce low-cost 'biohack at home' kits.
Will someone (or a group) from the biohacking community create and release publicly the product of a genetically altered organism?
This question will resolve if, by April 1, 2018, a verified incident occur in which a non-professional (neither employed by a company, government or university, nor a Ph.D. student) genetically engineer an organism that is then released (or escapes) into the wild where it becomes a distinct and detectable part of the population.
(Note: this is a re-launch of a previously resolved question.) | true | 2017-09-01 | Will a 'biohacker' create a new life form that enters the ecosystem by April 1, 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2020-01-03 | 2016-11-30 | [] | binary | [["2018-11-17", 0.1], ["2018-11-17", 0.075], ["2018-11-17", 0.067], ["2018-11-17", 0.163], ["2018-11-17", 0.199], ["2018-11-18", 0.199], ["2018-11-18", 0.222], ["2018-11-19", 0.245], ["2018-11-19", 0.25], ["2018-11-21", 0.293], ["2018-11-21", 0.294], ["2018-11-22", 0.29], ["2018-11-22", 0.296], ["2018-11-23", 0.296], ["2018-11-23", 0.305], ["2018-11-27", 0.317], ["2018-11-28", 0.323], ["2018-12-01", 0.323], ["2018-12-02", 0.323], ["2018-12-03", 0.32], ["2018-12-03", 0.326], ["2018-12-12", 0.32], ["2018-12-12", 0.308], ["2018-12-13", 0.309], ["2018-12-17", 0.313], ["2018-12-20", 0.313], ["2018-12-20", 0.31], ["2018-12-21", 0.313], ["2018-12-23", 0.313], ["2018-12-27", 0.314], ["2019-01-01", 0.312], ["2019-01-01", 0.331], ["2019-01-02", 0.326], ["2019-01-03", 0.331], ["2019-01-03", 0.331], ["2019-01-04", 0.333], ["2019-01-07", 0.336], ["2019-01-08", 0.336], ["2019-01-12", 0.34], ["2019-01-12", 0.338], ["2019-01-12", 0.338], ["2019-01-12", 0.333], ["2019-01-14", 0.333], ["2019-01-14", 0.332], ["2019-01-15", 0.338], ["2019-01-15", 0.338], ["2019-01-15", 0.339], ["2019-01-16", 0.334], ["2019-01-16", 0.331], ["2019-01-16", 0.332], ["2019-01-17", 0.331], ["2019-01-17", 0.33], ["2019-01-18", 0.338], ["2019-01-19", 0.337], ["2019-01-19", 0.336], ["2019-01-20", 0.335], ["2019-01-21", 0.328], ["2019-01-22", 0.329], ["2019-01-25", 0.329], ["2019-01-25", 0.328], ["2019-01-25", 0.328], ["2019-01-26", 0.328], ["2019-01-26", 0.322], ["2019-01-27", 0.322], ["2019-01-28", 0.323], ["2019-01-28", 0.323], ["2019-01-28", 0.321], ["2019-01-28", 0.318], ["2019-01-29", 0.318], ["2019-01-29", 0.319], ["2019-01-29", 0.316], ["2019-01-30", 0.316], ["2019-02-01", 0.323], ["2019-02-01", 0.323], ["2019-02-01", 0.324], ["2019-02-02", 0.321], ["2019-02-02", 0.32], ["2019-02-03", 0.321], ["2019-02-03", 0.323], ["2019-02-03", 0.32], ["2019-02-04", 0.323], ["2019-02-04", 0.323], ["2019-02-04", 0.321], ["2019-02-05", 0.325], ["2019-02-05", 0.326], ["2019-02-06", 0.326], ["2019-02-06", 0.323], ["2019-02-06", 0.323], ["2019-02-06", 0.325], ["2019-02-07", 0.326], ["2019-02-08", 0.325], ["2019-02-10", 0.325], ["2019-02-10", 0.324], ["2019-02-11", 0.324], ["2019-02-11", 0.324], ["2019-02-11", 0.321], ["2019-02-11", 0.321], ["2019-02-12", 0.322], ["2019-02-12", 0.318], ["2019-02-12", 0.317], ["2019-02-12", 0.317]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/1567/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | A key observable metric and important effect of global climate change is the extent of the Arctic ice sheet, which varies seasonally but also has a significant downward secular trend, presumably tied to global temperature increase.
