🏅 Top traders

Next week is up: https://manifold.markets/Stralor/within-the-next-week-will-any-disas-4cc0ac1d86c7?r=U3RyYWxvcg

I'm open to suggestions on how to make the resolution criteria more clear, after some minor back and forth that happened this time.

Within the next week, will any disaster displace 10,000+ people from their homes? (Aug 13-20)

50% chance. Any disaster, of natural origins or otherwise. There are 18 natural hazards included in the National Risk Index of FEMA: avalanche, coastal flooding, cold wave, drought, earthquake, hail, heat wave, tropical cyclone, ice storm, landslide, lightning, riverine flooding, strong wind, tornado, tsunami, volcanic activity, wildfire, winter weather. In addition there are also tornados and dust storms. But I'm also counting many, many other hazards and sources such as war, coup, AI take-off, astronomical phenomena, nuclear meltdowns, and so forth. Very non-exhaustive list. Exception: the fires in Maui triggered this YES last time and can't trigger it again. Resolves YES if a disaster happens between question creation on July 28th and question close a week later and causes 10,000 or more people to lose their homes or otherwise flee in that same timeframe. Ongoing disasters, such as wars, require new isolatable events to take place to qualify. Otherwise NO. I expect there's a chance this question gets a bit dicey so, unlike my usual, I won't be creating starting limit orders or trading here.

I have to imagine 10,000 people were displaced in Maui. 1,000 missing, >2,000 buildings destroyed, ~100 confirmed dead

@Gen From what I can see, “The fires, fuelled by winds from Hurricane Dora passing south of the island chain, nearly wiped out the town of 13,000.” (CBC news)

It’s probably unclear if it’s over 10,000. About half that amount is seeking shelter, it’s not clear how many others had somewhere to go but I’d assume the total “displaced” is very close to 10,000 if not above it

I sold some of my position because it’s probably not worth risking at 98%, but I’m at least at 90% that displacement exceeds 10,000

@Gen 11,000 travellers were evacuated (ABC News Australia).. presumably more residents “displaced”, if travellers don’t count.

@Gen everything I'm seeing says ~4500 residents displaced https://www.npr.org/2023/08/12/1193614596/death-toll-on-maui-climbs-to-80-as-questions-over-islands-emergency-response-gro

Death toll from Maui fire climbs to 89, becoming deadliest in modern U.S. history

Rescue teams continue to search for survivors on the Hawaiian island after wildfires destroyed much of the historic town of Lahaina.

@Stralor I'm not sure travellers should count, but I'm open to being convinced

@Stralor it seems that the 4,500 number is based on the people who had their homes destroyed, and need new permanent residence elsewhere

Your definition specifies “or otherwise flee”

I understand that the entire population of Lahaina (13,000) were given evacuation orders, plus another 11,000 travellers. Access to Lahaina was denied to everyone except emergency personnel (source)

The scope is larger than the 4,500 people who lost their homes, though they better fit the term “displaced”

@Gen agreed, I figured that 4500 were resident evacuees, and not the subset of semi-permanent evacuees due to losing their homes.

@Stralor any suggestions on how I might make this more rigorous for the next week?

@Stralor You could specify:

“evacuation orders given to >10,000 people” as counting or not counting as displaced, and how long the evacuation would need to be, i.e if people shelter for 1 hour it probably isn’t sufficient.

If people need to be residents or if travellers count

I’m pretty ok with it being subjective as you have made it, I wouldn’t have been super upset if you resolved against me but the “or otherwise flee” is the unclear part

@Gen I've changed it to "10,000 or more residents to lose their homes, flee the area semi-permanently, or evacuate indefinitely". good suggestions!