This seems to have changed significantly since I bet on it on March 26th. How much change is considered fair without N/A-ing and starting a new one?

@JamesBakerc884 hmm, I haven't been here long, so I'm not sure what's normal there. Many people have come in after you and I wonder what would be for the best for the entire group. Thoughts?

If the new bridge is clearly being built and on track to open in 2028, this still resolves as no, right?

@ShakedKoplewitz yes, that's right

@Jx doesn't it take many years to construct a bridge? ie We aren't predicting that it'll never be replaced, just how fast it gets built?

ie see

@Bayesian effectively you're right. I've wondered since the beginning if there was a way to establish a market without a definitive end date, so people could more specifically bet on the "never be replaced" claim.

@Jx yeah understandable questioning. i don't mean to criticize you too much, and since you've already clarified what you mean by the market in the comments and title and all that, it's fine as it is now. it's always hard to foresee exactly where some resolution criteria might break down!

This can never resolve Yes, from what I can see

@xyz It looks like the betting will stop after three years, but it isn't clear if it has to resolve at that time or if it can wait some amount of time before resolving. if you don't manage to get some more clarity from the creator, you might want to make another version of this question that is more clear.

@Jx Can you clarify this?

@Eliza I plan to resolve it in March 2027, when betting ends.

@Jx What if it is not replaced by market close?

@Jx

Closing in 2027 does not necessarily imply resolving in 2027, so thank you for clarifying that part.

Please confirm I am interpreting your question correctly:

• If the bridge is replaced before 27 March 2027, resolves YesNo as soon as it is replaced.

• If the bridge is not replaced before 27 March 2027, resolves NoYes on 27 March 2027.

If so, the title is misleading and should instead say "Will the bridge remain without a replacement after 3 years" -- 'never' is a lot different than 'within 3 years'.

If you intend to use the stuff from below in the other conversations as part of the resolution criteria, you need to add it all to the description.

It's important because someone who thinks the bridge might open in 3 to 7 years rather than 'never' will bet very differently on this question depending on the exact criteria.

@Eliza thanks for asking for clarification. I'm still fairly new at this. So, this is closer to what I have in mind:

• If the bridge is replaced before March 26, 2027, then the market will resolve as no. (As in, no, Marc Andreessen will not be right in predicting the bridge will never be replaced.)

• If the bridge is not replaced before March 26, 2027, the market will resolve yes.

I do see a logical issue here that I didn't before - that is, even if the market will resolve yes, he might not be right. What would you recommend I do? Would updating the title (by 2027) and adding the above bullet points to the description be sufficient?

@Jx Yes--you are on the right track. I like your two bullet points. The title probably needs to remove the word "never" and instead use "(within 3 years)".

This version of your criteria is a lot more clear than the original and I think it would provide a base that people can actually predict from. You have attracted over 40 participants so that's a great start.

@Eliza okay, thanks for the perspective. i wonder if it might be sort of complicated because Andreessen said the bridge will never be replaced. If I were to change it to something like "Will Marc Andreessen be right in predicting that the Francis Scott Key Bridge will not be replaced within three years?" then it seems like people might not respond as instinctively as they might with the current phrasing, which does reflect Andreessen's prediction about it never happening.

For now, though, I'm going to add those two bullets above to the description.

How does this resolve in the unlikely event that a tunnel replaces the bridge?

@AndrewSchaefer terrific question. I'd count that as a replacement, assuming it connects the same endpoints as the bridge

arb with https://manifold.markets/justanotherstrange/what-type-of-water-crossing-will-re

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden pledged that the federal government will pay the full cost to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, one of the nation's busiest arteries that collapsed hours earlier on Tuesday after being struck by a massive freight ship.

“It's my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge and I expect the Congress to support my effort," Biden said, speaking from the White House ahead of a trip to North Carolina.

Which part is the 7% here not agreeing with? They think the President is lying, or they think Congress will not allow him to do what he says he wants to do?

@Eliza some part of that is also "we live in a society that no longer knows how to build"

@Eliza The previously heavy hazmat traffic alone demands a replacement, now diverted to a longer, land based path. I’ll be curious to learn how structurally feasible it is to build a replacement bridge in roughly the same vicinity.

@SusanneinFrance Ahh, great argument.

@Eliza "things don't happen just because prime ministers are keen on them! Neville chamberlain was keen on peace!"

But in all seriousness, America does have a history of not building big infrastructure projects (see cahsr, gateway, or, afaict, almost any of the Biden big infra projects). I doubt this ends up one of them - replacing something people are used to using is much more likely to have people actually try to solve the problem than building something new - but "try and fail" is the modal outcome for American infrastructure projects.