Will Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg officialy announce they're having a fight by January 2024?
2.4k
resolved Feb 1
Resolved
NO

Elon Musk recently said he was up to a cage fight against Zuckerberg.

EDIT: A comment I gave for @BrendanFinan on the resolution criteria, even though I think it's clear

I am expecting they annoucing something real, like setting a date, or that they picked the location, or that they closed with UFC for the fight. As they are both social media moguls, posting on social media could count, but I'll rely on judgement and in the mainstream press to adjudicate.

Honestly? I don't expect this to be controversial at all, so that's why I deemed it OK to bet on this market.

The fact that Musk is world's best troll will make me more skeptical of believing in him (he already tweeted it's happening), so I perhaps may rely more on MZ and Meta comms

I may bet on this market.

Related markets

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ4,879
2Ṁ2,087
3Ṁ1,894
4Ṁ1,471
5Ṁ1,439
Sort by:

@MP Please resolve, thank you!

bought Ṁ20,000 of NO

resolves no

bought Ṁ15,000 of NO

Resolves no

@MarcusAbramovitch this market is reminiscent of the era when I didn't write titles correctly using the word by. I'll consider the closing date, that is what I meant.

@MP This title and closing date are consistent with the correct meaning of the word "by". "by" means "no later than".

However, many use it to mean "before", so no matter how you use it you'll confuse somebody - unless you say "by end of January", which everyone can agree on (except those people who think "by" means "at", but let's ignore them).

predicted NO

I disagree with such a strong assertion of the "correct" meaning of "by". Putting aside arguments from linguistic descriptivism, we must distinguish points in time from time periods, and "by" really only applies to the first. Whenever someone says "by" a time period, we must use convention to guess what point in time they intend. If I say "Be ready by 9 am", we interpret that to mean one must be ready for the point in time at the start of the hour of nine, not the end of that hour. That's the convention for hours (and minutes, and seconds), but for dates there isn't really such a convention, and instead confusion reigns supreme. If one says "by January" (or "by 2024", or "by January 10th, 2024"), we don't automatically assume that one means to identify the start of the given time period, even if that is what would be consistent with the equivalent for times of day.

But it's hard to argue that the opposite is the case either: we definitely don't translate "by January" to "by the end of January" anywhere near as easily and cleanly, if at all, as we translate "by 9 am" to "by the start of the hour of nine". Rather, the whole thing is a giant muddle, and one must use context to try to figure out what was meant. I agree with you that it's confusing, and your suggestion that one always be explicit is apt. But there isn't (perhaps unfortunately) some true answer that everyone "should" know as to what the correct usage of "by" is for dates.

predicted NO

@chrisjbillington yes. "by" means no later than, as in "no later than January 2024" meaning before January 2024 happens

@MarcusAbramovitch You are incorrect. That's not what I meant, not what "no later than January 2024" means, and not what "by" means.

Here's Merriam Webster defining "no later than" to be a synonym for "by", explicitly saying it includes all of "at", "in", "on", or "before":

no/not later than idiom

: by (a specified time) : at, in, on, or before (a specified time)

We'll need to know your decision no/not later than next week.

Obviously the word "by" is ambiguous in practice since many people use it to mean "before". Given the close date though, the creator of this question is obviously using the dictionary definition, so both in spirit and letter that's the deadline for the question.

predicted NO

How's Zuck's recovery going?

sold Ṁ224 of NO

Selling not due to lost conviction, but only due to funding requirements

predicted YES

@MP hmm hmm sure

predicted NO

Today Musk was saying he was going to drive to Mark's Palo Alto home to challenge him in the ring in his backyard. Meta comms said that MZ wasn't in California and he treats the sport seriously.

There are crazy hopium by the YES holders. Yes, I panic sold a bit of my position in the Italian government declarations, but it seems it was Dana and Musk doing preparations without talking to Mark, that clearly is very upset with the whole situations and (correctly) thinks Musk isn't serious about fighting.

bought Ṁ207 of NO

@MP

@SG why @acc just trend followed my trade now? I thought the bot was here just providing Liquidity, but it seems he liked my trade doubled down a bit

predicted YES

@MP it just reacts to your calibration. If you are underconfident, it will update further in the direction of your bet. Conversely, if you are overconfident, it trades against you.

predicted NO

@jgyou Is it about my overall calibration or some segment of manifold calibration?

predicted YES

@MP segments

predicted NO

I am a bit puzzled. Why is this market moving so aggressively?

predicted YES

I've sold my position so the motivated reasoning has mostly left my body, but I do think this is >50% now.

predicted YES

Like he's talking to the prime minister of italy, that's more than shitposting.

predicted NO

@Joshua I don't believe in anything Musk talks, but it seems an italian government official tweeted about

predicted YES

There is still the surgery though:

sold Ṁ269 of NO

@Joshua Just spooked by this one

bought Ṁ10 of NO

Yeah I think real plans are being made. Still waiting on Zuckerberg, of course.

bought Ṁ40 of NO

More related questions