The total extent of the sheet as a function of time is tracked in detail via a combination of satellite data and can be seen as an image as a function of time. Additional graphs and data can be found on the Arctic Data archive System website.
Arctic sea ice shrank to its smallest recorded extent in September of 2012. Thankfully, ice sheet coverage has not yet shrunk to an area smaller than that of 2012. See here and here for the previous Metaculus questions where we asked about the possibility for 2016 and 2017 to reach record low.
Will the extent of the Arctic ice sheet reach its lowest yet recorded value in 2019?
The resolution will be positive if the 2019 curve dips below the lowest point on the 2012 curve as found on the Arctic Data archive System website. | true | 2019-02-13 | Will 2019 see the smallest extent of Arctic Sea ice in recorded history? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-03 | 2016-12-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-02", 0.33], ["2016-12-02", 0.33], ["2016-12-02", 0.203], ["2016-12-02", 0.203], ["2016-12-02", 0.208], ["2016-12-02", 0.208], ["2016-12-03", 0.202], ["2016-12-03", 0.182], ["2016-12-03", 0.189], ["2016-12-03", 0.269], ["2016-12-03", 0.281], ["2016-12-03", 0.266], ["2016-12-03", 0.266], ["2016-12-03", 0.268], ["2016-12-03", 0.267], ["2016-12-03", 0.262], ["2016-12-05", 0.262], ["2016-12-05", 0.252], ["2016-12-05", 0.259], ["2016-12-05", 0.269], ["2016-12-06", 0.26], ["2016-12-06", 0.26], ["2016-12-06", 0.267], ["2016-12-06", 0.267], ["2016-12-06", 0.258], ["2016-12-09", 0.258], ["2016-12-12", 0.256], ["2016-12-18", 0.252], ["2016-12-21", 0.257], ["2016-12-22", 0.257], ["2016-12-30", 0.267], ["2017-01-01", 0.283], ["2017-01-13", 0.283], ["2017-01-22", 0.296], ["2017-01-23", 0.296], ["2017-02-14", 0.29], ["2017-02-18", 0.282], ["2017-02-23", 0.288], ["2017-02-23", 0.288], ["2017-02-26", 0.284], ["2017-03-01", 0.283], ["2017-03-02", 0.298], ["2017-03-06", 0.298], ["2017-03-07", 0.292], ["2017-03-07", 0.292], ["2017-03-09", 0.301], ["2017-03-22", 0.294], ["2017-03-28", 0.294], ["2017-03-30", 0.294], ["2017-03-31", 0.295], ["2017-04-01", 0.295], ["2017-04-06", 0.288], ["2017-04-06", 0.288], ["2017-04-08", 0.288], ["2017-04-12", 0.284], ["2017-04-13", 0.284], ["2017-04-13", 0.284], ["2017-04-14", 0.283]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/392/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In a new preprint, Jahed Abedi, Hannah Dykaar, and Niayesh Afshordi adduce tantalizing evidence for departures from a standard general relativity model of black hole merger dynamics (motivated by the "firewall" and "fuzzball" pictures) in the recent LIGO detection of three events. From their abstract:
It was recently pointed out [that] near-horizon structures can lead to late-time echoes in the black hole merger gravitational wave signals that are otherwise indistinguishable from GR. We search for observational signatures of these echoes in the gravitational wave data released by advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), following the three black hole merger events GW150914, GW151226, and LVT151012.... we find tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure near black hole horizons at 2.9σ significance level (corresponding to false detection probability of 1 in 270). Future data releases from LIGO collaboration, along with more physical echo templates, will definitively confirm (or rule out) this finding, providing possible empirical evidence for alternatives to classical black holes, such as in firewall or fuzzball paradigms.
In the 2017, will a paper be published by a collaboration including at least one of these authors that presents > 5
σ
evidence for deviations from standard GR based on LIGO observations?
