The date range for which Apple officially announces the M4 macs will resolve "Yes", all others "No". So, for this press release[0], the date range including October 2023 would resolve "Yes" and all others "No".
"Official" is most likely from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/, but common sense will be used to change if necessary (e.g. apple depricates https://www.apple.com/newsroom/)
[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/10/apple-unveils-new-macbook-pro-featuring-m3-chips/
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,220 | |
| 2 | Ṁ28 | |
| 3 | Ṁ5 | |
| 4 | Ṁ3 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2 |
What shall be done? @AxelJacobsen
It seems to be up to you to read through the arguments and decide.
Lots of arguments for reopening or resolving N/A can be found below. I think reopening makes more sense as it's fairer to more people. N/A can be argued in some ways as well.
Ignoring it and leaving it be like this isn't something I would recommend, that's not good for anyone and not good for the health of the platform.
Ok, so the current resolution shouldn't stand. While we defer to creators in cases of ambiguity, this wasn't such a case. The market was well-defined and did not mention ipads. So to change the criteria midway through to mean something entirely different isn't allowed.
Fyi comment clarifications are considered official resolution criteria (in the future though you should also update the description for clarity). But like I said, this wasn't really a clarification rather than changing clear criteria entirely.
One option would be to unresolve and let the market continue, although that would be unfair to Enrico. So, I think unfortunately this is a case where N/A is the most suitable option.
@SirSalty The creator seems to ignore this or just not be online anymore. Last thing he said was “I'll defer to mods“.
What shall be done? Can the mods resolve it N/A?
Woaa OK I did not intend to throw such controversy. @esusatyo asked if iPads counted in the comments, I responded yes, and then the m4 ipads dropped, so I resolved. I haven't been on manifold much since last year, so I've been inattentive, and I am not sure if that's OK or not.
@JonathanMannhart sorry to cause you this much stress.
I'll defer to mods. Do comments count as official resolution criteria? Should this resolve N/A?
@AxelJacobsen But like, why? It looks to me like you forgot the resolution conditions and answered a question incorrectly. An unambiguous title and description should take precedence. If you meant to change the resolution criteria, you would have changed the title/description
Worth mentioning that resolving April/May to NO would be unfair to @esusatyo, as they got told explicitly that iPads count & bet on that information. Which is fair from Enrico (in my view).
Resolving April/May to N/A (and un-resolving the rest) might be the best compromise, but I also don't know. In a pickle.
Most factually true is NO, unambiguously. But I also want Enrico to get their Mana back. OP basically told some people one thing and other people another thing. I don't know how to perfectly solve that.
@AxelJacobsen unfortunately, comments are included in the relevant info for market resolutions, but I do agree that "iPads count" is in direct conflict with "laptops" in the title. That's not a really ambiguous case and you should try to adhere to the title (or change it ahead of time after conferring with the market if it really felt necessary). If I were resolving, I'd say the use of "Macs" in the description is a minor oopsie and should be considered an example.
But here we are, and you've asked for mod input. This is a "misresolve", but it's not so clear cut or large of a case that mods can/should step in to forcibly override you. The way I see it, there are three ways to move forward:
I can re-resolve N/A for you if you feel that's the only fair way to move forward
I'll unresolve and you can wait for a laptop to qualify. If you choose this, I suggest offering to recoup some of the losses @esusatyo will take for the misinformed bet (maybe you can time a limit order well to take his shares). If this ends up resolving April-May again anyway because something gets announced that would be hilarious and unfortunate
Accept the mistake and all the flak from the traders (maybe recoup them). I don't recommend this option
@JonathanMannhart unfortunately, we can't resolve N/A to individual options on dependent multiple choice. but that'd be nice!
@DavidFWatson I think that's the best option for the long-term health of Manifold as a trustworthy platform, yes. The question is absolutely clear as it stands.
Changing it completely in the comments isn't something that's really possible according to the guidelines & should not have happened. OP owes a debt to Enrico (in my view), but that's not the responsibility of all the other traders.
(And N/A means “not applicable“, “not available“ or “no answer“. Which is not true in this case. We have factual knowledge of them not having released an M4 laptop as of right now.)
@JonathanMannhart If it were me who asked the clarifying comment, I would have followed-up by asking for the description / title to be changed before going ahead and taking a large position
@AxelJacobsen Community guidelines here:
Here your contradiction with your own resolution criteria:
I think you should un-resolve this market. Otherwise I'll try and report it, which is obviously much more of a hassle for everyone. (And I might just decide to leave this platform anyways, that effort seems a bit ridiculous to me.)
Un-resolving it becomes harder for you once the 1h mark passes (as the guidelines lay out).
(Edit: typos)
Ok, I'm tagging a mod (is this the right way to contact support here?)
This market got resolved, in my view, blatantly incorrectly (at least as the community guidelines.)
The resolution criteria in the description states “M4 macs“ and the title of the question is “laptop“.
Today iPad Pros with an M4 chip got announced and @AxelJacobsen resolved to YES about 1h ago. iPads are not laptops, and they are unambiguously not Macs. I therefore believe this the market should be un-resolved.
As per resolution criteria in the description & the title, I believe it's unambiguous.
(Axel did however post in a comment that he would intend to count iPads as well, but did not update the description or the title. Which both do not include any ambiguity.
I think to bet here reasonably, one can't be expected to read every single comment. In this case the title & description unambiguously are contradictory to how the market got resolved.)
(And apologies for the hassle.)
@AxelJacobsen iPad Pro with M4 announced. Resolve to May 2024?
This is not ok in my opinion!
Your question is very clear! If you want to specify it to include iPads, then ok, but you have to change the question or the resolution criteria in the description!
Just saying this somewhere in the comments is not okay. It changes the whole question!
@AxelJacobsen This is majorly untruthful. Even if you said so in the comments. People shouldn't have to read through all of the comments just to be able to predict reasonably on Manifold!
That makes the site incredibly non-friendly! Imo this is harmful behaviour for the platform.
(Open to arguments against this. But I'm pretty confident that questions should be transparent & clear.)
@JonathanMannhart This at least has was the straw which gets me to move to a different market platform, so ultimately worth it.
I won Mana by betting on May here btw!
But I'm really upset by this. It's clearly not truthful. If we can't get a mod to resolve this again (if something like this is possible) or otherwise ban @AxelJacobsen I'm also strongly considering leaving this platform.
Something like this shouldn't happen here & then we just let it slide… right?
If this platform is supposed to be predicting true/useful events?