Context:
From FHI's announcement:
Over time FHI faced increasing administrative headwinds within the Faculty of Philosophy (the Institute’s organizational home). Starting in 2020, the Faculty imposed a freeze on fundraising and hiring. In late 2023, the Faculty of Philosophy decided that the contracts of the remaining FHI staff would not be renewed. On 16 April 2024, the Institute was closed down.
Add any answers to this market that you think might explain further why FHI was shut down, and if evidence comes to light by end of year that proves it right, it will resolve YES. Anything already in FHI's announcement (https://www.futureofhumanityinstitute.org/) or FHI's final report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/660e95991cf0293c2463bcc8/t/661a3fc3cecceb2b8ffce80d/1712996303164/FHI+Final+Report.pdf) will not count as new information.
Ask clarifying questions in comments as needed. In cases of ambiguity, I will use my best judgment, which may mean resolving N/A, though generally will act under the principle that answers will resolve NO absent sufficient evidence to the contrary.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ367 | |
| 2 | Ṁ72 | |
| 3 | Ṁ27 | |
| 4 | Ṁ23 | |
| 5 | Ṁ22 |
People are also trading
@placebo_username Probably depends on how far of a stretch is the ideological disagreement, but leaning toward legitimate in this case.
@TheAllMemeingEye No, could resolve multiple if evidence surfaces that matches multiple answers and/or reasons
@Tetraspace I'm always unsure about under what circumstances tweet embeds work.
I recall many years ago meeting with someone at Oxford to talk about quantum mechanics, but they mainly wanted to lobby me to lobby FHI to focus more on global warming, and less on all those other weird future issues. they saw as less important.
@TheAllMemeingEye They blocked both fundraising and hiring since 2020, right? If the problem was a lack of funds, that seems incoherent with the history.