Context: https://www.doomsdayscenario.co/p/is-trump-about-to-nuke-iran
I will not be betting in this market.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ726 | |
| 2 | Ṁ380 | |
| 3 | Ṁ270 | |
| 4 | Ṁ269 | |
| 5 | Ṁ247 |
People are also trading
@TheAllMemeingEye These are the funnest bets though. ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED PERCENT PROFIT!? THINK OF ALL ADDITIONAL ONE POINT PREDICTIONS I CAN MAKE!
I'll bet ONE DOLL HAIR....I mean MANA, just for fun. Wait, will I still be able to log into manifold and collect my lucre if all my neighbors have turned into fleshy ghouls?
@256 If the goal was to pay 1,000 mana to make my heart skip a beat in fear, I'll admit it worked at the time. If they had defended the position against my snapback, I would have been terrified.
"A whole civilization will die tonight..."
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116363336033995961
30 mana on 1%. Limit up for 1 hour.
@JoeandSeth, well, my charitable interpretation is that by "zero" the article means "close enough to zero to make no difference", but maybe they should have spelled it out if that's what they meant. A quote:
> Is the chance that tomorrow at 8 pm ET Donald Trump launches nuclear weapons against Iran zero? Definitely not — and, regardless of whether that’s a one-tenth-of-one-percent chance or two percent or eight percent, anything more than zero is too high.
They use 0.1% as a stand-in for a lower number that they care about, instead of a big and arbitrary amount of zeros before a one, as I have seen people who actually don't understand probability do, and 0.1% probability of nuking someplace is, in fact, a big deal, as 0.001 * [death toll in a war-nuke] is still a big number. Also, to their credit, they never say "literally zero".
@StepanBakhmarin fwiw the markets _here_ put nuke happens in the next couple years in the middle single digits.
And my take is that a 0.1% chance is actually not too high (and anyone saying otherwise is only thinking about first order effects or not even that far).
Not least because of the suppressive effects on escalation that come with a possibility of nuclear war. This is the entire reason for MAD doctrine, after all, which has actually resulted in an extended period of unprecedented peace in the world.
But the initial article does not think even this far, instead spending its time worry-mongering about that crazy orange man and his anything more than zero percent chance of acting irrationally and the subsequent impact on X Y and Z.