Positive resolution does not require confirmation by another group (though that would be interesting of course), just a claim of "detection level" confidence from the existing collaboration, presumably via applying their current methods to new data made available by LIGO. | true | 2017-04-15 | Evidence for deviations from canonical black holes from LIGO? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-12-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-02", 0.55], ["2016-12-03", 0.483], ["2016-12-03", 0.5], ["2016-12-03", 0.5], ["2016-12-03", 0.43], ["2016-12-03", 0.407], ["2016-12-05", 0.416], ["2016-12-06", 0.42], ["2016-12-06", 0.42], ["2016-12-06", 0.418], ["2016-12-07", 0.472], ["2016-12-07", 0.481], ["2016-12-07", 0.481], ["2016-12-07", 0.486], ["2016-12-07", 0.464], ["2016-12-07", 0.464], ["2016-12-07", 0.431], ["2016-12-07", 0.498], ["2016-12-07", 0.498], ["2016-12-07", 0.451], ["2016-12-08", 0.395], ["2016-12-08", 0.395], ["2016-12-08", 0.393], ["2016-12-08", 0.393], ["2016-12-08", 0.328], ["2016-12-09", 0.322], ["2016-12-09", 0.322], ["2016-12-09", 0.318], ["2016-12-09", 0.315], ["2016-12-11", 0.288], ["2016-12-11", 0.289], ["2016-12-12", 0.287], ["2016-12-13", 0.278], ["2016-12-13", 0.278], ["2016-12-14", 0.277], ["2016-12-15", 0.273], ["2016-12-15", 0.273], ["2016-12-15", 0.273], ["2016-12-18", 0.274], ["2016-12-19", 0.274]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/393/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Before the Apple Watch came the Pebble. The Kickstarter-funded smartwatch communicates with either iOS or Android phones, employs an LCD e-ink screen to minimize power consumption, and retails for a fraction of the cost of Apple's smartwatch. According to one fan, Pebble makes a watch "so good it puts Apple to shame."
Yet Pebble, and the wearables industry in general, have fallen on hard times. Fitness tracker company Fitbit's stock plummeted in early November, and Pebble has laid off a quarter of its staff. Wearables companies are looking for the next innovation - or to cut their losses.
On November 30, news broke that Fitbit is in talks to buy Pebble. The deal brings all of Pebble's expertise and technology to Fitbit, and offers Fitbit a chance to eliminate a competitor. The purchase price has not been finalized, but has been reported to be around $40 million. The deal could also affect production of Pebble's latest products, the Pebble Time 2 and the Pebble Core.
Will a takeover of Pebble by Fitbit be finalized and approved before the end of 2016?
This question will resolve as positive if the acquisition of Pebble by Fitbit is finalized and receives all necessary regulatory approval on or before Dec. 31, 2016, as reported in a corporate press release or article in a reputable journalistic outlet. | true | 2016-12-20 | A complete buyout of Pebble by Fitbit by end of year? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-02-04 | 2016-12-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-02", 0.4], ["2016-12-02", 0.347], ["2016-12-02", 0.347], ["2016-12-02", 0.4], ["2016-12-03", 0.438], ["2016-12-03", 0.43], ["2016-12-03", 0.44], ["2016-12-05", 0.445], ["2016-12-06", 0.445], ["2016-12-06", 0.421], ["2016-12-06", 0.421], ["2016-12-06", 0.421], ["2016-12-07", 0.395], ["2016-12-12", 0.395], ["2016-12-13", 0.399], ["2016-12-14", 0.399], ["2016-12-15", 0.402], ["2016-12-18", 0.402], ["2016-12-21", 0.416], ["2016-12-21", 0.416], ["2016-12-22", 0.447], ["2016-12-30", 0.447], ["2017-01-01", 0.44], ["2017-01-01", 0.434], ["2017-01-05", 0.439], ["2017-01-05", 0.433], ["2017-01-05", 0.435], ["2017-01-06", 0.431], ["2017-01-23", 0.438], ["2017-02-05", 0.441], ["2017-02-08", 0.443], ["2017-02-17", 0.442], ["2017-02-18", 0.428], ["2017-02-18", 0.428], ["2017-03-09", 0.426], ["2017-03-09", 0.426], ["2017-03-09", 0.423], ["2017-03-09", 0.421], ["2017-03-18", 0.423], ["2017-03-31", 0.423], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-03-31", 0.425], ["2017-04-14", 0.425], ["2017-04-14", 0.425], ["2017-04-15", 0.428], ["2017-04-15", 0.43], ["2017-04-20", 0.43], ["2017-04-26", 0.436], ["2017-05-01", 0.44], ["2017-05-05", 0.439], ["2017-05-06", 0.44], ["2017-05-08", 0.435], ["2017-05-09", 0.433], ["2017-05-09", 0.432], ["2017-05-10", 0.43], ["2017-05-12", 0.43], ["2017-05-14", 0.427], ["2017-05-14", 0.425], ["2017-05-14", 0.425], ["2017-05-14", 0.423], ["2017-05-14", 0.421], ["2017-05-14", 0.421]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/394/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Flu vaccines can protect against one of the two villains of cold and flu season, but the diversity of viruses that cause common colds makes a vaccine for the ailment elusive.
