date_resolve_at
stringlengths 10
10
| date_begin
stringlengths 10
10
| extracted_urls
stringlengths 2
7.19k
| question_type
stringclasses 3
values | community_predictions
stringlengths 45
72.7k
| url
stringlengths 34
126
| background
stringlengths 1
4.95k
| gpt_3p5_category
stringclasses 11
values | resolution_criteria
stringlengths 43
5.42k
| is_resolved
bool 1
class | date_close
stringlengths 10
10
| question
stringlengths 31
259
| data_source
stringclasses 5
values | resolution
float64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016-02-01 | 2015-10-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-10-02", 0.69], ["2015-11-03", 0.72], ["2015-11-03", 0.75], ["2015-11-04", 0.54], ["2015-11-04", 0.54], ["2015-11-06", 0.555], ["2015-12-03", 0.554], ["2015-12-03", 0.574], ["2015-12-03", 0.58], ["2015-12-03", 0.574], ["2015-12-05", 0.595], ["2015-12-05", 0.61], ["2015-12-09", 0.612], ["2015-12-10", 0.582], ["2015-12-11", 0.584], ["2015-12-12", 0.589]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/1/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) re-opened in mid September after a significant upgrade.
Designed with 10x greater sensitivity and a wider range of covered frequencies than the original LIGO, advanced LIGO should, according to its designers, have an "enhanced physics reach that during its first several hours of operation will exceed the integrated observations of the 1 year LIGO Science Run."
A full description of the experiment in gory detail can be found here.
Calculations of the expected detection rates suggest tens and potentially hundreds of detectable events per year under reasonable assumptions about neutron star and other types of binaries (and of course assuming General Relativity is correct, etc.)
Will the LIGO experiment publicly announce a 5-sigma (or equivalent) discovery of astrophysical gravitational waves by Jan 31, 2016? | true | 2015-12-15 | Will advanced LIGO announce discovery of gravitational waves by Jan. 31 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-28 | 2015-10-26 | ["https://sma.nasa.gov/LaunchVehicle/assets/spacex-falcon-9-v1.2-data-sheet.pdf"] | binary | [["2015-10-26", 0.84], ["2015-12-03", 0.795], ["2015-12-05", 0.787], ["2015-12-05", 0.765], ["2015-12-08", 0.782], ["2015-12-09", 0.772], ["2015-12-09", 0.793], ["2015-12-10", 0.784], ["2015-12-11", 0.774], ["2015-12-16", 0.769], ["2015-12-16", 0.769], ["2015-12-17", 0.759], ["2015-12-17", 0.759], ["2015-12-20", 0.758], ["2015-12-22", 0.762], ["2015-12-22", 0.765], ["2015-12-31", 0.757], ["2015-12-31", 0.763], ["2016-01-02", 0.759], ["2016-01-04", 0.732], ["2016-01-05", 0.746], ["2016-01-07", 0.736], ["2016-01-07", 0.739], ["2016-01-08", 0.712], ["2016-01-08", 0.716], ["2016-01-09", 0.71], ["2016-01-11", 0.713], ["2016-01-11", 0.717], ["2016-01-11", 0.726], ["2016-01-12", 0.724], ["2016-01-12", 0.73], ["2016-01-12", 0.707], ["2016-01-14", 0.718], ["2016-01-17", 0.715], ["2016-01-17", 0.706], ["2016-01-17", 0.709], ["2016-01-17", 0.701], ["2016-01-18", 0.696], ["2016-01-20", 0.697], ["2016-01-20", 0.691], ["2016-01-20", 0.694], ["2016-01-20", 0.699], ["2016-01-20", 0.685], ["2016-01-20", 0.693], ["2016-01-21", 0.696], ["2016-01-21", 0.702], ["2016-01-21", 0.698], ["2016-01-21", 0.697], ["2016-01-21", 0.68], ["2016-01-21", 0.674], ["2016-01-21", 0.664], ["2016-01-22", 0.659], ["2016-01-22", 0.647], ["2016-01-22", 0.637], ["2016-01-22", 0.639], ["2016-01-22", 0.643], ["2016-01-22", 0.63], ["2016-01-22", 0.631], ["2016-01-23", 0.631], ["2016-01-23", 0.638], ["2016-01-24", 0.641], ["2016-01-24", 0.64], ["2016-01-25", 0.635], ["2016-01-25", 0.634], ["2016-01-26", 0.632], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.632], ["2016-01-26", 0.632], ["2016-01-26", 0.623], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.624], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-27", 0.626], ["2016-01-27", 0.631], ["2016-01-27", 0.628], ["2016-01-27", 0.63], ["2016-01-27", 0.633], ["2016-01-27", 0.632], ["2016-01-28", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.632], ["2016-01-28", 0.635], ["2016-01-28", 0.636], ["2016-01-28", 0.63], ["2016-01-28", 0.63], ["2016-01-28", 0.628], ["2016-01-29", 0.627], ["2016-01-29", 0.625], ["2016-01-29", 0.625]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/2/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets are designed to be re-used after landing vertically on a floating barge-based landing site. To date, these landings have not been fully successful.
Will SpaceX, by Feb 28, 2016, land a Falcon 9 well enough so that it sustains little enough damage that it can be re-used?
As of mid-November, the SpaceX launch schedule lists approximately eight upcoming Falcon 9 Launches in 2015 or early 2016. | true | 2016-01-30 | Will SpaceX successfully land a Falcon 9 rocket on a barge by February 28, 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-04-23 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-04", 0.12], ["2016-01-05", 0.083], ["2016-01-09", 0.114], ["2016-01-12", 0.124], ["2016-01-19", 0.117], ["2016-01-20", 0.112], ["2016-01-23", 0.132], ["2016-01-26", 0.136], ["2016-01-28", 0.201], ["2016-01-31", 0.204], ["2016-02-02", 0.199], ["2016-02-04", 0.211], ["2016-02-06", 0.207], ["2016-02-09", 0.208], ["2016-02-11", 0.2], ["2016-02-15", 0.197], ["2016-02-18", 0.18], ["2016-02-20", 0.176], ["2016-02-24", 0.172], ["2016-02-28", 0.173], ["2016-03-01", 0.173], ["2016-03-03", 0.173], ["2016-03-06", 0.173], ["2016-03-09", 0.182], ["2016-03-13", 0.198], ["2016-03-18", 0.197], ["2016-03-21", 0.199], ["2016-03-24", 0.206], ["2016-03-27", 0.204], ["2016-03-30", 0.211], ["2016-04-02", 0.21], ["2016-04-06", 0.211], ["2016-04-07", 0.219], ["2016-04-13", 0.217], ["2016-04-15", 0.222], ["2016-04-17", 0.227], ["2016-04-19", 0.224], ["2016-04-20", 0.221], ["2016-04-26", 0.221], ["2016-04-29", 0.217], ["2016-05-03", 0.215], ["2016-05-04", 0.215], ["2016-05-09", 0.214], ["2016-05-12", 0.212], ["2016-05-16", 0.212], ["2016-05-19", 0.21], ["2016-05-25", 0.209], ["2016-05-28", 0.21], ["2016-05-31", 0.209], ["2016-06-05", 0.212], ["2016-06-07", 0.216], ["2016-06-14", 0.216], ["2016-06-14", 0.216], ["2016-06-20", 0.215], ["2016-06-23", 0.215], ["2016-06-27", 0.214], ["2016-06-30", 0.216], ["2016-07-01", 0.216], ["2016-07-03", 0.215], ["2016-07-06", 0.215], ["2016-07-10", 0.215], ["2016-07-13", 0.214], ["2016-07-17", 0.214], ["2016-07-20", 0.214], ["2016-07-23", 0.215], ["2016-07-26", 0.215], ["2016-07-29", 0.204], ["2016-08-02", 0.208], ["2016-08-05", 0.216], ["2016-08-07", 0.216], ["2016-08-09", 0.212], ["2016-08-11", 0.21], ["2016-08-13", 0.211], ["2016-08-15", 0.21], ["2016-08-17", 0.211], ["2016-08-18", 0.21], ["2016-08-21", 0.208], ["2016-08-23", 0.207], ["2016-08-24", 0.204], ["2016-08-27", 0.205], ["2016-08-30", 0.204], ["2016-08-31", 0.204], ["2016-09-02", 0.202], ["2016-09-05", 0.202], ["2016-09-06", 0.202], ["2016-09-09", 0.202], ["2016-09-12", 0.202], ["2016-09-14", 0.201], ["2016-09-17", 0.207], ["2016-09-19", 0.214], ["2016-09-23", 0.212], ["2016-09-26", 0.212], ["2016-09-29", 0.211], ["2016-10-02", 0.205], ["2016-10-05", 0.207], ["2016-10-07", 0.209], ["2016-10-09", 0.209], ["2016-10-11", 0.21], ["2016-10-14", 0.21], ["2016-10-17", 0.209], ["2016-10-18", 0.209]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/5/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks has publicly announced that it is developing compact fusion energy generation devices.
In their announcemend dated 10/15/14 they suggested a one-year timeframe for developing a test, and a 5-year timeframe for a prototype device. Similar predictions were made in a recent article.
As of 1/2/16 this effort is still featured on the Lockheed Martin website.
WIll they announce a successful test of a break-even device by April 15, 2019? | true | 2016-10-18 | Will Lockheed Martin and Skunkworks announce a successful test of a break-even compact fusion reactor by April 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-16 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-09", 0.3], ["2015-12-09", 0.233], ["2015-12-09", 0.25], ["2015-12-09", 0.24], ["2015-12-10", 0.25], ["2015-12-10", 0.254], ["2015-12-12", 0.251], ["2015-12-12", 0.248], ["2015-12-15", 0.266], ["2015-12-21", 0.264], ["2015-12-21", 0.265], ["2015-12-22", 0.267], ["2016-01-01", 0.27], ["2016-01-03", 0.319], ["2016-01-05", 0.297], ["2016-01-05", 0.282], ["2016-01-07", 0.277], ["2016-01-09", 0.284], ["2016-01-12", 0.271], ["2016-01-20", 0.283], ["2016-01-20", 0.307], ["2016-01-21", 0.312], ["2016-01-21", 0.315], ["2016-01-22", 0.302], ["2016-01-22", 0.306], ["2016-01-23", 0.31], ["2016-01-26", 0.308], ["2016-01-27", 0.305], ["2016-01-27", 0.303], ["2016-01-27", 0.296], ["2016-01-28", 0.296], ["2016-01-28", 0.319], ["2016-01-31", 0.321], ["2016-01-31", 0.317], ["2016-02-02", 0.312], ["2016-02-02", 0.314], ["2016-02-03", 0.308], ["2016-02-04", 0.308], ["2016-02-04", 0.308], ["2016-02-05", 0.307], ["2016-02-07", 0.301], ["2016-02-08", 0.296], ["2016-02-10", 0.294], ["2016-02-10", 0.293], ["2016-02-10", 0.291], ["2016-02-15", 0.289], ["2016-02-15", 0.287], ["2016-02-16", 0.288], ["2016-02-17", 0.287], ["2016-02-18", 0.285], ["2016-02-19", 0.286], ["2016-02-19", 0.286], ["2016-02-19", 0.287], ["2016-02-20", 0.286], ["2016-02-20", 0.285], ["2016-02-20", 0.282], ["2016-02-21", 0.277], ["2016-02-24", 0.277], ["2016-02-24", 0.276], ["2016-02-26", 0.273], ["2016-02-28", 0.272], ["2016-02-28", 0.273], ["2016-03-02", 0.269], ["2016-03-03", 0.267], ["2016-03-04", 0.266], ["2016-03-07", 0.265], ["2016-03-07", 0.266], ["2016-03-10", 0.264], ["2016-03-10", 0.263], ["2016-03-11", 0.262], ["2016-03-11", 0.259], ["2016-03-11", 0.26], ["2016-03-12", 0.261], ["2016-03-13", 0.271], ["2016-03-13", 0.269], ["2016-03-13", 0.269], ["2016-03-14", 0.269], ["2016-03-16", 0.269], ["2016-03-16", 0.267], ["2016-03-17", 0.267], ["2016-03-22", 0.265], ["2016-03-22", 0.267], ["2016-03-26", 0.267], ["2016-03-26", 0.266], ["2016-03-27", 0.266], ["2016-03-30", 0.276], ["2016-04-04", 0.276], ["2016-04-05", 0.276], ["2016-04-07", 0.276], ["2016-04-07", 0.275], ["2016-04-10", 0.276], ["2016-04-11", 0.274], ["2016-04-11", 0.264], ["2016-04-12", 0.264], ["2016-04-13", 0.271], ["2016-04-13", 0.271], ["2016-04-14", 0.271], ["2016-04-14", 0.27], ["2016-04-14", 0.27], ["2016-04-15", 0.267], ["2016-04-15", 0.258]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/6/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | The FAA has for several years been developing a set of regulations governing the use of unmanned aeriel systems (UASs, or "drones"), but has repeatedly missed deadlines to finalize those rules. Current regulations allow consumer use of "model aircraft" under certain conditions, and it was recently announced that one of those conditions would be registration of the drone.
Current FAA rules do not allow commercial operation of UASs except by special license. Comprehensive regulation specifying conditions under which commerical UASs can operate beyond line-of-sight of their operators (or autonomously) would open a host of industry uses of UAVs in aerial reconnaisance, delivery, etc.
