Honestly it probably ought to resolve N/A and and create a new market with a shorter time window.

Saying that, voted yes on the poll to get that mana :)

@alh Agreed this may be best given the ambiguity throughout the description/title.

@alh why should I create a new market with a shorter time window? The question is whether it's resolved or not. If it is not resolved, then no problem. If it is resolved, it will be a surprise for most people who bet because their timeline was far away in the future, but this is the fun part about future technology predictions. I created this poll because it's difficult to express in minimal details the application of future technologies and it would be impossible to write a description in advance that takes into account everything that counts and doesn't count. I had a slightly different idea in mind when I created that market but then again, this seems near enough. But I'd like to hear more opinions.

@SimoneRomeo IMO there are two issues with your market - one is that the timescales are too far in the future with 50 years and only 10 buckets to bet in it's not possible to effectively differentiate between it resolving this year or in 3 years time. So if you had thought it was possible to resolve soon (or at least in the next few years) you would have made a different market. So you could resolve NA - you set it up wrong and can start again with some more realistic dates.

(A little bit of the blame has to go on the Manifold team for their numeric market design, the buckets are a little too well-hidden - and an even interval doesn't make sense for a long time period like this - it should be tighter around a central value.)

The second issue is that the question is a little ambiguous - after sleeping on it I think it's not too bad and you can certainly resolve YES.

@alh I think it's unfair to resolve a market N/A after people bet on it unless there's a major problem.

The timeframe of the market may make it little relevant but not unfair. And I'd still argue it's relevant as various users bet towards the end of the timeframe.

The ambiguity of the questions can account as making it unfair. But then again, as I mentioned before, how can we possibly make accurate description accounting for all possible tweaks of future technologies? A poll should be enough to resolve disputes I believe

@alh btw, is there any way to discuss with the developers team on how to implement the numeric market? It's a beautiful feature but I think there is scope for improvement of the algorithm

@SimoneRomeo I think the difficulty is in how we define “3D”. There’s “viewer-level” 3D (meaning one can look around with the device), and “object-level” 3D (meaning the object is 3D and we can see different sides of it).

It sounds like you meant the second definition, and the current technology fulfills the first.

If you create a new market or decide not to resolve this, I would clarify that.

“Inside the game” is mentioned a few times which I interpret to be within the playing area. I think more likely is some sort of ref view, helmet-mounted camera (NFL), or perhaps most likely, Formula 1.