Three major groups of viruses cause most common cold cases: Rhinoviruses, Coronaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus, often called RSV. The Independent reports that a new RSV vaccine candidate, SynGEM, is in Phase 1 clinical trials after successful tests in rats and mice. The human trial, currently underway, involves 36 volunteers who will be monitored for development of RSV antibodies. An RSV vaccine, while not able to eliminate all colds, might be able to protect newborns and the elderly, the most vulnerable populations, from hospitalization and death.
Rhinoviruses present a wholly different challenge, with 99 different types of the virus identified. In September, researchers tested a candidate vaccine containing 25 strains of the virus in mice and 50 strains in monkeys. By contrast, flu vaccines usually contain no more than four strains. In a successful proof of concept study, the researchers showed that the mice and monkeys produced antibodies specific to the strains in the vaccine - 25 different antibodies in the mice and 50 different antibodies in the monkeys. The next step is a human Phase 1 clinical trial.
Will a Rhinovirus vaccine enter clinical trials in 2017?
This question will resolve as positive if a trial appears on ClinicalTrials.gov for testing of a multi-strain rhinovirus vaccine and begins recruiting volunteers on or before Dec. 31, 2017. | true | 2017-05-15 | At last? Clinical trials of a vaccine for the common cold? | metaculus | 0 |
2020-12-19 | 2016-12-09 | [] | binary | [["2017-01-05", 0.38], ["2017-01-13", 0.492], ["2017-01-21", 0.494], ["2017-01-25", 0.494], ["2017-02-01", 0.505], ["2017-02-09", 0.542], ["2017-02-15", 0.536], ["2017-02-18", 0.526], ["2017-03-01", 0.527], ["2017-03-09", 0.536], ["2017-03-15", 0.554], ["2017-03-21", 0.556], ["2017-04-01", 0.556], ["2017-04-01", 0.559], ["2017-04-13", 0.562], ["2017-04-14", 0.558], ["2017-05-08", 0.558], ["2017-05-14", 0.569], ["2017-05-21", 0.575], ["2017-05-29", 0.579], ["2017-06-04", 0.581], ["2017-06-11", 0.585], ["2017-06-27", 0.587], ["2017-07-01", 0.607], ["2017-07-17", 0.611], ["2017-07-22", 0.623], ["2017-07-29", 0.625], ["2017-08-02", 0.628], ["2017-08-11", 0.651], ["2017-08-18", 0.65], ["2017-08-24", 0.65], ["2017-09-01", 0.667], ["2017-09-07", 0.676], ["2017-09-12", 0.676], ["2017-09-17", 0.678], ["2017-09-26", 0.678], ["2017-10-02", 0.678], ["2017-10-07", 0.681], ["2017-10-13", 0.681], ["2017-10-22", 0.68], ["2017-10-24", 0.679], ["2017-11-05", 0.68], ["2017-11-10", 0.692], ["2017-11-15", 0.692], ["2017-11-26", 0.692], ["2017-12-02", 0.696], ["2017-12-07", 0.695], ["2017-12-29", 0.697], ["2018-01-03", 0.697], ["2018-01-07", 0.699], ["2018-01-13", 0.701], ["2018-01-31", 0.701], ["2018-02-08", 0.7], ["2018-02-15", 0.7], ["2018-02-25", 0.706], ["2018-03-02", 0.706], ["2018-03-08", 0.714], ["2018-03-11", 0.712], ["2018-03-17", 0.716], ["2018-03-24", 0.717], ["2018-03-30", 0.721], ["2018-04-06", 0.725], ["2018-04-15", 0.733], ["2018-04-23", 0.739], ["2018-04-28", 0.74], ["2018-05-06", 0.745], ["2018-05-11", 0.747], ["2018-05-16", 0.745], ["2018-05-25", 0.745], ["2018-05-30", 0.744], ["2018-06-03", 0.745], ["2018-06-12", 0.741], ["2018-06-21", 0.741], ["2018-06-26", 0.738], ["2018-07-02", 0.739], ["2018-07-07", 0.739], ["2018-07-13", 0.741], ["2018-07-19", 