resolved Jan 1

In order for a post to resolve YES, it must be substantially about UFOs (the threshold might be about 33%---references in links posts don't count), and it must consider factual questions about UFOs as being on-topic. It's okay if UFOs are then used as a springboard to another topic.

I will not be betting in this market.

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:
bought Ṁ50 of YES

Odds higher with the Mexico shenanigans?

predicted YES

@Dave_9000ish Elaborate?

predicted YES

@jonsimon big hoo-ha on reddit atm around Mexican alien "discovery"

predicted YES

“Links for July” included two ufo links with commentary.

predicted NO

@VickiWilliams Which, per the rules, expressly doesn’t count?

predicted YES

@MattCWilson Sure, but seems relevant for probability of a future post.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

Talk about UFOs has been enough lately I can see him making a post to address them, if only to dismiss them (which I assume counts)

bought Ṁ20 of YES

Unidentified balloons are still flying objects

@Odoacre Identified flying objects are not unidentified flying objects. If he writes a post "look at all these balloons from $country; let's talk about geopolitics", that will not contribute to a YES resolution.

predicted YES

Not all of the "balloons" have been identified so he probably won't say that. He might say something like look at all these things being shot down and people assuming they are balloons

@Odoacre Yeah, so if there's doubt about them actually being balloons, and that doubt is on-topic for the post, then this'll definitely resolve YES.

Do book review finalists count

@JonathanRay No. Scott Alexander must be the one doing the writing---it's not sufficient for text, written by another, to appear on the ACX blog.


> it's not sufficient for text, written by another, to appear on the ACX blog.


Now I wish I could bet in this market! Just for the sake of registering predictions, I'd do 25% here.

More related questions