Will such regulation be finalized by the FAA by June 15, 2016? | true | 2016-04-15 | The FAA to soon open the door to commercial use of unmanned aerial systems? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-12-01 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-12", 0.8], ["2015-11-12", 0.8], ["2015-12-03", 0.825], ["2015-12-05", 0.833], ["2015-12-06", 0.825], ["2015-12-07", 0.71], ["2015-12-07", 0.708], ["2015-12-09", 0.713], ["2015-12-09", 0.713], ["2015-12-09", 0.648], ["2015-12-10", 0.661], ["2015-12-10", 0.674], ["2015-12-10", 0.674], ["2015-12-11", 0.681], ["2015-12-11", 0.658], ["2015-12-16", 0.615], ["2015-12-20", 0.614], ["2015-12-20", 0.626], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-22", 0.629], ["2015-12-24", 0.651], ["2015-12-24", 0.651], ["2015-12-27", 0.628], ["2015-12-27", 0.633], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.644], ["2015-12-31", 0.647], ["2016-01-04", 0.657], ["2016-01-05", 0.672], ["2016-01-05", 0.676], ["2016-01-07", 0.678], ["2016-01-07", 0.673], ["2016-01-07", 0.676], ["2016-01-07", 0.672], ["2016-01-09", 0.67], ["2016-01-12", 0.673], ["2016-01-17", 0.665], ["2016-01-21", 0.661], ["2016-01-21", 0.671], ["2016-01-21", 0.664], ["2016-01-22", 0.66], ["2016-01-24", 0.644], ["2016-01-25", 0.644], ["2016-01-26", 0.644], ["2016-01-26", 0.64], ["2016-01-26", 0.64], ["2016-01-26", 0.64], ["2016-01-26", 0.635], ["2016-01-26", 0.626], ["2016-01-26", 0.629], ["2016-01-27", 0.628], ["2016-01-27", 0.621], ["2016-01-27", 0.621], ["2016-01-28", 0.62], ["2016-01-28", 0.62], ["2016-01-28", 0.623], ["2016-01-28", 0.622], ["2016-01-31", 0.622], ["2016-02-01", 0.621], ["2016-02-02", 0.621], ["2016-02-02", 0.621], ["2016-02-02", 0.62], ["2016-02-03", 0.611], ["2016-02-04", 0.608], ["2016-02-04", 0.607], ["2016-02-04", 0.606], ["2016-02-05", 0.602], ["2016-02-05", 0.598], ["2016-02-07", 0.594], ["2016-02-08", 0.601], ["2016-02-08", 0.602], ["2016-02-08", 0.599], ["2016-02-09", 0.599], ["2016-02-09", 0.604], ["2016-02-10", 0.601], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.594], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-11", 0.593], ["2016-02-11", 0.589], ["2016-02-11", 0.585], ["2016-02-11", 0.584], ["2016-02-12", 0.582], ["2016-02-13", 0.577], ["2016-02-13", 0.577], ["2016-02-14", 0.576], ["2016-02-14", 0.575], ["2016-02-14", 0.572], ["2016-02-14", 0.574], ["2016-02-14", 0.575], ["2016-02-15", 0.578]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/7/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The cost of sequencing a human genome has been falling at a rate considerably faster than Moore's law since the first genome was sequenced in 2001, according to the NIH.
This cost reduction has, however, occurred in fits and starts, with periods of plateau punctuated by significant cost reductions.
Will the cost plateau for several years at approximately $1000 per genome, or fall to below $500 USD by June 30, 2016?
The question resolves affirmative if there is an entry for June or earlier in the table provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute putting the cost below $500, and resolve negatively if the table has an entry of for July 2016 or later with a cost exceeding $500. | true | 2016-02-15 | Will the cost of sequencing a human genome fall below $500 by mid 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2015-10-26 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-03", 0.2], ["2015-11-04", 0.28], ["2015-12-03", 0.22], ["2015-12-05", 0.21], ["2015-12-05", 0.198], ["2015-12-09", 0.217], ["2015-12-10", 0.207], ["2015-12-15", 0.21], ["2015-12-20", 0.204], ["2015-12-21", 0.198], ["2016-01-01", 0.189], ["2016-01-05", 0.194], ["2016-01-05", 0.171], ["2016-01-09", 0.173], ["2016-01-11", 0.175], ["2016-01-12", 0.154], ["2016-01-21", 0.148], ["2016-01-22", 0.157], ["2016-01-24", 0.159], ["2016-01-25", 0.16], ["2016-01-26", 0.157], ["2016-01-26", 0.152], ["2016-01-27", 0.155], ["2016-01-28", 0.179], ["2016-01-29", 0.175], ["2016-01-31", 0.174], ["2016-02-01", 0.171], ["2016-02-02", 0.172], ["2016-02-03", 0.168], ["2016-02-04", 0.168], ["2016-02-04", 0.169], ["2016-02-05", 0.167], ["2016-02-07", 0.165], ["2016-02-08", 0.163], ["2016-02-10", 0.162], ["2016-02-11", 0.165], ["2016-02-11", 0.161], ["2016-02-12", 0.164], ["2016-02-15", 0.161], ["2016-02-16", 0.159], ["2016-02-16", 0.158], ["2016-02-17", 0.155], ["2016-02-19", 0.156], ["2016-02-19", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-21", 0.162], ["2016-02-21", 0.16], ["2016-02-23", 0.158], ["2016-02-24", 0.156], ["2016-02-28", 0.165], ["2016-02-28", 0.165], ["2016-03-02", 0.163], ["2016-03-03", 0.164], ["2016-03-07", 0.164], ["2016-03-07", 0.165], ["2016-03-11", 0.166], ["2016-03-11", 0.166], ["2016-03-12", 0.162], ["2016-03-15", 0.172], ["2016-03-16", 0.17], ["2016-03-18", 0.169], ["2016-03-22", 0.167], ["2016-03-23", 0.167], ["2016-03-27", 0.168], ["2016-03-30", 0.179], ["2016-04-02", 0.179], ["2016-04-07", 0.178], ["2016-04-10", 0.178], ["2016-04-12", 0.177], ["2016-04-14", 0.176], ["2016-04-15", 0.175], ["2016-04-16", 0.175], ["2016-04-17", 0.175], ["2016-04-18", 0.174], ["2016-04-19", 0.173], ["2016-04-25", 0.171], ["2016-04-26", 0.17], ["2016-05-09", 0.168], ["2016-05-12", 0.168], ["2016-05-12", 0.167], ["2016-05-16", 0.167], ["2016-05-17", 0.166], ["2016-05-23", 0.165], ["2016-05-31", 0.165], ["2016-06-07", 0.165], ["2016-06-08", 0.164], ["2016-06-12", 0.165], ["2016-06-13", 0.162], ["2016-06-17", 0.161], ["2016-06-17", 0.16], ["2016-06-18", 0.159], ["2016-06-20", 0.16], ["2016-06-21", 0.158], ["2016-06-25", 0.159], ["2016-06-26", 0.159], ["2016-06-28", 0.159], ["2016-06-29", 0.155], ["2016-06-30", 0.153], ["2016-06-30", 0.143], ["2016-07-01", 0.143]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/8/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Conjecture: There are infinitely many primes p such that p + 2 is also prime.
In the last few years, the upper bound N for the statement “There are infinitely many primes that differ by at most N” has been reduced from 70,000,000 to 246, and down to 12 with other assumptions.
The question is resolved positively if a proof of the conjecture is published in a major mathematics journal. | true | 2016-07-01 | Will the Twin Prime Conjecture be positively resolved in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-08-23 | 2015-10-30 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-02", 0.69], ["2015-11-14", 0.445], ["2015-12-03", 0.497], ["2015-12-05", 0.51], ["2015-12-06", 0.498], ["2015-12-07", 0.45], ["2015-12-09", 0.439], ["2015-12-09", 0.439], ["2015-12-09", 0.409], ["2015-12-10", 0.441], ["2015-12-20", 0.46], ["2015-12-20", 0.472], ["2015-12-21", 0.438], ["2015-12-21", 0.432], ["2015-12-22", 0.453], ["2015-12-27", 0.491], ["2015-12-31", 0.509], ["2016-01-01", 0.492], ["2016-01-01", 0.492], ["2016-01-03", 0.481], ["2016-01-04", 0.477], ["2016-01-05", 0.452], ["2016-01-07", 0.442], ["2016-01-07", 0.437], ["2016-01-07", 0.446], ["2016-01-09", 0.44], ["2016-01-11", 0.451], ["2016-01-12", 0.459], ["2016-01-12", 0.452], ["2016-01-13", 0.452], ["2016-01-13", 0.456], ["2016-01-17", 0.454], ["2016-01-20", 0.449], ["2016-01-20", 0.45], ["2016-01-20", 0.468], ["2016-01-20", 0.46], ["2016-01-20", 0.467], ["2016-01-21", 0.453], ["2016-01-21", 0.459], ["2016-01-21", 0.449], ["2016-01-21", 0.449], ["2016-01-21", 0.449], ["2016-01-21", 0.445], ["2016-01-22", 0.439], ["2016-01-23", 0.429], ["2016-01-25", 0.428], ["2016-01-26", 0.431], ["2016-01-26", 0.427], ["2016-01-26", 0.425], ["2016-01-26", 0.426], ["2016-01-26", 0.422], ["2016-01-27", 0.419], ["2016-01-27", 0.419], ["2016-01-27", 0.419], ["2016-01-28", 0.414], ["2016-01-28", 0.414], ["2016-01-28", 0.417], ["2016-01-28", 0.412], ["2016-01-28", 0.413], ["2016-01-28", 0.415], ["2016-01-30", 0.418], ["2016-01-31", 0.419], ["2016-01-31", 0.416]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/9/ | In late 2014 Google [announced] a deep learning system that could automatically generate a descriptive caption of an arbitrary photograph.
A significantly greater challenge is to provide an understandable and comparably accurate description of the events taking place in a short video (without audio included). | Science & Tech | Will a working version of such a system be publicly announced and demonstrated by July 1, 2016? For success, the system should act on a diverse set of short videos similar to these, and should be comparable in accuracy to the accuracy of Google's image captioning when it was first announced. | true | 2016-02-01 | Will AI systems that can generate a synopsis of a viewed video soon exist? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-15 | 2015-11-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-03", 0.75], ["2015-11-04", 0.65], ["2015-11-06", 0.5]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/11/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) is an experimental device built at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics to test the "stellarator" deisgn of nuclear fusion reactor.
The primary benefit of the stellarator design is to allow prolonged confinement, relative to Tokomak designs that can run only in short pulses. The W7-X was designed to run for up to 30 minutes.
Magnet testing was completed in July 2015, and regulatory approval to bein operations is expected in in early November.
Will the W7-X collaboration report that the rector has successfully confined its plasma for at least 10 minutes by February 15, 2016? | true | 2015-11-30 | Will the experimental Wendelstein 7-X stellarator fusion device be a success? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-18 | 2015-11-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-19", 0.25], ["2015-12-03", 0.225], ["2015-12-05", 0.217], ["2015-12-06", 0.213], ["2015-12-08", 0.22], ["2015-12-09", 0.284], ["2015-12-10", 0.286], ["2015-12-10", 0.29], ["2015-12-12", 0.292], ["2015-12-21", 0.278], ["2015-12-21", 0.273], ["2015-12-24", 0.251], ["2015-12-24", 0.251], ["2015-12-27", 0.232], ["2016-01-01", 0.223], ["2016-01-03", 0.231], ["2016-01-03", 0.246], ["2016-01-05", 0.261], ["2016-01-05", 0.264], ["2016-01-13", 0.261], ["2016-01-20", 0.253], ["2016-01-21", 0.241], ["2016-01-26", 0.237], ["2016-01-26", 0.233], ["2016-01-26", 0.232], ["2016-01-27", 0.228], ["2016-01-27", 0.224], ["2016-01-28", 0.225], ["2016-01-28", 0.222], ["2016-01-31", 0.221], ["2016-02-01", 0.219], ["2016-02-02", 0.221], ["2016-02-03", 0.217], ["2016-02-04", 0.218], ["2016-02-04", 0.22], ["2016-02-05", 0.224], ["2016-02-05", 0.221], ["2016-02-09", 0.222], ["2016-02-09", 0.222], ["2016-02-10", 0.222], ["2016-02-11", 0.221], ["2016-02-12", 0.22], ["2016-02-13", 0.217], ["2016-02-15", 0.215], ["2016-02-15", 0.213], ["2016-02-15", 0.202], ["2016-02-16", 0.202], ["2016-02-16", 0.203], ["2016-02-16", 0.202], ["2016-02-17", 0.2], ["2016-02-17", 0.199], ["2016-02-19", 0.203], ["2016-02-19", 0.205], ["2016-02-20", 0.206], ["2016-02-20", 0.208], ["2016-02-21", 0.208], ["2016-02-22", 0.205], ["2016-02-22", 0.203], ["2016-02-23", 0.201], ["2016-02-24", 0.201], ["2016-02-28", 0.208], ["2016-02-28", 0.208], ["2016-02-29", 0.208], ["2016-03-04", 0.207], ["2016-03-04", 0.207], ["2016-03-07", 0.207], ["2016-03-08", 0.209], ["2016-03-11", 0.21], ["2016-03-12", 0.21], ["2016-03-13", 0.211], ["2016-03-13", 0.218], ["2016-03-15", 0.217], ["2016-03-16", 0.216], ["2016-03-17", 0.217], ["2016-03-18", 0.215], ["2016-03-20", 0.215], ["2016-03-22", 0.213], ["2016-03-22", 0.211], ["2016-03-27", 0.208], ["2016-03-30", 0.217], ["2016-04-01", 0.219], ["2016-04-06", 0.218], ["2016-04-07", 0.217], ["2016-04-14", 0.215], ["2016-04-15", 0.214], ["2016-04-19", 0.213], ["2016-04-19", 0.213], ["2016-04-22", 0.216], ["2016-04-26", 0.216], ["2016-04-26", 0.214], ["2016-04-26", 0.212], ["2016-05-03", 0.21], ["2016-05-06", 0.211], ["2016-05-07", 0.21], ["2016-05-10", 0.211], ["2016-05-12", 0.211], ["2016-05-12", 0.211], ["2016-05-13", 0.205], ["2016-05-13", 0.204], ["2016-05-14", 0.204], ["2016-05-15", 0.204]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/12/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | While it is very difficult to combine quantum mechanics and gravity into a single theory of quantum gravity, it is widely believed that gravity is quantum mechanical -- in particular, that the gravitational field can exist in a quantum superposition of two configurations. However, this has never been directly tested. (The detection of gravitational waves in the CMB probably would have counted, but that detection is in serious doubt.)
Recently a table-top expermiment has been proposed that uses low-lying gravity-dependent energy states of an ultracold but macroscopic system to probe whether a gravitational superposition exists; see a useful explication of the idea here.
Will the proposed experiment -- or a close variant -- be performed by November 15, 2016 and submitted for publication or posted to a pre-print archive? | true | 2016-05-15 | Will quantized gravity soon be tested in the lab? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-01 | 2015-11-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-02", 0.2], ["2015-11-03", 0.3], ["2015-11-04", 0.25], ["2015-11-06", 0.262], ["2015-11-09", 0.24], ["2015-12-03", 0.267], ["2015-12-05", 0.293], ["2015-12-05", 0.325], ["2015-12-07", 0.333], ["2015-12-07", 0.354], ["2015-12-09", 0.391], ["2015-12-09", 0.4], ["2015-12-10", 0.403], ["2015-12-19", 0.392], ["2015-12-20", 0.414], ["2015-12-21", 0.411], ["2015-12-28", 0.408]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/13/ | Although far from human level in many respects, artificially intelligent (AI) systems and autonomous agents of greatly increasing sophistication are entering society in the form of, for example, automated trading, autonomous vehicles, robots, and autonomous weapons.
Such systems are beginning to make "decisions" that could save or cost human lives. For example:
Recently, an industrial robot in Germany, through a programming error, [fatally injured factory worker].
Autonomous vehicles are likely to save many lives as compared to human drivers, but could in principle malfunction, or in rare cases [be forced to "choose" to injure one person in order to save others] (a real-life version of the philosophical [trolley problem].)
