Context: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1746712218274529690
"Minority pilot" refers to anyone who could plausibly be accused of being a DEI hire.
The mistake needs to be in the context of the skill of flying a plane for their job. A car crash doesn't count, even if they were driving to their job at the airport. Running the plane into something while on the ground would count. Crashing a personal plane they were flying for fun does not count. If it's an intentional murder/suicide like flight 9525, that counts too.
1,000Isn't this overpriced against a modified, hypothetical baseline market:"Will any pilot on a US airline make a mistake that results in at least one other person's death before 2028?"
https://manifold.markets/zoli/fatal-canadian-airliner-incident-by says "1 fatal (commercial, airliner) incident per 10 years."
If you're betting above 50%, I'm curious why.
Some clarifying questions that have come up in my mind with the recent crash:
1. Would a minority pilot who was flying sufficiently well, but was crashed "into" still count as them making a mistake for the purpose of this market (e.g. if the pilots of AA5342 were "minority pilot"s would this resolve yes)?
2. Do both the captain and first officer count as pilot for the purpose of this question, and does it matter who had controls at the time of the incident in case of a mixed cockpit?
3. Would a minority pilot flying a personal plane, crashing into a commercial plane count?
@MarcusM Obviously not binding, but I’d argue that there’s two main plausible interpretations of the goal of the question. It would be nice to get some clarification on what underlying question is the actual target/will be resolved via.
either “can someone dunk on twitter that dei in aviation killed people” in which case it’d likely be 1 - yes because they should have dodged, 2 - either position would count and someone could argue they distracted the other or could have taken control and saved the plane if not a dei hire, 3 - yes, they were clearly at fault and they crashed because they were unqualified and that’s just more proof that “those people” don’t belong in airplanes
or “Is it possible to argue against a mildly steelmanned position of DEI in aviation by pointing to this disaster and saying ‘DEI killed people’” in which case the answers would probably be 1 - no, 2 - yes and no, the DEI individual would have to demonstrate some sort of insufficiency in cockpit resource management or have otherwise reasonably contributed to the crash, and I’m not sure how 3 would be answered in that case.