0.739], ["2018-07-25", 0.741], ["2018-07-31", 0.741], ["2018-08-06", 0.744], ["2018-08-13", 0.745], ["2018-08-19", 0.746], ["2018-08-26", 0.746], ["2018-09-02", 0.745], ["2018-09-10", 0.745], ["2018-09-17", 0.745], ["2018-09-24", 0.745], ["2018-10-02", 0.745], ["2018-10-09", 0.745], ["2018-10-16", 0.745], ["2018-10-24", 0.745], ["2018-10-31", 0.744], ["2018-11-08", 0.744], ["2018-11-13", 0.744], ["2018-11-30", 0.745], ["2018-12-08", 0.74], ["2018-12-13", 0.739], ["2018-12-22", 0.74], ["2018-12-31", 0.738], ["2018-12-31", 0.738]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/395/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The possibility of cultured meat, in which tissue is grown outside of a live animal in order to provide the flavor and nutrition of meat without animal suffering, has been heating up recently.
Cultured meat is certainly possible, and production costs have fallen since the first demonstration in 2013, from $330,000/pound to $18,000/pound in 2016. Memphis meats and Modern Meadow are among the companies developing cultured meat, supported by for-profit and non-profit (e.g. New Harvest) research.
Cultured meats, along with reduced animal suffering, also promise health benefits, as they should be far easier to keep free of pathogens (and hence require no indiscriminate antibiotic use to boot), can be free of extra hormones, and might be engineered to be more nutritious. The primary questions appear to be those of getting costs (way) down, maintaining excellent taste, and overcoming public apprehension. To get at the timeline, we ask
By start of 2021, will there be a restaurant serving cultured meat?
For positive resolution, by Jan 1 2021, a restaurant somewhere in the world must exist where a member of the general public, given the time and ability to acquire a reservation, can walk in and order cultured meat for consumption. | true | 2019-01-01 | A restaurant serving cultured meat by 2021? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-03-09 | 2016-12-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-14", 0.05], ["2016-12-14", 0.2], ["2016-12-15", 0.2], ["2016-12-15", 0.277], ["2016-12-16", 0.295], ["2016-12-16", 0.268], ["2016-12-18", 0.267], ["2016-12-18", 0.267], ["2016-12-18", 0.253], ["2016-12-19", 0.262], ["2016-12-19", 0.242], ["2016-12-20", 0.259], ["2016-12-20", 0.259], ["2016-12-21", 0.259], ["2016-12-21", 0.278], ["2016-12-21", 0.288], ["2016-12-22", 0.303], ["2016-12-23", 0.303], ["2016-12-25", 0.328], ["2016-12-30", 0.328], ["2017-01-01", 0.344], ["2017-01-01", 0.344], ["2017-01-01", 0.347], ["2017-01-01", 0.352], ["2017-01-03", 0.356], ["2017-01-03", 0.344], ["2017-01-03", 0.34], ["2017-01-04", 0.338], ["2017-01-04", 0.338], ["2017-01-08", 0.345], ["2017-01-18", 0.345], ["2017-01-18", 0.336], ["2017-01-22", 0.333], ["2017-01-27", 0.324]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/398/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Scheduled for release in March 2017, it was indicated from patents filed by Nintendo that the Nintendo Switch will have "standard" gaming features like the touchscreen, compass, GPS, motion tracking, image recognition, and image projection.
In the series of patents filed, most of the patents' functionality have been described in good detail, except for the usage of image projection.