[Autonomous weapons] engineered to to choose and engage targets without human intervention exist, and although they are (presently, formally) eschewed by most militaries, seem likely to be deployed in coming years unless prevented by [international agreement]. | Security & Defense | By March 1, 2016, will one of the top 25 news outlets by media traffic publish a story reporting that a "robot", "autonomous" system, or "AI" system, though an error or "choice", or failure to act appropriately, has directly caused physical harm to come to a human? | true | 2015-12-31 | In the coming months, will a robot/AI injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-01-15 | 2015-11-03 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-03", 0.32], ["2015-11-03", 0.32], ["2015-11-04", 0.36], ["2015-11-04", 0.377], ["2015-11-04", 0.347], ["2015-11-13", 0.262], ["2015-11-13", 0.262], ["2015-12-03", 0.29], ["2015-12-05", 0.308], ["2015-12-06", 0.35], ["2015-12-07", 0.381], ["2015-12-08", 0.349], ["2015-12-09", 0.349], ["2015-12-09", 0.349], ["2015-12-09", 0.349], ["2015-12-10", 0.346], ["2015-12-11", 0.348], ["2015-12-15", 0.322], ["2015-12-17", 0.317], ["2015-12-17", 0.309], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-20", 0.349], ["2015-12-21", 0.335], ["2015-12-30", 0.301], ["2015-12-30", 0.284], ["2015-12-31", 0.288], ["2015-12-31", 0.276]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/14/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | NASA's Kepler Mission discovered thousands of planets, but the mission ended in May 2013, when a second of the spacecraft's four reaction wheels failed.
The K2 Mission has repurposed the Kepler spacecraft to perform successive 80-day photometric observations of selected star fields in Earth's ecliptic plane. For bright stars, K2's precision limits are similar to those of the original Kepler Mission. The first planet detection from the K2 Mission has recently been published.
Here's the question:
Will a peer-reviewed publication based on K2 photometry announcing the discovery of a potentially habitable planet appear prior to January 1, 2016?
Here are some details:
For purposes of evaluation, a habitable planet is one that has a value greater than USD 1,000,000, as defined by the habitable planet valuation formula.
In the above equation, V is the V-band apparent magnitude of the host star. The planetary effective temperature is calculated using (following Batalha et al, we use f=1 and A=0.3), and the planetary mass is estimated using | true | 2016-01-01 | Will NASA's K2 Mission detect a potentially habitable planet in 2015? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-14 | 2015-11-04 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-09", 0.08], ["2015-11-26", 0.045], ["2015-12-03", 0.043], ["2015-12-05", 0.035], ["2015-12-06", 0.03], ["2015-12-07", 0.057], ["2015-12-08", 0.064], ["2015-12-08", 0.064], ["2015-12-09", 0.062], ["2015-12-09", 0.062], ["2015-12-09", 0.064], ["2015-12-10", 0.079], ["2015-12-10", 0.079], ["2015-12-11", 0.08], ["2015-12-11", 0.077], ["2015-12-18", 0.075], ["2015-12-20", 0.075], ["2015-12-27", 0.07], ["2015-12-27", 0.069], ["2015-12-27", 0.069], ["2015-12-31", 0.065], ["2016-01-01", 0.079], ["2016-01-03", 0.075], ["2016-01-04", 0.075], ["2016-01-05", 0.096], ["2016-01-07", 0.106], ["2016-01-12", 0.103], ["2016-01-21", 0.107], ["2016-01-21", 0.111], ["2016-01-21", 0.114], ["2016-01-22", 0.117], ["2016-01-23", 0.114], ["2016-01-26", 0.113], ["2016-01-27", 0.116], ["2016-01-28", 0.119], ["2016-01-28", 0.122], ["2016-01-28", 0.149], ["2016-01-28", 0.148], ["2016-01-29", 0.15], ["2016-01-29", 0.146], ["2016-01-29", 0.147], ["2016-01-31", 0.148], ["2016-01-31", 0.147], ["2016-01-31", 0.148]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/15/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Hawking's famous black hole information paradox, first formulated in his 1976 paper, concerns a conflict between the reversibility of known fundamental physical laws and the irreversibility of black hole formation and evaporation.
The Standard Model of particle physics, General Relativity, quantum and classical mechanics, and most extant proposed extensions of these theories are "unitary," meaning that all of the information in a system at some time can in principle be recovered from the same system at a later time, by running the laws of physics "backwards." Black holes appear to be a possible exception: Hawking's calculation of black hole evaporation predicts an information-free spectrum of radiation emitted, no matter what was thrown into the black hole.
Whether black holes violate unitary -- as claimed by Hawking -- has been fiercely controversial for decades. In 2004, Hawking conceded that unitarity is preserved, based on arguments related to the AdS/CFT correspondence. But even if this verdict is accepted, there is no widely-accepted explanation of how unitarity is preserved in detail, or how information actually escapes a black hole during evaporation.
In September 2015, Hawking claimed in a short paper to have made a breakthrough on this topic, and presented his ideas at a meeting, which also involved extensive discussions with eminent relativists Andy Strominger and Gary Gibbons. The central claim is that "the information is stored in a supertranslation associated with the shift of the horizon that the ingoing particles caused." Is this the key to unraveling the paradox?
The question will be resolved as "yes" if, by November 15, 2016, both Hawking's paper receives more than 100 citations, and any two of Leonard Susskind, John Preskill, and Raphael Bousso make statements in writing that the information paradox is essentially solved, and that the solution can be cast in terms of supertranslations defined on the horizon. | true | 2016-02-01 | Does Stephen Hawking's September paper contain the essence of a solution to the black hole information paradox? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-02 | 2015-11-05 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-06", 0.25], ["2015-11-07", 0.175], ["2015-12-03", 0.157], ["2015-12-05", 0.148], ["2015-12-06", 0.138], ["2015-12-09", 0.143], ["2015-12-09", 0.14], ["2015-12-10", 0.14], ["2015-12-11", 0.138], ["2015-12-20", 0.133], ["2016-01-01", 0.137], ["2016-01-04", 0.143], ["2016-01-04", 0.144], ["2016-01-05", 0.134], ["2016-01-05", 0.127], ["2016-01-09", 0.14], ["2016-01-17", 0.131], ["2016-01-19", 0.155], ["2016-01-19", 0.154], ["2016-01-20", 0.146], ["2016-01-21", 0.158], ["2016-01-21", 0.163], ["2016-01-25", 0.162], ["2016-01-26", 0.163], ["2016-01-27", 0.156], ["2016-01-28", 0.154], ["2016-01-28", 0.158], ["2016-01-28", 0.152], ["2016-01-31", 0.157], ["2016-02-01", 0.155], ["2016-02-02", 0.155], ["2016-02-02", 0.158], ["2016-02-03", 0.158], ["2016-02-03", 0.153], ["2016-02-04", 0.149], ["2016-02-04", 0.149], ["2016-02-04", 0.15], ["2016-02-08", 0.15], ["2016-02-09", 0.153], ["2016-02-09", 0.152], ["2016-02-10", 0.154], ["2016-02-15", 0.151], ["2016-02-15", 0.152], ["2016-02-16", 0.15], ["2016-02-16", 0.154], ["2016-02-16", 0.155], ["2016-02-17", 0.156], ["2016-02-17", 0.16], ["2016-02-19", 0.161], ["2016-02-19", 0.163], ["2016-02-19", 0.16], ["2016-02-19", 0.162], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.163], ["2016-02-20", 0.161], ["2016-02-20", 0.16], ["2016-02-22", 0.157], ["2016-02-23", 0.158], ["2016-02-28", 0.159], ["2016-02-28", 0.17], ["2016-03-02", 0.167], ["2016-03-02", 0.168], ["2016-03-04", 0.167], ["2016-03-09", 0.169], ["2016-03-11", 0.17], ["2016-03-12", 0.169], ["2016-03-13", 0.17], ["2016-03-15", 0.169], ["2016-03-16", 0.17], ["2016-03-16", 0.169], ["2016-03-17", 0.167], ["2016-03-18", 0.169], ["2016-03-18", 0.168], ["2016-03-20", 0.169], ["2016-03-25", 0.17], ["2016-03-27", 0.168], ["2016-03-29", 0.17], ["2016-03-30", 0.17], ["2016-03-30", 0.18], ["2016-04-01", 0.179], ["2016-04-01", 0.179], ["2016-04-09", 0.179], ["2016-04-09", 0.183], ["2016-04-12", 0.181], ["2016-04-14", 0.181], ["2016-04-15", 0.181], ["2016-04-15", 0.181], ["2016-04-21", 0.177], ["2016-04-21", 0.178], ["2016-04-21", 0.176], ["2016-04-21", 0.175], ["2016-04-23", 0.173], ["2016-04-24", 0.173], ["2016-04-26", 0.174], ["2016-04-26", 0.175], ["2016-04-26", 0.174], ["2016-04-26", 0.164], ["2016-04-27", 0.164], ["2016-04-28", 0.163], ["2016-04-29", 0.162], ["2016-04-29", 0.163]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/16/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In graph theory, two graphs are isomorphic if there is a one-to-one correspondence between their vertex sets (details here). The computational task of determining whether two graphs are isomorphic is known as the graph isomorphism problem. The problem arises in many applications, for example, in electronic design automation when one needs a demonstration that two circuit representations are equivalent.
The question of whether graph isomorphism is always solvable in polynomial time is a major open problem in computer science. The problem belongs to NP, but it has not yet been determined whether it is P or NP-complete.
A new breakthrough in the graph isomorphism problem is implied by the abstract of a theoretical computer science seminar scheduled for Nov. 10th, 2015 at the University of Chicago.
By June 1, 2017, will the graph isomorphism problem have been proved to always be solvable in polynomial time? | true | 2016-05-01 | Is Graph Isomorphism solvable in Polynomial Time? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-10 | 2015-11-06 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-19", 0.1], ["2015-12-03", 0.125], ["2015-12-05", 0.133], ["2015-12-06", 0.15], ["2015-12-07", 0.13], ["2015-12-07", 0.133], ["2015-12-08", 0.146], ["2015-12-09", 0.143], ["2015-12-10", 0.14], ["2015-12-11", 0.14], ["2015-12-16", 0.137], ["2015-12-20", 0.138], ["2015-12-23", 0.132], ["2015-12-23", 0.132], ["2015-12-31", 0.129], ["2016-01-01", 0.12], ["2016-01-01", 0.112], ["2016-01-03", 0.129], ["2016-01-05", 0.122], ["2016-01-05", 0.118]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/17/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Superparticles are partners to the standard model model particles such as protons, electrons, and photons, which would exist in supersymmetric models of fundamental physics.
Looking for signatures of supersymmetry is one of the primary goals of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which restarted recently for its second run.
The question will be considered resolved in the affirmative if a bet between Frank Wilczek and Garrett Lisi, refereed by Max Tegmark, is resolved in favor of Wilczek. | true | 2016-01-15 | Will superparticles be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider by July 8, 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-10 | 2015-11-07 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-19", 0.75], ["2015-12-03", 0.775], ["2015-12-05", 0.8], ["2015-12-06", 0.802], ["2015-12-07", 0.702], ["2015-12-07", 0.685], ["2015-12-08", 0.707], ["2015-12-08", 0.707], ["2015-12-09", 0.682], ["2015-12-10", 0.673], ["2015-12-10", 0.678], ["2015-12-11", 0.64], ["2015-12-11", 0.635], ["2015-12-11", 0.614], ["2015-12-11", 0.614], ["2015-12-16", 0.605], ["2015-12-16", 0.559], ["2015-12-17", 0.564], ["2015-12-19", 0.551], ["2015-12-20", 0.522], ["2015-12-20", 0.525], ["2015-12-21", 0.522], ["2015-12-21", 0.519], ["2015-12-22", 0.516], ["2015-12-22", 0.516], ["2015-12-22", 0.503], ["2015-12-27", 0.488], ["2015-12-27", 0.488], ["2015-12-30", 0.478], ["2016-01-01", 0.463], ["2016-01-03", 0.452], ["2016-01-04", 0.451], ["2016-01-05", 0.435], ["2016-01-05", 0.437], ["2016-01-07", 0.433], ["2016-01-07", 0.426], ["2016-01-07", 0.416], ["2016-01-07", 0.405], ["2016-01-09", 0.4], ["2016-01-11", 0.395], ["2016-01-13", 0.392], ["2016-01-15", 0.394], ["2016-01-15", 0.385], ["2016-01-16", 0.383], ["2016-01-20", 0.373], ["2016-01-20", 0.364], ["2016-01-20", 0.365], ["2016-01-21", 0.35], ["2016-01-21", 0.343], ["2016-01-21", 0.336], ["2016-01-21", 0.331], ["2016-01-22", 0.328], ["2016-01-22", 0.327], ["2016-01-23", 0.328], ["2016-01-23", 0.336], ["2016-01-24", 0.335], ["2016-01-25", 0.333], ["2016-01-26", 0.33], ["2016-01-26", 0.326], ["2016-01-26", 0.323], ["2016-01-27", 0.32], ["2016-01-27", 0.315], ["2016-01-27", 0.312], ["2016-01-27", 0.311], ["2016-01-27", 0.307], ["2016-01-28", 0.308], ["2016-01-28", 0.317], ["2016-01-28", 0.314], ["2016-01-30", 0.313], ["2016-01-31", 0.311], ["2016-01-31", 0.307], ["2016-02-01", 0.305], ["2016-02-01", 0.306], ["2016-02-02", 0.302], ["2016-02-02", 0.302], ["2016-02-03", 0.298], ["2016-02-04", 0.299], ["2016-02-04", 0.298], ["2016-02-04", 0.297], ["2016-02-05", 0.295], ["2016-02-05", 0.295], ["2016-02-08", 0.294], ["2016-02-08", 0.289], ["2016-02-09", 0.287], ["2016-02-09", 0.286], ["2016-02-09", 0.282], ["2016-02-10", 0.281], ["2016-02-10", 0.277], ["2016-02-11", 0.274], ["2016-02-11", 0.271], ["2016-02-11", 0.267], ["2016-02-11", 0.263], ["2016-02-12", 0.261], ["2016-02-12", 0.26], ["2016-02-13", 0.258], ["2016-02-13", 0.255], ["2016-02-14", 0.255], ["2016-02-15", 0.253], ["2016-02-15", 0.253], ["2016-02-15", 0.249], ["2016-02-16", 0.247]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/20/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | A major recent advance in genetic engineering has occurred in the past several years with the discovery of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), a bacterial DNA sequence that codes for a protein (Cas9) and RNA combination that can locate a specific DNA sequence and splice the DNA strand at that location. This enables dramatically simplified genetic editing and engineering relative to recombinant DNA technologies.
The CRISPR system has been used successfully in complex organisms including adult mice and embryonic humans.
The ease and low cost of CRISPR techniques have opened the doors to the creation of novel organisms both by professional biologists and also by amateur self-described 'biohackers.' For example, there is now an "iGEM" yearly competition for DIY genetic engineering (modification of existing organisms) and synthetic biology (generation of qualitatively novel organisms.) Another example is a current crowdfunded campaign to produce low-cost 'biohack at home' kits.
