Inspired by this post: 10 technologies that won't exist in 5 years (wayback machine) The post claims all of these would be achievable within 5 years but there will not be sufficient funding. Also, note the footnotes with some relevant details.
Published "Feb 2, 2024" and "in 5 years" means this closes "Feb 2, 2029".
Each answers resolves YES if the technology exists by the close date.
If no success can be found, answers resolve NO after the close date. When in doubt, I would tend towards NO to be favorable to the author.
I have no clue about these medical science stuff, so clarifying comments are appreciated. Ideally, we can reach the author to resolve these.
@Pykess agreed, it would make it less confusing for bettors if it was retitled to "10 technologies that will exist within 5 years" or smth
@Arky oh wow that's a very different requirement than I thought seemed implied by the market question. would be a bummer imo if that was required but up to marketwise
@Arky Yes, I want to stay as close as possible to the author. Description says "Ideally, we can reach the author to resolve these."
I added a link to the footnotes to the description.
.
@Arky Yes, I got that far as well :)
I meant to say that I think we're almost there, and the reason there are no 3-fold tests (if there aren't) might be that they are not useful enough.
@PS Oh my bad, there was some talk on the discord about the COVID vs flu test counting and I thought your comment was also claiming that
@Thomas42 Great point! I extended the description. YES = exists is more intuitive I think even if the title phrases it negatively.