Correction now at the bottom of the article

Resolved to yes.

This market was featured in a coindesk article, which they shared on Twitter! (I'm sorry the embed is so big)

Market should resolve to Yes, as minimally the registered agent point was a) in the thread and b) unambiguously acknowledged as being in error, where the market description says 1+ errors is the threshold.

I love that it's an entire 111 word paragraph, a laundry list of mistakes.

It looks like the article has been corrected for some of the criticisms:

"bioethicists" who oppose embryo selection technology are condemning millions/billions of people to suffer and die from preventable illnesses, by preventing doctors from fixing the root causes of those illnesses. I think in any reasonable moral system these "bioethicists" are monsters and their journalist quislings trying to cancel the scientists involved are also monsters. The journos who wrote this piece are basically as bad as literal swastika-patch-wearing nazis. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.

billions

How do you get to billions?

All the top ten causes of death are amenable to genetic mitigation of risk

No corrections were issued in Monday's Corrections and Clarifications column, published 2 minutes ago.

By eye it looks like Thursday 13th of June was the modal date for corrections, implying it's quite common for it to take 5 full days, or three business days, to get a correction.

Reminder: Nothing ever happens, especially with the ignorant Guardian editors who are more into doxing and writing hit pieces for clicks rather than reporting on something of substance

It is very unusual for an outlet to issue a correction for a statement that is not literally factually false, even if it's misleading or its plain meaning is wrong or it reveals a total misunderstanding of the situation. But I would strongly expect an outlet to correct a series of straightforward checkable misreporting-who-owns-a-company-level errors, especially if those errors have attracted public criticism.

I would be curious to know what your rate of decay is - i.e. it's been 24+ hours since publication and they still have not made any updates

My impression is that the requests for corrections on concrete factual matters were mostly issued late last night. Then there's an internal process with a bunch of stakeholders, probably including lawyers (since, while Oli Habyrka has expressed his intent not to sue, these are the kind of material misstatements that might make an outlet fear litigation and want to craft their response to minimize the possibility), and then an update. At Vox I'd expect a result later today and if there weren't one by tomorrow there wouldn't be one period.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing

@KelseyPiper well I'm convinced

I'm the largest Yes holder here on a fairly simple theory: you can insinuate someone is a Nazi while acting in obvious bad faith and that is basically Tuesday, and you can pretty consequences-free misreport that is in a trivially accessible government-operated public database, but you can't argue your editor out of that edit once other journalists start noting that the infelicity on Twitter.

See generally: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/how-to-bounded-distrust

not anymore, please issue a correction

What’s inaccurate about it? (I can’t follow the link either.)

And besides rant-tweeting and threatening to sue, shouldn’t someone bring the inaccuracies to the attention of the Guardian?

https://unrollnow.com/status/1802563541633024280