By July 1, 2016, will a verified incident occur in which a non-professional (neither employed by a company, government or university, nor a PhD student) genetically engineer an organism that is then released (or escapes) into the wild where it becomes distinct and detectable part of the population? | true | 2016-02-16 | By July 1, 2016 will a 'biohacker' create a new life form that enters the ecosystem? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-18 | 2015-11-08 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-08", 0.08], ["2015-12-09", 0.095], ["2015-12-09", 0.107], ["2015-12-09", 0.118], ["2015-12-09", 0.134], ["2015-12-10", 0.142], ["2015-12-10", 0.153], ["2015-12-10", 0.159], ["2015-12-12", 0.16], ["2015-12-12", 0.163], ["2015-12-12", 0.164], ["2015-12-12", 0.164], ["2015-12-15", 0.163], ["2015-12-20", 0.162], ["2015-12-21", 0.215], ["2015-12-22", 0.217], ["2015-12-26", 0.203]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/22/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | There has been significant interest in the imminent advent of autonomous lethal weapons, which would select, engage, and harm targets that they have chosen according to some pre-assigned mission or criteria. Most major military powers formally claim to eschew such weapons, but there is little question that they are under active development.
A recent open letter signed by over 3000 AI researchers has argued that an arms race in autonomous offensive weapons would likely lead to their widespread use and that "Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group." The letter calls for an international agreement pre-emptively banning such weapons.
Several advocacy groups including the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots have also called for such a ban, and the issue has been discussed at the UN, most recently at a meeting on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Although there appears to be strong support in the AI research community to avoid such an arms race, there is an active debate, with some arguing against such a ban.
The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), the major professional organization for AI researchers, has discussed the issue at past meetings, and hosted a debate in 2015 regarding these weapons. But the AAAI as an organization has not taken any formal position on autonomous weapons.
When the AAAI next meets in February 12-17 2016, will it vote on and adopt a formal position (of any sort) on autonomous weapons? | true | 2016-01-01 | Will the AI's major professional society take a position on "killer robots"? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-07 | 2015-11-08 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-12", 0.6], ["2015-11-23", 0.52], ["2015-12-03", 0.447], ["2015-12-05", 0.422], ["2015-12-05", 0.398], ["2015-12-07", 0.432], ["2015-12-08", 0.448], ["2015-12-10", 0.436], ["2015-12-11", 0.432], ["2015-12-16", 0.427], ["2015-12-19", 0.413], ["2015-12-22", 0.423], ["2015-12-24", 0.435], ["2016-01-01", 0.418], ["2016-01-01", 0.418], ["2016-01-03", 0.413], ["2016-01-04", 0.421], ["2016-01-05", 0.396], ["2016-01-07", 0.381], ["2016-01-07", 0.369], ["2016-01-09", 0.38], ["2016-01-14", 0.398], ["2016-01-16", 0.407], ["2016-01-21", 0.41], ["2016-01-23", 0.403], ["2016-01-25", 0.413], ["2016-01-27", 0.432], ["2016-01-28", 0.45], ["2016-01-30", 0.452], ["2016-01-31", 0.452], ["2016-01-31", 0.45], ["2016-02-01", 0.451], ["2016-02-02", 0.452], ["2016-02-03", 0.446], ["2016-02-04", 0.447], ["2016-02-05", 0.448], ["2016-02-07", 0.443], ["2016-02-08", 0.452], ["2016-02-09", 0.454], ["2016-02-11", 0.45], ["2016-02-12", 0.445], ["2016-02-13", 0.447], ["2016-02-13", 0.445], ["2016-02-15", 0.443], ["2016-02-16", 0.443], ["2016-02-17", 0.45], ["2016-02-18", 0.451], ["2016-02-19", 0.445], ["2016-02-20", 0.45], ["2016-02-20", 0.45], ["2016-02-22", 0.439], ["2016-02-23", 0.439], ["2016-02-24", 0.439], ["2016-02-28", 0.443], ["2016-02-29", 0.439], ["2016-02-29", 0.438], ["2016-03-02", 0.439], ["2016-03-03", 0.441], ["2016-03-05", 0.442], ["2016-03-09", 0.448], ["2016-03-10", 0.448], ["2016-03-12", 0.458], ["2016-03-13", 0.46], ["2016-03-14", 0.46], ["2016-03-15", 0.457], ["2016-03-16", 0.453], ["2016-03-18", 0.453], ["2016-03-19", 0.453], ["2016-03-21", 0.452], ["2016-03-22", 0.44], ["2016-03-23", 0.437], ["2016-03-24", 0.437], ["2016-03-24", 0.437], ["2016-03-26", 0.435], ["2016-03-27", 0.436], ["2016-03-29", 0.435], ["2016-03-30", 0.443], ["2016-04-01", 0.44], ["2016-04-04", 0.439], ["2016-04-07", 0.438], ["2016-04-09", 0.436], ["2016-04-12", 0.437], ["2016-04-13", 0.437], ["2016-04-14", 0.432], ["2016-04-15", 0.433], ["2016-04-16", 0.432], ["2016-04-18", 0.432], ["2016-04-18", 0.431], ["2016-04-26", 0.431], ["2016-04-26", 0.43], ["2016-05-01", 0.43], ["2016-05-02", 0.43], ["2016-05-03", 0.427], ["2016-05-09", 0.431], ["2016-05-12", 0.433], ["2016-05-16", 0.434], ["2016-05-16", 0.434], ["2016-05-18", 0.433], ["2016-06-05", 0.435], ["2016-06-06", 0.433], ["2016-06-07", 0.428]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/23/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | A major recent advance in genetic engineering has occurred in the past several years with the discovery of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), a bacterial DNA sequence that codes for a protein (Cas9) and RNA combination that can locate a specific DNA sequence and splice the DNA strand at that location. This enables dramatically simplified genetic editing and engineering relative to recombinant DNA technologies.
The CRISPR system has been used successfully in complex organisms including adult mice and embryonic humans.
Recently, biotech startup Editas has announced that it hopes to begin clinical trials using CRISPR to modify the DNA of living adult humans to treat a rare eye disease called Leber congenital amaurosis.
Will Editas or another company enter into the US database a clinical trial with a start date prior to Dec. 31, 2017 that uses CRISPR to modify the DNA of a living human in order to treat a medical condition? | true | 2016-06-07 | Will a clinical trial begin by the end of 2017 using CRISPR to genetically modify a living human? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-11-09 | 2015-11-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-01", 0.21], ["2016-01-05", 0.189], ["2016-01-09", 0.199], ["2016-01-09", 0.191], ["2016-01-17", 0.188], ["2016-01-20", 0.212], ["2016-01-22", 0.19], ["2016-01-25", 0.186], ["2016-01-28", 0.227], ["2016-01-31", 0.226], ["2016-02-03", 0.224], ["2016-02-05", 0.224], ["2016-02-08", 0.216], ["2016-02-10", 0.214], ["2016-02-15", 0.214], ["2016-02-18", 0.211], ["2016-02-20", 0.209], ["2016-02-24", 0.206], ["2016-02-27", 0.203], ["2016-02-28", 0.214], ["2016-03-02", 0.211], ["2016-03-05", 0.222], ["2016-03-07", 0.222], ["2016-03-10", 0.224], ["2016-03-13", 0.232], ["2016-03-15", 0.224], ["2016-03-17", 0.223], ["2016-03-20", 0.226], ["2016-03-22", 0.224], ["2016-03-24", 0.222], ["2016-03-26", 0.228], ["2016-03-30", 0.226], ["2016-04-01", 0.226], ["2016-04-06", 0.226], ["2016-04-12", 0.227], ["2016-04-15", 0.221], ["2016-04-18", 0.219], ["2016-04-21", 0.219], ["2016-04-26", 0.219], ["2016-04-28", 0.22], ["2016-05-03", 0.227], ["2016-05-04", 0.226], ["2016-05-09", 0.226], ["2016-05-10", 0.227], ["2016-05-15", 0.226], ["2016-05-17", 0.226], ["2016-05-22", 0.224], ["2016-06-06", 0.23], ["2016-06-07", 0.232], ["2016-06-11", 0.232], ["2016-06-13", 0.231], ["2016-06-19", 0.231], ["2016-06-20", 0.225], ["2016-06-24", 0.227], ["2016-06-27", 0.226], ["2016-06-28", 0.226], ["2016-07-01", 0.22], ["2016-07-04", 0.22], ["2016-07-06", 0.223], ["2016-07-10", 0.221], ["2016-07-12", 0.221], ["2016-07-15", 0.225], ["2016-07-21", 0.224], ["2016-07-23", 0.223], ["2016-07-26", 0.226], ["2016-07-27", 0.242], ["2016-07-30", 0.258], ["2016-08-02", 0.265], ["2016-08-06", 0.252], ["2016-08-10", 0.251], ["2016-08-13", 0.249], ["2016-08-17", 0.244], ["2016-08-19", 0.241], ["2016-08-21", 0.239], ["2016-08-24", 0.238], ["2016-08-27", 0.236], ["2016-08-29", 0.235], ["2016-08-31", 0.237], ["2016-09-02", 0.24], ["2016-09-04", 0.239], ["2016-09-07", 0.241], ["2016-09-10", 0.239], ["2016-09-12", 0.239], ["2016-09-15", 0.241], ["2016-09-18", 0.246], ["2016-09-21", 0.249], ["2016-09-22", 0.249], ["2016-09-25", 0.249], ["2016-09-28", 0.251], ["2016-10-01", 0.249], ["2016-10-04", 0.251], ["2016-10-06", 0.251], ["2016-10-09", 0.25], ["2016-10-11", 0.249], ["2016-10-14", 0.248], ["2016-10-17", 0.247], ["2016-10-21", 0.244], ["2016-10-24", 0.24], ["2016-10-27", 0.237], ["2016-10-30", 0.237], ["2016-11-02", 0.237]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/24/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Until Barack Obama, every single US president has been a white, Christian, non-Hispanic man. Will we revert to that trend?
This is an excercise in combining probabilities.
At the time of publication, we have three major contenders for the Democratic nomination: Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley.
Of these, only O'Malley would fit the characteristics in the question (Sanders being Jewish and Clinton female).
On the Republican side, we have Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Rubio, Santorum, and Trump.
Of these, Bush, Christie, Gilmore, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Santorum, and Trump fit the characteristics of the question (this counts Cruz and Rubio as Hispanic.)
As a simple example, if we assume that all Democratic candidates are equally likely to receive the Democratic nomination, and all Republican candidates are equally likely to receive the Republican nomination, and that there is a 50-50 chance of a Republican or Democrat winning, then the probability for this question to resolve in the positive would be:
0.5 x (8/12) + 0.5 x (1/3) = 50%
In reality, the various probabilities are not equal and a different calculation should be done. So what do you think:
Will the next elected U.S. President be (as usual) a white, Christian, non-Hispanic man? | true | 2016-11-02 | Will the next elected U.S. President be (as usual) a white, Christian, non-Hispanic man? | metaculus | 1 |
2015-12-16 | 2015-11-13 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-17", 0.05], ["2015-11-23", 0.125]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/30/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Quantum computers make use of the properties of quantum mechanical (as opposed to classical) systems to solve certain problems much more efficiently than a classical computer can.
For example, using a quantum computer, large numbers could in principle be factored into primes using Shor's algorithm in polynomial time, versus near-exponential time for classical computers; this latter inefficiency underlies the security of many encryption schemes.
A prototypical quantum computer is composed of N "qubits," or quantum mechanical bits. Keeping these qubits operating as a closed system that retains its quantum character (without "decohering" via interactions with the environment) is a difficult challenge for more than a handful of qubits.
However, there have been a series of claims by D-wave systems that it had constructed quantum computers of a different type with thousands of qubits. These machines cannot enact generic quantum compuing algorithms like Shor's. However they are claimed to be dramatically faster at certain optimization problems.
There has been widespread skepticism towards D-wave's claims, with some asserting that D-wave's system does not use quantum mechanics at all, and others arguing that even if it does, that this provides no real speedup relative to classical computers.
Nonetheless, Google has purchased D-wave systems for testing, and Google, NASA and others recently signed a multi-year agreement to test the systems.
On November 11, a D-wave board member has announced that there will be a "watershed announcement" at Google on Dec. 8 about quantum computing. Will this occur, and be a major change or breakthrough in computing or quantum computing?
The question resolves as "true" if either the New York Times or Washington Post carries a story based on Google's Announcement on the front page prior to December 15, 2015. | true | 2015-12-01 | Will Google make a "watershed" announcement about quantum computing in early December? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-02 | 2015-11-15 | [] | binary | [["2015-11-26", 0.05], ["2015-11-26", 0.463], ["2015-12-03", 0.46], ["2015-12-03", 0.448], ["2015-12-05", 0.446], ["2015-12-05", 0.43], ["2015-12-09", 0.423], ["2015-12-09", 0.395], ["2015-12-10", 0.376], ["2015-12-10", 0.376], ["2015-12-16", 0.379], ["2015-12-17", 0.372], ["2015-12-19", 0.42], ["2015-12-20", 0.391], ["2015-12-27", 0.398], ["2015-12-31", 0.377], ["2016-01-01", 0.4], ["2016-01-02", 0.406], ["2016-01-03", 0.443], ["2016-01-04", 0.427], ["2016-01-04", 0.423], ["2016-01-05", 0.45], ["2016-01-07", 0.45], ["2016-01-07", 0.437], ["2016-01-08", 0.428], ["2016-01-11", 0.423], ["2016-01-12", 0.43], ["2016-01-13", 0.419], ["2016-01-14", 0.405], ["2016-01-20", 0.399], ["2016-01-21", 0.383], ["2016-01-21", 0.387], ["2016-01-24", 0.382], ["2016-01-25", 0.377], ["2016-01-26", 0.382], ["2016-01-26", 0.38], ["2016-01-27", 0.384], ["2016-01-28", 0.398], ["2016-01-31", 0.398], ["2016-02-01", 0.396], ["2016-02-02", 0.379], ["2016-02-04", 0.373], ["2016-02-04", 0.373], ["2016-02-05", 0.371], ["2016-02-07", 0.37], ["2016-02-08", 0.371], ["2016-02-09", 0.373], ["2016-02-09", 0.375], ["2016-02-10", 0.376], ["2016-02-11", 0.382], ["2016-02-11", 0.379], ["2016-02-12", 0.374], ["2016-02-13", 0.372], ["2016-02-14", 0.367], ["2016-02-15", 0.364], ["2016-02-15", 0.363], ["2016-02-16", 0.363], ["2016-02-16", 0.355], ["2016-02-17", 0.348], ["2016-02-19", 0.347], ["2016-02-19", 0.347], ["2016-02-20", 0.344], ["2016-02-21", 0.342], ["2016-02-21", 0.346], ["2016-02-21", 0.343], ["2016-02-22", 0.343], ["2016-02-23", 0.344], ["2016-02-24", 0.342], ["2016-02-24", 0.342], ["2016-02-28", 0.346], ["2016-02-28", 0.345], ["2016-03-01", 0.345], ["2016-03-02", 0.342], ["2016-03-02", 0.344], ["2016-03-04", 0.343], ["2016-03-07", 0.342], ["2016-03-07", 0.341], ["2016-03-08", 0.341], ["2016-03-08", 0.339], ["2016-03-09", 0.345], ["2016-03-10", 0.344], ["2016-03-11", 0.34], ["2016-03-12", 0.337], ["2016-03-13", 0.335], ["2016-03-13", 0.339], ["2016-03-16", 0.338], ["2016-03-16", 0.336], ["2016-03-17", 0.332], ["2016-03-18", 0.332], ["2016-03-22", 0.329], ["2016-03-22", 0.328], ["2016-03-24", 0.325], ["2016-03-25", 0.324], ["2016-03-26", 0.324], ["2016-03-26", 0.323], ["2016-03-28", 0.323], ["2016-03-28", 0.322], ["2016-03-29", 0.321], ["2016-03-31", 0.321], ["2016-03-31", 0.32], ["2016-04-01", 0.318]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/31/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Because many formulations of quantum mechanics explicitly include the "observer" (or at least "observation"), the place of conscious observers in the foundations of quantum mechanics has been a frequent, and quite controversial, issue.