It is easy to tell whether all filed patents will be found in the final product, and the lack of detail might be attributable to uncertainty or secrecy. So let's speculate:
Will the image projection feature be part of the new Nintendo Switch? | true | 2017-02-01 | Image projection patent implemented in the new Nintendo Switch? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-03 | 2016-12-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-12-13", 0.25], ["2016-12-13", 0.097], ["2016-12-14", 0.098], ["2016-12-14", 0.092], ["2016-12-14", 0.117], ["2016-12-14", 0.117], ["2016-12-15", 0.125], ["2016-12-15", 0.125], ["2016-12-15", 0.147], ["2016-12-15", 0.175], ["2016-12-16", 0.164], ["2016-12-16", 0.164], ["2016-12-18", 0.158], ["2016-12-19", 0.194], ["2016-12-19", 0.194], ["2016-12-20", 0.193], ["2016-12-20", 0.193], ["2016-12-21", 0.193], ["2016-12-21", 0.212], ["2016-12-21", 0.226], ["2016-12-22", 0.226], ["2016-12-22", 0.226], ["2016-12-22", 0.236], ["2016-12-22", 0.236], ["2016-12-23", 0.237], ["2016-12-25", 0.23], ["2016-12-30", 0.229], ["2017-01-01", 0.229], ["2017-01-01", 0.217], ["2017-01-01", 0.236], ["2017-01-03", 0.233], ["2017-01-04", 0.229], ["2017-01-08", 0.226], ["2017-01-10", 0.222], ["2017-01-10", 0.222], ["2017-01-11", 0.222], ["2017-01-13", 0.219], ["2017-02-05", 0.228], ["2017-02-11", 0.228], ["2017-02-11", 0.226], ["2017-02-14", 0.223], ["2017-02-14", 0.223], ["2017-02-14", 0.218], ["2017-02-16", 0.224], ["2017-02-16", 0.219], ["2017-02-16", 0.219], ["2017-02-21", 0.223], ["2017-03-03", 0.232], ["2017-03-12", 0.229], ["2017-03-12", 0.229], ["2017-03-30", 0.229], ["2017-03-31", 0.223], ["2017-03-31", 0.223], ["2017-04-01", 0.222], ["2017-04-01", 0.226], ["2017-04-01", 0.227], ["2017-04-01", 0.227], ["2017-04-02", 0.225], ["2017-04-03", 0.222], ["2017-05-06", 0.222], ["2017-05-12", 0.223], ["2017-05-14", 0.223], ["2017-05-20", 0.221], ["2017-05-20", 0.221], ["2017-05-20", 0.217], ["2017-05-20", 0.216], ["2017-05-21", 0.218], ["2017-05-21", 0.218], ["2017-05-21", 0.213], ["2017-05-21", 0.213], ["2017-05-21", 0.21], ["2017-05-21", 0.21], ["2017-05-22", 0.205], ["2017-05-22", 0.205], ["2017-05-23", 0.211], ["2017-05-23", 0.222], ["2017-05-23", 0.223], ["2017-05-23", 0.221], ["2017-05-23", 0.219], ["2017-05-25", 0.219], ["2017-06-01", 0.216], ["2017-06-01", 0.215], ["2017-06-09", 0.215], ["2017-06-18", 0.218], ["2017-06-18", 0.215], ["2017-06-28", 0.215], ["2017-07-02", 0.215], ["2017-07-03", 0.212], ["2017-07-04", 0.212], ["2017-07-05", 0.213], ["2017-07-06", 0.211], ["2017-07-06", 0.21], ["2017-07-06", 0.21], ["2017-07-09", 0.22], ["2017-07-09", 0.22], ["2017-07-09", 0.219], ["2017-07-10", 0.219], ["2017-07-13", 0.217], ["2017-07-14", 0.206], ["2017-07-14", 0.206], ["2017-07-14", 0.209]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/399/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | We've had a number of questions concerning self-driving cars. But many of the tricky part of self-driving cars are eliminated if you can do away with the roads, lights, pedestrians, other cars, etc. – That is: fly!
To fight against city congestion, Airbus Group and A3 teamed up to develop project Vahana. Officially started in February 2016, Vahana is a self-piloted flying vehicle platform that is designed to transport individual passenger and cargo.
Vahana aims to reduce urban cities' traffic with flying self-driving taxis, and the project's team admits that, although ambitious, their scheduled first test flight of the prototype in late 2017 is feasible as many of the needed technologies are close to becoming available. The group currently faces the challenge of complying with flying regulations and acquiring necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The team anticipates putting flying taxis into production by 2020.
Will Airbus successfully flight-test a prototype airborne taxi in 2017?
This question will resolve as positive if, on or by December 31, 2017, a successful prototype demonstration is reported in a published story or a press release. | true | 2017-07-15 | Prototype self-flying taxi in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |