🏅 Top traders

@traders there's genuine ambiguity about whether the DOJ and EPA were gutted. As I'm not really following US politics, I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Here's Claude:

It makes me lean toward resolving DOJ NO and EPA YES, or to just N/A both. I'm curious on y'alls opinion on the most reasonable resolution decision

@Bayesian not following US politics? What else is there to even follow? DOJ definitely seems ungutted to my eyes

@NivlacM I'd agree with DOJ no and EPA yes, I think

@NivlacM AI progress

i'll give it a day, someone @ me if you see this market still closed after jan 5

I just noticed I had this in the description:

"Gutting" is operationalized as reducing 30%+ of the budget OR staff count.

Not necessarily a wise operationalization but likely would stick to it if we have info

@Bayesian I just skimmed through the section on the FBI, and I don't see anything about dismantling it. Unless I'm misunderstanding what "dismantling" means here?

Does “allow criminal prosecutions […] abortion pills” mean at the federal level, or do state laws count?

Their agenda / manifesto seemed general about it, so I think they intend it to be federal? If so, it’s meant to be federal. I’ll close the question to allow for a bit of discussion about it if anyone disagrees that that’s their intent

but in general, the intent of the market is to see which of their plans succeeds, so the resolution criteria seek to be roughly in line with what their plans actually are

N/A or No in the case of a Dem win?

@spider wording implies NO

@spider pyrylium is right, that’s a NO. I was considering a conditional market with N/A but went with this to quantify ‘whats the risk these things actually happen’