Conversely, difficult questions regarding how conscious or mental activity is related to brain activity (the so-called "hard problem") have led some to suppose that this mystery may be related to puzzles involving quantum mechanics. Penrose, for example, has argued that the mind/brain cannot be modeled as a classical device, and that quantum effects are integral to thought.
If the brain really acts as a quantum computer, then it should presumably contain quantum systems sufficiently isolated from their environment to retain their essential quantum nature, rather than decohering into effectively classical systems. This is a challenge in the warm, wet environment of the brain, where studies have calculated that quantum states of electron-based systems should decohere in a tiny fraction of a second.
On the other hand, if quantum effects are potentially useful, the evolutionary drive toward high optimization is likely to have exploited them. And indeed, there is good evidence that quantum effects are employed in photosynthesis and some other biological processes.
Recently, a provocative paper by well-known physicist Matthew Fisher has appeared arguing that the nuceli of atoms are sufficiently isolated from the brain environment that nuclear spins could be used to store qubits, and manipulation of certain compounds could instantiate quantum computation. The paper proposes several experiments that could help validate or refute the hypotheses it puts forth.
Will this "quantum cognition" hypothesis be taken sufficiently seriously by the scientific community to investigate and test it?
The question will resolve as true if, by December 1, 2016, (a) The paper attains at least 15 citations as reported by Google Scholar, and (b) a paper is published or posted on the arXiv reporting a completed laboratory experiment that was inspired by (and directly references) Fisher's paper. | true | 2016-04-01 | Experimental tests of quantum effects in cognition? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-30 | 2015-12-02 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-04", 0.66], ["2015-12-05", 0.57], ["2015-12-05", 0.43], ["2015-12-06", 0.385], ["2015-12-06", 0.368], ["2015-12-07", 0.34], ["2015-12-09", 0.337], ["2015-12-09", 0.337], ["2015-12-09", 0.312], ["2015-12-09", 0.306], ["2015-12-16", 0.325], ["2015-12-20", 0.322], ["2015-12-21", 0.321], ["2015-12-23", 0.308], ["2016-01-05", 0.329], ["2016-01-20", 0.346], ["2016-01-21", 0.354], ["2016-01-21", 0.359], ["2016-01-26", 0.371], ["2016-01-27", 0.377], ["2016-01-27", 0.36], ["2016-01-28", 0.361], ["2016-01-28", 0.364], ["2016-01-28", 0.391], ["2016-01-28", 0.384], ["2016-01-28", 0.408], ["2016-01-31", 0.41], ["2016-01-31", 0.411], ["2016-02-01", 0.411], ["2016-02-02", 0.412], ["2016-02-03", 0.403], ["2016-02-04", 0.402], ["2016-02-04", 0.404], ["2016-02-08", 0.401], ["2016-02-09", 0.398], ["2016-02-09", 0.399], ["2016-02-10", 0.4], ["2016-02-10", 0.4], ["2016-02-10", 0.401], ["2016-02-10", 0.395], ["2016-02-11", 0.394], ["2016-02-11", 0.394], ["2016-02-15", 0.39], ["2016-02-15", 0.391], ["2016-02-15", 0.397], ["2016-02-16", 0.394], ["2016-02-16", 0.394], ["2016-02-17", 0.392], ["2016-02-18", 0.392], ["2016-02-18", 0.39], ["2016-02-18", 0.39], ["2016-02-19", 0.39], ["2016-02-19", 0.395], ["2016-02-19", 0.394], ["2016-02-19", 0.392], ["2016-02-19", 0.393], ["2016-02-20", 0.392], ["2016-02-20", 0.392], ["2016-02-20", 0.392], ["2016-02-20", 0.388], ["2016-02-20", 0.384], ["2016-02-20", 0.383], ["2016-02-21", 0.384], ["2016-02-21", 0.386], ["2016-02-21", 0.386], ["2016-02-23", 0.387], ["2016-02-23", 0.387], ["2016-02-24", 0.388], ["2016-02-25", 0.388], ["2016-02-28", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.387], ["2016-02-29", 0.386], ["2016-02-29", 0.386]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/32/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Arts & Recreation | Egyptologist Nicholas Reeves has put together a case that King Tut was buried in an expanded entryway to Queen Nefertiti's tomb, and that her tomb remains undisturbed through a (proposed) sealed doorway.
In September, Reeves, along with Mamdouh Eldamaty, the Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, were granted permission to enter Tutankhamun's tomb.
Reeves' group has reported that recent radar scans reveal (with "approximately 90 percent" probability) that there is an additional chamber (or more.)
Will Reeves turn out to be correct that another royal tomb lays beyond King Tut's that may be Nefertiti's?
The question resolves positively if by June 30, the New York Times or Washington Post carries a news article stating that an additional royal burial chamber has been "discovered" and that the chamber is not inconsistent with being Nefertiti's. | true | 2016-02-29 | Is Nefertiti's tomb adjacent to King Tut's? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-05-01 | 2015-12-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-01", 0.98], ["2016-01-01", 0.97], ["2016-01-01", 0.98], ["2016-01-02", 0.977], ["2016-01-02", 0.97], ["2016-01-02", 0.962], ["2016-01-03", 0.93], ["2016-01-03", 0.925], ["2016-01-03", 0.923], ["2016-01-04", 0.929], ["2016-01-09", 0.934], ["2016-01-10", 0.931], ["2016-01-11", 0.901], ["2016-01-11", 0.905], ["2016-01-12", 0.901], ["2016-01-19", 0.896], ["2016-01-19", 0.888], ["2016-01-20", 0.859], ["2016-01-21", 0.854], ["2016-01-21", 0.84], ["2016-01-21", 0.831], ["2016-01-21", 0.828], ["2016-01-22", 0.831], ["2016-01-23", 0.832], ["2016-01-24", 0.84], ["2016-01-25", 0.836], ["2016-01-26", 0.835], ["2016-01-26", 0.842], ["2016-01-26", 0.846], ["2016-01-27", 0.83], ["2016-01-27", 0.827], ["2016-01-27", 0.828], ["2016-01-28", 0.833], ["2016-01-28", 0.838], ["2016-01-28", 0.835], ["2016-01-28", 0.84], ["2016-01-31", 0.836], ["2016-02-01", 0.839], ["2016-02-02", 0.837], ["2016-02-04", 0.842], ["2016-02-04", 0.843], ["2016-02-04", 0.838], ["2016-02-05", 0.835], ["2016-02-05", 0.839], ["2016-02-06", 0.843], ["2016-02-08", 0.838], ["2016-02-09", 0.839], ["2016-02-09", 0.84], ["2016-02-09", 0.838], ["2016-02-09", 0.838], ["2016-02-10", 0.84], ["2016-02-10", 0.844], ["2016-02-10", 0.847], ["2016-02-10", 0.848], ["2016-02-10", 0.847], ["2016-02-11", 0.845], ["2016-02-11", 0.849], ["2016-02-11", 0.851], ["2016-02-11", 0.853], ["2016-02-12", 0.854], ["2016-02-13", 0.856], ["2016-02-13", 0.857], ["2016-02-15", 0.859], ["2016-02-15", 0.86], ["2016-02-15", 0.847], ["2016-02-15", 0.848], ["2016-02-16", 0.846], ["2016-02-16", 0.846], ["2016-02-17", 0.848], ["2016-02-17", 0.849], ["2016-02-17", 0.851], ["2016-02-18", 0.837], ["2016-02-18", 0.838], ["2016-02-19", 0.84], ["2016-02-19", 0.842], ["2016-02-19", 0.844], ["2016-02-19", 0.846], ["2016-02-19", 0.849], ["2016-02-20", 0.843], ["2016-02-20", 0.844], ["2016-02-20", 0.843], ["2016-02-20", 0.841], ["2016-02-20", 0.84], ["2016-02-20", 0.834], ["2016-02-20", 0.836], ["2016-02-20", 0.838], ["2016-02-20", 0.839], ["2016-02-21", 0.834], ["2016-02-21", 0.83], ["2016-02-21", 0.832], ["2016-02-23", 0.83], ["2016-02-24", 0.834], ["2016-02-24", 0.837], ["2016-02-24", 0.838], ["2016-02-26", 0.839], ["2016-02-28", 0.832], ["2016-02-28", 0.831]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/33/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Note: This question is part of the Metaculus tutorial series on the art and science of making successful quantitative predictions. Additional useful information can be found at the Metaculus FAQ.
Most new internet sites don't generate much interest. If a site can bring in over a thousand active users in a few months, it's doing very well. In this question, we set the bar a little lower, and see whether:
Metaculus has greater than one thousand total unique sign ups by May.
This is an exercise in extrapolation, a key method of prediction. To get things started, the total number of registered users (albeit with some duplicate registrations) for the few weeks prior to question publication are:
12/12/2015 38
12/19/2015 67
12/26/2015 93
01/01/2015 129
Positive or negative resolution to be decided by site moderators by May 4, 2016. | true | 2016-03-01 | [Tutorial:] Will Metaculus have over one thousand users signed up by May 1, 2016. | metaculus | 1 |
2016-12-05 | 2015-12-10 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-15", 0.15], ["2015-12-15", 0.175], ["2015-12-15", 0.207], ["2015-12-17", 0.21], ["2015-12-17", 0.216], ["2015-12-20", 0.225], ["2015-12-20", 0.221], ["2015-12-21", 0.226], ["2015-12-21", 0.229], ["2015-12-31", 0.226], ["2016-01-01", 0.215], ["2016-01-03", 0.252], ["2016-01-05", 0.308], ["2016-01-13", 0.294], ["2016-01-21", 0.324], ["2016-01-21", 0.327], ["2016-01-25", 0.319], ["2016-01-26", 0.319], ["2016-01-28", 0.322], ["2016-01-28", 0.321], ["2016-01-28", 0.353], ["2016-01-29", 0.341], ["2016-01-30", 0.334], ["2016-01-31", 0.339], ["2016-02-01", 0.329], ["2016-02-02", 0.33], ["2016-02-03", 0.319], ["2016-02-04", 0.307], ["2016-02-04", 0.307], ["2016-02-04", 0.312], ["2016-02-05", 0.308], ["2016-02-06", 0.303], ["2016-02-07", 0.305], ["2016-02-09", 0.302], ["2016-02-09", 0.301], ["2016-02-10", 0.301], ["2016-02-10", 0.301], ["2016-02-12", 0.306], ["2016-02-15", 0.301], ["2016-02-15", 0.294], ["2016-02-15", 0.309], ["2016-02-16", 0.311], ["2016-02-16", 0.306], ["2016-02-17", 0.301], ["2016-02-17", 0.295], ["2016-02-17", 0.288], ["2016-02-19", 0.289], ["2016-02-19", 0.294], ["2016-02-19", 0.295], ["2016-02-19", 0.292], ["2016-02-20", 0.292], ["2016-02-20", 0.292], ["2016-02-20", 0.294], ["2016-02-20", 0.29], ["2016-02-20", 0.288], ["2016-02-21", 0.289], ["2016-02-21", 0.284], ["2016-02-28", 0.292], ["2016-03-01", 0.296], ["2016-03-06", 0.299], ["2016-03-08", 0.3], ["2016-03-10", 0.299], ["2016-03-10", 0.295], ["2016-03-10", 0.296], ["2016-03-11", 0.296], ["2016-03-12", 0.296], ["2016-03-12", 0.296], ["2016-03-13", 0.294], ["2016-03-13", 0.293], ["2016-03-13", 0.303], ["2016-03-14", 0.303], ["2016-03-18", 0.302], ["2016-03-18", 0.302], ["2016-03-20", 0.303], ["2016-03-21", 0.299], ["2016-03-22", 0.298], ["2016-03-26", 0.295], ["2016-03-28", 0.297], ["2016-03-30", 0.306], ["2016-04-01", 0.304], ["2016-04-01", 0.304], ["2016-04-07", 0.302], ["2016-04-12", 0.301], ["2016-04-14", 0.301], ["2016-04-20", 0.3], ["2016-04-24", 0.297], ["2016-04-28", 0.293], ["2016-05-16", 0.291], ["2016-05-16", 0.29], ["2016-05-17", 0.291], ["2016-05-20", 0.287], ["2016-05-25", 0.288], ["2016-05-30", 0.285], ["2016-05-31", 0.277], ["2016-05-31", 0.277], ["2016-06-01", 0.278], ["2016-06-01", 0.277]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/36/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Godel's first incompleteness theorem, one of the most celebrated results in mathematics, asserts that in sufficiently complex axiomatic formal systems there will be statements that are knowably true, yet unprovable within the formal system.
A related result due to Turing proves that the halting problem (of determining whether a general computer program will halt or run forever) is undecidable in that no Turing Machine exists that can solve it.
Though of deep importance in mathematics and theoretical computer science, these results have generally been considered to have few if any implications for physics, and by extension the natural world. (Though see this result in classical physics, and the extended discussions by Penrose, Chaitin, Barrow, Tegmark and Aaronson.)
A fascinating new result by Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, and Wolf (CPW; see Nature paper and infinitely long arXiv paper) suggests that the implications may be stronger than previously thought. They prove that in certain idealized quantum systems, the existence of a finite energy "gap" between the ground state and first excited state is formally undecidable. They moreover prove that as the number of lattice sites L increases toward infinite, a gap may appear and/or disappear at values of L that are undecidable.
This result potentially calls into question standard operating procedure in many quantum many-body physics problems. However, its applicability to realistic physical systems is as yet unclear, calling for further work.
In the next year will a paper be published establishing a new version of, extension to, or result derived from, Cubitt et al.'s theorem that applies to an actually existing physical system (including one fabricated in the lab for this purpose)? | true | 2016-06-01 | Are there physical systems with properties that are impossible in principle to predict? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-01-16 | 2015-12-10 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-10", 0.02], ["2015-12-10", 0.015], ["2015-12-10", 0.02], ["2015-12-11", 0.022], ["2015-12-11", 0.022], ["2015-12-12", 0.022], ["2015-12-12", 0.022], ["2015-12-12", 0.022], ["2015-12-14", 0.026], ["2015-12-15", 0.029], ["2015-12-15", 0.027], ["2015-12-19", 0.025], ["2015-12-20", 0.032], ["2015-12-20", 0.032], ["2015-12-21", 0.032], ["2015-12-21", 0.033], ["2015-12-27", 0.031], ["2015-12-27", 0.048], ["2015-12-27", 0.048], ["2015-12-27", 0.048], ["2015-12-27", 0.042], ["2015-12-29", 0.044], ["2015-12-29", 0.044], ["2015-12-31", 0.044], ["2015-12-31", 0.043]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/37/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | On December 8th 2015, two papers independently suggesting the possible discoveries of new planet-sized objects in the outer reaches of our own solar system were posted to the astro-ph pre-print server.
The first paper -- submitted for publication, but as-yet not peer reviewed -- describes the serendipitous detection, using the new ALMA array, of a moving source in the constellation Aquila:
Vlemmings et al. (2015) -- The serendipitous discovery of a possible new solar system object with ALMA
The Vlemmings et al. object, which the authors of the paper have named "Gna", was observed in the sub-millimeter continuum at 345 GHz. It has properties that are consistent with either a Centaur-like minor planet at a roughly Uranus-like distance of 12 to 25 AU, or more intriguingly, with a large rogue planet traversing the the solar system at ~4,000 Earth-Sun distances. (A third possibility, of course, is that the source is a false alarm, or something else entirely.)
The second proposed candidate was also found with ALMA, as described in this unrefereed preprint:
Liseau et al. (2015) -- A new submm source within a few arcseconds of α Centauri: ALMA discovers the most distant object of the solar system
The discoverers argue that this source is either an extreme TNO (trans-Neptunian object), a super-earth sized planet, or a very cool brown dwarf in the outer realm of the solar system.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Fortunately, however, if either one of these observations has actually found an planet-sized or larger object in the outer solar system, it will be easy to confirm that the object truly exists.
On or before January 15th, 2016, will confirmation by an independent team of astronomers of one (or both) of these objects as a planetary-mass object beyond 100 AU be reported in either the New York Times or the Washington Post? | true | 2015-12-31 | Has new a planetary-mass object been discovered in the outer solar system? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-20 | 2015-12-15 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-15", 0.17], ["2015-12-15", 0.18], ["2015-12-15", 0.123], ["2015-12-15", 0.155], ["2015-12-17", 0.174], ["2015-12-17", 0.162], ["2015-12-17", 0.161], ["2015-12-17", 0.14], ["2015-12-17", 0.124], ["2015-12-18", 0.111], ["2015-12-19", 0.101], ["2015-12-20", 0.099], ["2015-12-20", 0.099], ["2015-12-20", 0.096], ["2015-12-20", 0.098], ["2015-12-20", 0.1], ["2015-12-21", 0.1], ["2015-12-22", 0.094], ["2015-12-26", 0.098], ["2015-12-31", 0.097], ["2016-01-01", 0.093], ["2016-01-03", 0.088], ["2016-01-03", 0.108], ["2016-01-04", 0.126], ["2016-01-04", 0.104], ["2016-01-04", 0.126], ["2016-01-04", 0.109], ["2016-01-04", 0.106], ["2016-01-04", 0.103], ["2016-01-05", 0.096], ["2016-01-06", 0.093], ["2016-01-07", 0.107], ["2016-01-07", 0.108], ["2016-01-08", 0.108], ["2016-01-10", 0.106], ["2016-01-12", 0.116], ["2016-01-12", 0.116], ["2016-01-12", 0.112], ["2016-01-14", 0.109]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/38/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Names and labels carry a heavy freight and they get people worked up. The agonized IAU deliberations vis-à-vis Pluto’s status as a "plutoid" or a planet or a dwarf planet constituted by far the biggest planet news of 2006. The issue of what to call an astronomical object can have important consequences. It’s unlikely that the wildly successful New Horizons Mission would have gotten its congressional funding approval if Pluto had never held the status of a named planet.
Galileo, in sighting the moons of Jupiter, made the first telescopic discovery of new worlds. He tried to increase his odds of patronage by naming his new moons “The Medicean Stars” in reference to Cosimo II de’ Medici, fourth Grand Duke of Tuscany. The "Medicean Stars", however, are neither medicean nor stars, and so it’s not surprising that the name failed to stick.
The International Astronomical Union has just announced officially sanctioned names for 31 extrasolar planets. For example, the first extrasolar planet discovered in orbit around a sunlike star, 51 Peg b, can now officially be referred to as "Dimidium".
There have been numerous attempts to name extrasolar planets, but none have replaced the system currently in use, in which lower-case letters are appended to the name of the parent star as successive planets are discovered, for example Gliese 876b, Gliese 876c, etc.
Will the official IAU sanction be enough to influence astronomical usage?
During the month of December, 2016, will papers published in the peer-reviewed astronomical literature refer to the 31 IAU-sanctioned planet names with greater frequency than they refer to the same 31 planets by their traditional names? | true | 2016-01-15 | Will the IAU-sanctioned Exoplanet Names come into regular use? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-08-15 | 2015-12-16 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-16", 0.18], ["2015-12-17", 0.076], ["2015-12-18", 0.097], ["2015-12-20", 0.099], ["2015-12-21", 0.107], ["2015-12-27", 0.1], ["2015-12-31", 0.093], ["2016-01-04", 0.11], ["2016-01-05", 0.139], ["2016-01-08", 0.169], ["2016-01-11", 0.168], ["2016-01-20", 0.17], ["2016-01-21", 0.182], ["2016-01-23", 0.179], ["2016-01-26", 0.175], ["2016-01-27", 0.184], ["2016-01-28", 0.238], ["2016-01-31", 0.235], ["2016-02-01", 0.234], ["2016-02-02", 0.233], ["2016-02-04", 0.234], ["2016-02-04", 0.232], ["2016-02-05", 0.23], ["2016-02-08", 0.237], ["2016-02-09", 0.239], ["2016-02-10", 0.258], ["2016-02-15", 0.254], ["2016-02-16", 0.275], ["2016-02-17", 0.277], ["2016-02-19", 0.277], ["2016-02-20", 0.274], ["2016-02-20", 0.272], ["2016-02-22", 0.266], ["2016-02-22", 0.267], ["2016-02-23", 0.268], ["2016-02-28", 0.275], ["2016-02-28", 0.278], ["2016-03-01", 0.282], ["2016-03-01", 0.285], ["2016-03-02", 0.285], ["2016-03-03", 0.286], ["2016-03-05", 0.288], ["2016-03-06", 0.289], ["2016-03-07", 0.288], ["2016-03-08", 0.288], ["2016-03-09", 0.29], ["2016-03-10", 0.292], ["2016-03-11", 0.292], ["2016-03-12", 0.297], ["2016-03-13", 0.297], ["2016-03-15", 0.297], ["2016-03-17", 0.298], ["2016-03-18", 0.305], ["2016-03-19", 0.305], ["2016-03-20", 0.314], ["2016-03-21", 0.314], ["2016-03-22", 0.316], ["2016-03-23", 0.316], ["2016-03-24", 0.317], ["2016-03-25", 0.316], ["2016-03-26", 0.316], ["2016-03-27", 0.321], ["2016-03-27", 0.321], ["2016-03-28", 0.321], ["2016-03-30", 0.321], ["2016-03-31", 0.326], ["2016-04-01", 0.328], ["2016-04-02", 0.333], ["2016-04-02", 0.335], ["2016-04-04", 0.335], ["2016-04-05", 0.333], ["2016-04-06", 0.333], ["2016-04-07", 0.334], ["2016-04-12", 0.334], ["2016-04-13", 0.333], ["2016-04-14", 0.334], ["2016-04-15", 0.334], ["2016-04-18", 0.336], ["2016-04-25", 0.334], ["2016-04-26", 0.334], ["2016-04-26", 0.332], ["2016-04-28", 0.333], ["2016-04-29", 0.333], ["2016-05-03", 0.333], ["2016-05-03", 0.334], ["2016-05-04", 0.335], ["2016-05-10", 0.338], ["2016-05-10", 0.338], ["2016-05-12", 0.338], ["2016-05-16", 0.338], ["2016-05-16", 0.343], ["2016-05-17", 0.345], ["2016-05-19", 0.344], ["2016-05-19", 0.348], ["2016-05-22", 0.35], ["2016-05-22", 0.35], ["2016-05-25", 0.352], ["2016-05-27", 0.351], ["2016-05-27", 0.352], ["2016-05-30", 0.35], ["2016-05-31", 0.345]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/41/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | On December 15th, 2015, two teams of physicists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN announced the possible, tentative, detection of a new elementary particle. News story here.
The teams (comprised of the CMS and ATLAS consortia) have been accumulating data from the energetic collisions that occur when twin 6.5 TeV proton beams are directed at each other. Within the resulting subatomic collisional debris, both teams are observing an excess of 750 GeV gamma ray pairs that hint at the decay of a new type of boson that is four times heavier than the top quark.
The signal still has relatively low statistical significance, and was announced only because it was independently observed by both the CMS team and the ATLAS team. Further data are being acquired, and by Summer 2016, the signal, if it is real, will be of order 10x stronger than at present.
Will there be an announcement at or before the Aug 3-10 38th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, that the evidence for a di-photon excess has increased, rather than decreased, in statistical significance, to 5-sigma equivalent incompatibility with the standard model? (This significance can arise from a combined analysis of CMS and Atlas data.)
(Note: resolution criteria updated 3/8/16) | true | 2016-06-01 | Has a new boson been discovered at the LHC? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-21 | 2015-12-19 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-19", 0.82], ["2015-12-19", 0.795], ["2015-12-20", 0.697], ["2015-12-20", 0.592], ["2015-12-20", 0.614], ["2015-12-20", 0.622], ["2015-12-20", 0.626], ["2015-12-20", 0.626], ["2015-12-20", 0.633], ["2015-12-21", 0.645], ["2015-12-21", 0.623], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.575], ["2015-12-21", 0.642], ["2015-12-21", 0.637], ["2015-12-23", 0.628], ["2015-12-23", 0.648], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-24", 0.619], ["2015-12-26", 0.619], ["2015-12-26", 0.638], ["2015-12-27", 0.644], ["2015-12-30", 0.65], ["2015-12-30", 0.65], ["2016-01-01", 0.65], ["2016-01-01", 0.647], ["2016-01-03", 0.64], ["2016-01-03", 0.646], ["2016-01-03", 0.63], ["2016-01-05", 0.646], ["2016-01-12", 0.656], ["2016-01-21", 0.655], ["2016-01-25", 0.629], ["2016-01-27", 0.632], ["2016-01-27", 0.63], ["2016-01-27", 0.633], ["2016-01-28", 0.634], ["2016-01-28", 0.634], ["2016-01-28", 0.645], ["2016-01-31", 0.646], ["2016-02-02", 0.645], ["2016-02-03", 0.653], ["2016-02-03", 0.655], ["2016-02-04", 0.654], ["2016-02-04", 0.652], ["2016-02-07", 0.651], ["2016-02-09", 0.65], ["2016-02-10", 0.649], ["2016-02-10", 0.65], ["2016-02-10", 0.649], ["2016-02-15", 0.649], ["2016-02-15", 0.648], ["2016-02-16", 0.649], ["2016-02-17", 0.65], ["2016-02-19", 0.649], ["2016-02-19", 0.646], ["2016-02-19", 0.648], ["2016-02-19", 0.648], ["2016-02-20", 0.648], ["2016-02-20", 0.647], ["2016-02-20", 0.646], ["2016-02-20", 0.649], ["2016-02-20", 0.65], ["2016-02-22", 0.657], ["2016-02-23", 0.659], ["2016-02-24", 0.659], ["2016-02-24", 0.659], ["2016-02-28", 0.658], ["2016-02-28", 0.66], ["2016-02-28", 0.659], ["2016-03-02", 0.658], ["2016-03-03", 0.66], ["2016-03-04", 0.661], ["2016-03-07", 0.66], ["2016-03-08", 0.659], ["2016-03-09", 0.657], ["2016-03-10", 0.657], ["2016-03-10", 0.658], ["2016-03-12", 0.657], ["2016-03-12", 0.658], ["2016-03-12", 0.66], ["2016-03-13", 0.65], ["2016-03-13", 0.65], ["2016-03-14", 0.65], ["2016-03-15", 0.651], ["2016-03-17", 0.648], ["2016-03-17", 0.649], ["2016-03-18", 0.648], ["2016-03-18", 0.647], ["2016-03-18", 0.642], ["2016-03-18", 0.643], ["2016-03-19", 0.643], ["2016-03-19", 0.642], ["2016-03-20", 0.637], ["2016-03-20", 0.631]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/43/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | The development of the new IEX exchange was a central theme in Michael Lewis' controversial 2014 book Flash Boys, which describes aspects of computerized high-frequency trading of stocks.
A stated aim of the IEX Exchange is to provide a level playing field for all market participants through the implementation of a 350 microsecond delay between order submission and execution.
IEX has been operating as an Alternative Trading System since October 2013. In September 2015, it applied to the U.S. Securities Exchange Commision for approval to operate as a Registered Exchange. The application generated a large amount of public comment, with arguments being placed both in favor of and against IEX's plans.
The SEC was scheduled to issue a decision statement on IEX's application on Dec. 21st, 2015. On Friday December 18th, however, it announced that IEX has approved a delay until next March 21st for a final decision.
On March 21, 2016, will the SEC grant approval for IEX to operate as a Registered Securities Exchange? In order for the question to be resolved as yes, any amended version of IEX's application must retain the critical feature in which the 350 microsecond delay is placed between order submissions and executions. | true | 2016-03-20 | Will the SEC approve the IEX's application to operate as a registered exchange? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-14 | 2015-12-19 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-21", 0.75], ["2015-12-21", 0.723], ["2015-12-23", 0.718], ["2015-12-23", 0.736], ["2015-12-26", 0.717], ["2015-12-26", 0.711], ["2015-12-31", 0.704], ["2016-01-01", 0.697], ["2016-01-05", 0.702], ["2016-01-05", 0.692], ["2016-01-07", 0.647], ["2016-01-09", 0.644], ["2016-01-17", 0.66], ["2016-01-19", 0.678], ["2016-01-21", 0.675], ["2016-01-26", 0.672], ["2016-01-28", 0.669], ["2016-01-28", 0.684], ["2016-01-28", 0.684], ["2016-01-29", 0.683], ["2016-01-29", 0.684], ["2016-01-31", 0.689], ["2016-02-01", 0.677], ["2016-02-02", 0.675], ["2016-02-03", 0.67], ["2016-02-04", 0.669], ["2016-02-04", 0.65], ["2016-02-04", 0.658], ["2016-02-05", 0.663], ["2016-02-07", 0.651], ["2016-02-08", 0.646], ["2016-02-09", 0.645], ["2016-02-09", 0.635], ["2016-02-10", 0.634], ["2016-02-10", 0.626], ["2016-02-13", 0.628], ["2016-02-15", 0.623], ["2016-02-15", 0.62], ["2016-02-15", 0.61], ["2016-02-15", 0.612], ["2016-02-16", 0.607], ["2016-02-17", 0.613], ["2016-02-19", 0.613], ["2016-02-19", 0.611], ["2016-02-19", 0.61], ["2016-02-19", 0.61], ["2016-02-20", 0.61], ["2016-02-20", 0.612], ["2016-02-21", 0.604], ["2016-02-22", 0.593], ["2016-02-24", 0.594], ["2016-02-24", 0.593], ["2016-02-27", 0.587], ["2016-02-28", 0.589], ["2016-03-01", 0.59], ["2016-03-02", 0.589], ["2016-03-03", 0.589], ["2016-03-04", 0.589], ["2016-03-07", 0.586], ["2016-03-10", 0.585], ["2016-03-10", 0.581], ["2016-03-11", 0.587], ["2016-03-12", 0.591], ["2016-03-12", 0.586], ["2016-03-13", 0.592], ["2016-03-17", 0.591], ["2016-03-18", 0.592], ["2016-03-20", 0.591], ["2016-03-24", 0.591], ["2016-03-24", 0.591], ["2016-03-27", 0.59], ["2016-03-29", 0.59], ["2016-03-30", 0.595], ["2016-03-31", 0.594], ["2016-04-01", 0.59], ["2016-04-01", 0.583], ["2016-04-02", 0.583], ["2016-04-14", 0.583], ["2016-04-15", 0.585], ["2016-04-18", 0.585], ["2016-04-19", 0.583], ["2016-04-25", 0.582], ["2016-04-28", 0.584], ["2016-04-28", 0.583], ["2016-04-29", 0.582], ["2016-04-29", 0.582], ["2016-05-02", 0.581], ["2016-05-03", 0.581], ["2016-05-03", 0.58], ["2016-05-05", 0.576], ["2016-05-06", 0.577], ["2016-05-06", 0.577], ["2016-05-07", 0.578], ["2016-05-10", 0.578], ["2016-05-12", 0.572], ["2016-05-12", 0.565], ["2016-05-13", 0.558], ["2016-05-13", 0.556], ["2016-05-15", 0.556], ["2016-05-15", 0.555], ["2016-05-15", 0.556]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/44/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | "Gene drives" are phenomena in a species' population in which one version of a gene, or allele, is probabilistically favored over other alleles that are otherwise equally favored by fitness. A gene drive in a particular allele shows up as a bias for the corresponding phenotype in the offspring. Consider two parents with different alleles for the same gene; if there exists a gene drive for one allele, it is highly likely that all of the parents' offspring will carry the driven gene's trait.
With new advances in genetic engineering using CRISPR, it is now much easier to modify an organism's genes. This makes engineered gene drives tractable: a gene coding for the CRISPR system itself can be encoded near to the gene being "driven," so that if one copy of the driven allele and one "wild" allele are inherited, the CRISPR system modifies the wild gene so that the driven gene plus CRISPR system is inherited. This process can spread the driven gene expoentially throughout a population, at a rate far exceeding the spread of a gene that is merely favorable for survival.
Uses of this method include the potential to eliminate diseases like malaria or lyme disease that are spread by a fast-reproducing vector, by promoting disease-resistant traits. Valentino Gantz et. al. have genetically altered a primary malaria vector native to India, the Anopheles stephensi mosquito, to carry and pass on anti-malaria traits. Another study published in nature biotechnology offers a more drastic approach that would render female Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes, native to Africa, completely infertile, with the intent of wiping out the species in affected ecosystems. Similar studies have investigated engineering mice (a prime carrier) to be immune to Lyme disease.
With Malaria afflicting hundreds of millions of people per year, advances in gene drive research have insitgated public conversation about the usefulness, feasibility, and ethics of gene drives is being encouraged before testing them in wild ecosystems. By January 1st, 2018, will a formal submission be made to a regulatory body proposing to test a malaria-combatting gene drive in a wild population? | true | 2016-05-15 | By the end of 2017 will a gene drive targeting malaria be initiated? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-15 | 2015-12-20 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-23", 0.25], ["2015-12-23", 0.17], ["2015-12-23", 0.292], ["2015-12-26", 0.354], ["2015-12-26", 0.329], ["2015-12-26", 0.325], ["2015-12-27", 0.3], ["2015-12-28", 0.31], ["2015-12-28", 0.31], ["2015-12-29", 0.327], ["2015-12-29", 0.309], ["2015-12-31", 0.308], ["2016-01-01", 0.3], ["2016-01-01", 0.3], ["2016-01-03", 0.334], ["2016-01-03", 0.333], ["2016-01-04", 0.335], ["2016-01-05", 0.317], ["2016-01-05", 0.333], ["2016-01-07", 0.322], ["2016-01-08", 0.309], ["2016-01-09", 0.306], ["2016-01-12", 0.301], ["2016-01-19", 0.318], ["2016-01-20", 0.314], ["2016-01-21", 0.319], ["2016-01-21", 0.319], ["2016-01-24", 0.326], ["2016-01-26", 0.33], ["2016-01-26", 0.332], ["2016-01-27", 0.334], ["2016-01-27", 0.326], ["2016-01-27", 0.319], ["2016-01-27", 0.428], ["2016-01-28", 0.491], ["2016-01-28", 0.577], ["2016-01-28", 0.586], ["2016-01-29", 0.597], ["2016-01-29", 0.593], ["2016-01-29", 0.598], ["2016-01-29", 0.598], ["2016-01-31", 0.606], ["2016-01-31", 0.613], ["2016-02-01", 0.618], ["2016-02-01", 0.623], ["2016-02-02", 0.631], ["2016-02-02", 0.643], ["2016-02-02", 0.648], ["2016-02-02", 0.647], ["2016-02-03", 0.648], ["2016-02-03", 0.651], ["2016-02-03", 0.652], ["2016-02-04", 0.655], ["2016-02-04", 0.656], ["2016-02-05", 0.659], ["2016-02-05", 0.668], ["2016-02-06", 0.671], ["2016-02-07", 0.676], ["2016-02-08", 0.683], ["2016-02-09", 0.683], ["2016-02-09", 0.683], ["2016-02-10", 0.686], ["2016-02-10", 0.689], ["2016-02-10", 0.691], ["2016-02-11", 0.712], ["2016-02-11", 0.713], ["2016-02-11", 0.716], ["2016-02-11", 0.718], ["2016-02-12", 0.716], ["2016-02-12", 0.717], ["2016-02-13", 0.72], ["2016-02-14", 0.721], ["2016-02-15", 0.723], ["2016-02-15", 0.731], ["2016-02-16", 0.733], ["2016-02-16", 0.736], ["2016-02-16", 0.737], ["2016-02-16", 0.738], ["2016-02-17", 0.74], ["2016-02-17", 0.741], ["2016-02-17", 0.746], ["2016-02-18", 0.747], ["2016-02-18", 0.748], ["2016-02-19", 0.746], ["2016-02-19", 0.749], ["2016-02-19", 0.751], ["2016-02-20", 0.756], ["2016-02-20", 0.757], ["2016-02-21", 0.758], ["2016-02-21", 0.757], ["2016-02-21", 0.759], ["2016-02-22", 0.76], ["2016-02-23", 0.761], ["2016-02-24", 0.762], ["2016-02-24", 0.762], ["2016-02-24", 0.763], ["2016-02-27", 0.763], ["2016-02-28", 0.764], ["2016-02-28", 0.76], ["2016-02-29", 0.762], ["2016-02-29", 0.764]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/45/ | The [game of Go] originated in China more than 2,500 years ago. While similar to chess in many ways, Go is much more minimalist in its ruleset and more esoteric in strategy. The aspect of pattern recognition and the huge state space of possible moves in Go (vastly greater than chess) make it an excellent metric for the capabilities of artifical intelligence. Many computer Go players have been developed, and the University of Electro-Communications (UEC) in Japan has held annual cups that pit AI vs. AI in games of Go to determine the strongest computer player. A five-year agreement was made in 2012 to grant the AI victors of the UEC cup additional matches against highly ranked human Go professionals. These are called Densei-sen, or "electric Sage battles," made to test the AI's effectiveness against human opponents.
The [Crazy Stone go engine], created by Rémi Coulom, beat Go Sensei Norimoto Yoda in the second Densei-sen competition at the UEC. However, Crazy Stone was granted an extremely generous handicap of a four-stone advantage at the start. Many other computer Go players exist, including ones in development by AI giants like [Facebook] and [Google DeepMind], but none have beaten a [professionally ranked] human player without a handicap.
The next UEC cup is in March 2016 and [many prominent AI teams have already registered], including Crazy Stone and Facebook AI's own darkforest. Additionally, Google's Demis Hassabis has [implied] a new breakthrough in Go artificial intelligence. With Computer Go getting more and more powerful, an AI player beating a Go master is a real possibility. | Science & Tech | This question is positively resolved if, in 2016, an AI with no handicap beats a professional human player in an official game of Go. | true | 2016-03-01 | In 2016, will an AI player beat a professionally ranked human in the ancient game of Go? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-09 | 2015-12-22 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-31", 0.2], ["2015-12-31", 0.16], ["2015-12-31", 0.137], ["2016-01-01", 0.146], ["2016-01-01", 0.146], ["2016-01-02", 0.153], ["2016-01-03", 0.156], ["2016-01-03", 0.212], ["2016-01-04", 0.215], ["2016-01-05", 0.201], ["2016-01-05", 0.254], ["2016-01-06", 0.245], ["2016-01-07", 0.264], ["2016-01-08", 0.267], ["2016-01-09", 0.27], ["2016-01-09", 0.263], ["2016-01-11", 0.267], ["2016-01-11", 0.259], ["2016-01-12", 0.246], ["2016-01-12", 0.257], ["2016-01-13", 0.253], ["2016-01-13", 0.245], ["2016-01-14", 0.249], ["2016-01-16", 0.245], ["2016-01-17", 0.259], ["2016-01-17", 0.284], ["2016-01-18", 0.287], ["2016-01-18", 0.3], ["2016-01-19", 0.327], ["2016-01-20", 0.336], ["2016-01-21", 0.346], ["2016-01-21", 0.349], ["2016-01-22", 0.345], ["2016-01-22", 0.35], ["2016-01-23", 0.353], ["2016-01-23", 0.351], ["2016-01-24", 0.356], ["2016-01-24", 0.365], ["2016-01-25", 0.362], ["2016-01-25", 0.364], ["2016-01-26", 0.361], ["2016-01-26", 0.376], ["2016-01-27", 0.37], ["2016-01-27", 0.365], ["2016-01-27", 0.377], ["2016-01-28", 0.382], ["2016-01-28", 0.383], ["2016-01-29", 0.387], ["2016-01-30", 0.386], ["2016-01-30", 0.388], ["2016-01-31", 0.387], ["2016-01-31", 0.387], ["2016-02-01", 0.39], ["2016-02-01", 0.39], ["2016-02-02", 0.387], ["2016-02-02", 0.386], ["2016-02-03", 0.388], ["2016-02-03", 0.386], ["2016-02-04", 0.387], ["2016-02-04", 0.389], ["2016-02-04", 0.389], ["2016-02-05", 0.388], ["2016-02-05", 0.384], ["2016-02-07", 0.381], ["2016-02-08", 0.382], ["2016-02-08", 0.383], ["2016-02-09", 0.383], ["2016-02-09", 0.38], ["2016-02-10", 0.379], ["2016-02-10", 0.378], ["2016-02-11", 0.38], ["2016-02-12", 0.376], ["2016-02-12", 0.378], ["2016-02-13", 0.379], ["2016-02-14", 0.379], ["2016-02-15", 0.379], ["2016-02-16", 0.385], ["2016-02-16", 0.383], ["2016-02-16", 0.383], ["2016-02-17", 0.383], ["2016-02-18", 0.383], ["2016-02-18", 0.383], ["2016-02-18", 0.383], ["2016-02-19", 0.385], ["2016-02-20", 0.384], ["2016-02-20", 0.391], ["2016-02-20", 0.389], ["2016-02-21", 0.388], ["2016-02-21", 0.384], ["2016-02-22", 0.382], ["2016-02-23", 0.382], ["2016-02-24", 0.383], ["2016-02-24", 0.384], ["2016-02-25", 0.386], ["2016-02-27", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.386], ["2016-02-28", 0.385], ["2016-02-28", 0.384], ["2016-02-29", 0.383], ["2016-03-01", 0.383], ["2016-03-01", 0.384]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/46/ | Self-driving cars (SDC) are [anticipated] to become increasingly integrated into the driving population in the coming years; greatly reducing accident rates, giving driving independence to the impaired, and reducing fuel consumption are a few major benefits (see more [here] and [here.]) [Google] and [Tesla] in the U.S. and [Baidu] in China lead the race to bring their SDC technology to market, and other companies like [Nissan] and [Mobileye] are also invested in autonomous vehicle technology.
Tesla's Elon Musk marked 2018 as the due date for fully autonomous Tesla vehicles in a [recent interview]. Meanwhile, Google does have autonomous SDC prototypes being live tested in [cities]. Still, economic and [regulatory] obstacles have to be overcome. | Science & Tech | Will there be a car commercially-available in at least two US states with an MSRP of less than $75,000 and delivery date within 2018, that can autonomously carry its passenger between two generic drivable destinations that are 20-100 km apart via public roads in those states?
(updated 2/20 to clarify resolution criteria of two US states and public roads) | true | 2016-03-01 | Fully autonomous self-driving cars by 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2015-12-23 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-23", 0.4], ["2015-12-23", 0.38], ["2015-12-23", 0.32], ["2015-12-23", 0.405], ["2015-12-23", 0.474], ["2015-12-26", 0.45], ["2015-12-26", 0.483], ["2015-12-26", 0.436], ["2015-12-26", 0.421], ["2015-12-26", 0.441], ["2015-12-27", 0.472], ["2015-12-27", 0.462], ["2015-12-28", 0.467], ["2015-12-30", 0.493], ["2015-12-31", 0.49], ["2015-12-31", 0.494], ["2016-01-01", 0.495], ["2016-01-03", 0.502], ["2016-01-05", 0.503], ["2016-01-05", 0.515], ["2016-01-08", 0.492], ["2016-01-08", 0.502], ["2016-01-12", 0.507], ["2016-01-12", 0.529], ["2016-01-12", 0.499], ["2016-01-13", 0.507], ["2016-01-16", 0.517], ["2016-01-18", 0.516], ["2016-01-19", 0.514], ["2016-01-20", 0.529], ["2016-01-21", 0.534], ["2016-01-21", 0.532], ["2016-01-21", 0.532], ["2016-01-22", 0.531], ["2016-01-24", 0.526], ["2016-01-26", 0.531], ["2016-01-27", 0.537], ["2016-01-27", 0.526], ["2016-01-27", 0.523], ["2016-01-28", 0.524], ["2016-01-28", 0.524], ["2016-01-28", 0.508], ["2016-01-31", 0.508], ["2016-01-31", 0.506]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/47/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | In the popular financial press, the VIX Index is often referred to as the "fear gauge". In reality, it is a quantitative assessment of expected stock market volatility over the next thirty day period, and is computed from S&P 500 stock index option prices.
To rule-of-thumb accuracy, the numerical value of the VIX corresponds to the annualized one-sigma percentage change in the value of the S&P 500 Index over the next month. At present, the VIX stands just above 16, so very roughly speaking, this means that the market ascribes a 30% chance that stocks will have changed in price by more than 3.5% by late January 2016.
Typically, the value of the VIX lies between 10 and 20, but it regularly spikes during times of market turmoil. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the VIX briefly reached values above 80.
During the calendar year 2016, will the VIX Index have an intra-day print with a value above 50? | true | 2016-01-31 | Will the VIX Index print above 50 in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-11-06 | 2015-12-27 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-29", 0.15], ["2015-12-29", 0.15], ["2015-12-30", 0.13], ["2015-12-31", 0.22], ["2015-12-31", 0.19], ["2016-01-01", 0.198], ["2016-01-01", 0.178], ["2016-01-05", 0.185], ["2016-01-05", 0.216], ["2016-01-08", 0.207], ["2016-01-12", 0.27], ["2016-01-19", 0.268], ["2016-01-19", 0.275], ["2016-01-20", 0.318], ["2016-01-21", 0.323], ["2016-01-23", 0.337], ["2016-01-27", 0.316], ["2016-01-27", 0.31], ["2016-01-28", 0.315], ["2016-01-28", 0.319], ["2016-01-28", 0.318], ["2016-01-28", 0.301], ["2016-01-31", 0.295], ["2016-02-02", 0.299], ["2016-02-04", 0.303], ["2016-02-04", 0.305], ["2016-02-05", 0.303], ["2016-02-06", 0.297], ["2016-02-09", 0.299], ["2016-02-09", 0.298], ["2016-02-10", 0.301], ["2016-02-10", 0.302], ["2016-02-10", 0.305], ["2016-02-12", 0.306], ["2016-02-15", 0.303], ["2016-02-15", 0.299], ["2016-02-15", 0.303], ["2016-02-16", 0.294], ["2016-02-17", 0.296], ["2016-02-19", 0.298], ["2016-02-19", 0.292], ["2016-02-19", 0.298], ["2016-02-19", 0.3], ["2016-02-20", 0.3], ["2016-02-20", 0.302], ["2016-02-20", 0.303], ["2016-02-20", 0.301], ["2016-02-20", 0.296], ["2016-02-21", 0.289], ["2016-02-22", 0.288], ["2016-02-24", 0.287], ["2016-02-24", 0.287], ["2016-02-25", 0.287], ["2016-02-26", 0.292], ["2016-02-28", 0.302], ["2016-02-28", 0.304], ["2016-02-29", 0.31]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/48/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The decreasing cost and difficulty of genetic engineering have opened up a number of new research fields. One that is highly controversial is "gain of function" (GoF) pathogen research, in which researchers deliberately engineer existing pathogens to increase their virulence, transmissibility, or other qualities.
The goal of such research is to understand the natural pathways by which existing wild pathogens may become more dangerous, so as to enhance our ability to respond, to create better vaccines, etc.
However, there are obvious potential dangers as well, as an accidental release, or deliberate theft of such organisms could create a potential pandemic; even the information published about such efforts could increase the probability of bioterror or bioerror events.
In October 2014, the White house issued a funding pause on such experiments involving influenza and coronaviruses, partly in response to a statement by the Cambridge Working Group that called for a curtailment of experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens in the laboratory, pending a risk and benefit assessment. The White house charged the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB) with commissioning such a report.
That report has recently been posted online by the NSABB and its chosen contractor, Gryphon Scientific.
On January 7-8 the NSABB will meet to consider the analysis and its response to the assessment, which will form a policy recommendation. Further discussion will occur at the National Academy of Sciences on March 10-11.
After these discussions, will the funding restriction of GoF research on Influenza and coronaviruses be lifted (or replaced by something considerably less restrictive) by November 1, 2016? | true | 2016-03-01 | Will the US restore funding for research that creates more dangerous versions of Influenza, MERS and SARS? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-20 | 2015-12-30 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-30", 0.73], ["2015-12-30", 0.705], ["2015-12-31", 0.653], ["2015-12-31", 0.68], ["2016-01-01", 0.668], ["2016-01-01", 0.657], ["2016-01-01", 0.656], ["2016-01-05", 0.61], ["2016-01-08", 0.547], ["2016-01-09", 0.529], ["2016-01-10", 0.548], ["2016-01-12", 0.553], ["2016-01-14", 0.563]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/49/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The catalog of known extrasolar planets is growing rapidly. At last count, NASA's Kepler Mission has generated 4,696 high-quality planet candidates, and thousands more are on the way from NASA's K2 and TESS Missions.
The surge in the planetary census has been almost exclusively driven by transit detections, in which the parent star is observed to undergo a subtle once-per-orbit dimming when a planet passes directly in front of the stellar disk.
Until recently, the Doppler velocity technique was the most productive method for discovering new planets. With the Doppler method, one monitors the shift in the parent star's line-of-sight velocity as it travels around the star-planet center of mass, thus allowing the presence of an unseen planet to be inferred.
The Doppler velocity technique works very well for massive planets that have short-period orbits. When the magnitude of the velocity shift lies below 1 meter per second, however, it becomes very difficult to make secure detections. Recently, a number of high-profile, front-page discoveries have been called into question.
In 2016, will a peer-reviewed paper appear in the literature that announces the detection of a non-transiting extrasolar planet that induces a radial velocity half amplitude for its parent star of less than one meter per second? | true | 2016-01-15 | Low-mass Doppler-detected planet in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-15 | 2015-12-31 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-31", 0.68], ["2015-12-31", 0.66], ["2015-12-31", 0.557], ["2016-01-01", 0.56], ["2016-01-01", 0.548], ["2016-01-01", 0.488], ["2016-01-01", 0.512], ["2016-01-01", 0.553], ["2016-01-01", 0.519], ["2016-01-01", 0.526], ["2016-01-02", 0.494], ["2016-01-03", 0.485], ["2016-01-04", 0.442], ["2016-01-05", 0.413], ["2016-01-07", 0.434], ["2016-01-08", 0.442], ["2016-01-08", 0.395], ["2016-01-08", 0.398], ["2016-01-11", 0.414], ["2016-01-11", 0.442], ["2016-01-14", 0.459], ["2016-01-16", 0.441], ["2016-01-19", 0.442], ["2016-01-19", 0.435], ["2016-01-21", 0.431], ["2016-01-21", 0.429], ["2016-01-21", 0.415], ["2016-01-22", 0.424], ["2016-01-22", 0.405], ["2016-01-23", 0.405], ["2016-01-26", 0.403], ["2016-01-26", 0.414], ["2016-01-27", 0.42], ["2016-01-28", 0.42], ["2016-01-28", 0.406], ["2016-01-29", 0.406], ["2016-01-29", 0.403]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/50/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | California is in the midst of a severe drought, following several years of well-below-average rain and snowfall.
There is cause for optimism, however. There is currently a band of warm ocean water in the central and east-central Pacific associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The associated meteorological conditions favor the tracking of winter storms into California. Indeed, early-season snowpack measurements in the Sierra Nevada are currently running above average. If strong storms materialize as expected during the coming months, California could see significant relief.
The severity of regional drought conditions is tracked and updated weekly by the National Drought Monitor. As of Dec. 31, 2015, 69% of the state's area is classified as experiencing "extreme" (code D3) or "exceptional" (code D4) drought. The last date at which California was free of such conditions was August 6th, 2013.
On April 15, 2016, will the National Drought Monitor show that California is entirely free of areas experiencing extreme (D3) or exceptional (D4) drought? | true | 2016-01-31 | Will the California drought ease significantly this Winter? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2015-12-31 | [] | binary | [["2015-12-31", 0.33], ["2015-12-31", 0.315], ["2016-01-01", 0.333], ["2016-01-01", 0.32], ["2016-01-01", 0.36], ["2016-01-01", 0.332], ["2016-01-01", 0.333], ["2016-01-01", 0.327], ["2016-01-02", 0.316], ["2016-01-03", 0.31], ["2016-01-03", 0.299], ["2016-01-05", 0.362], ["2016-01-05", 0.353], ["2016-01-07", 0.361], ["2016-01-08", 0.359], ["2016-01-12", 0.385], ["2016-01-19", 0.382], ["2016-01-19", 0.377], ["2016-01-20", 0.395], ["2016-01-21", 0.399], ["2016-01-21", 0.4], ["2016-01-22", 0.393], ["2016-01-22", 0.423], ["2016-01-24", 0.42], ["2016-01-25", 0.41], ["2016-01-26", 0.406], ["2016-01-26", 0.399], ["2016-01-26", 0.393], ["2016-01-28", 0.392], ["2016-01-28", 0.392], ["2016-01-28", 0.379], ["2016-01-31", 0.379], ["2016-01-31", 0.377]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/51/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | Note: This question is part of the Metaculus tutorial series on the art and science of making successful quantitative predictions. Additional useful information can be found at the Metaculus FAQ.
California is well-know to be very geologically active, and has in the past experienced major earthquakes: 15 recorded since the mid-19th century above magnitude 7.0. Even a 6.0 earthquake can cause significant damage, and there are 47 listed in the same source.
The USGS maintains a comprehensive searchable data store of past earthquakes around the world. Occurrence of specific earthquakes is notoriously difficult. However, their statistics are fairly well-characterized over long timescales: a reasonable prediction can be obtained by simply dividing taking the number of 6.0 or greater earthquakes that have occurred in the last N years and dividing by N. (For example, the Wikipedia list has 39 since 1900.)
Better estimates would integrate the Poisson probability distribution, would consider incompleteness in the early historical records, would consider correlated Earthquakes in the historical list, etc.
Will (at least one) magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake strike California in 2016?
Feel free to explain your reasoning and numbers! | true | 2016-02-01 | [Tutorial:] Will a magnitude 6.0+ Earthquake hit California this year? | metaculus | 0 |
2022-03-17 | 2016-01-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-05", 0.47], ["2016-01-07", 0.592], ["2016-01-09", 0.622], ["2016-01-12", 0.627], ["2016-01-15", 0.679], ["2016-01-19", 0.671], ["2016-01-21", 0.644], ["2016-01-26", 0.639], ["2016-01-28", 0.662], ["2016-01-31", 0.657], ["2016-02-02", 0.653], ["2016-02-04", 0.648], ["2016-02-06", 0.645], ["2016-02-09", 0.641], ["2016-02-11", 0.637], ["2016-02-15", 0.636], ["2016-02-17", 0.619], ["2016-02-19", 0.618], ["2016-02-20", 0.608], ["2016-02-23", 0.622], ["2016-02-28", 0.626], ["2016-02-28", 0.625], ["2016-03-03", 0.625], ["2016-03-04", 0.628], ["2016-03-08", 0.628], ["2016-03-10", 0.629], ["2016-03-12", 0.619], ["2016-03-15", 0.618], ["2016-03-20", 0.617], ["2016-03-22", 0.623], ["2016-03-25", 0.622], ["2016-03-27", 0.613], ["2016-04-01", 0.618], ["2016-04-09", 0.618], ["2016-04-20", 0.621], ["2016-05-12", 0.621], ["2016-05-17", 0.624], ["2016-06-01", 0.623], ["2016-06-06", 0.627], ["2016-06-30", 0.627], ["2016-07-23", 0.623], ["2016-07-26", 0.624], ["2016-07-28", 0.633], ["2016-07-30", 0.639], ["2016-08-06", 0.643], ["2016-08-07", 0.648], ["2016-08-10", 0.648], ["2016-08-13", 0.648], ["2016-08-15", 0.643], ["2016-08-24", 0.636], ["2016-08-28", 0.632], ["2016-08-31", 0.627], ["2016-09-02", 0.629], ["2016-09-04", 0.629], ["2016-09-12", 0.623], ["2016-09-15", 0.624], ["2016-09-18", 0.632], ["2016-09-20", 0.633], ["2016-09-21", 0.64], ["2016-09-26", 0.639], ["2016-09-29", 0.638], ["2016-10-03", 0.637], ["2016-10-08", 0.638], ["2016-10-13", 0.638], ["2016-10-23", 0.638], ["2016-11-23", 0.637], ["2016-11-24", 0.636], ["2016-12-21", 0.635], ["2017-01-24", 0.635], ["2017-01-24", 0.635], ["2017-01-31", 0.632], ["2017-02-05", 0.631], ["2017-04-15", 0.629], ["2017-05-14", 0.629], ["2017-05-14", 0.628], ["2017-05-22", 0.628], ["2017-05-23", 0.628], ["2017-06-09", 0.627], ["2017-06-19", 0.627], ["2017-07-26", 0.628], ["2017-07-28", 0.629], ["2017-08-04", 0.628], ["2017-08-07", 0.629], ["2017-08-12", 0.626], ["2017-08-14", 0.626], ["2017-09-24", 0.626], ["2017-10-03", 0.626], ["2017-10-05", 0.626], ["2017-10-08", 0.625], ["2017-11-07", 0.624], ["2017-11-24", 0.623], ["2017-11-24", 0.623], ["2017-12-07", 0.623], ["2017-12-09", 0.623], ["2017-12-18", 0.62], ["2017-12-21", 0.62], ["2017-12-23", 0.62], ["2017-12-30", 0.62], ["2017-12-31", 0.619], ["2018-01-03", 0.619], ["2018-01-03", 0.619]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/56/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Modern particle accelerators that operate in the high MeV range and above traditionally use radio-frequency (RF) waves to accelerate charged particles. They are typically very expensive and very large; Stanford's linear accelerator stretches 2 miles.
However, in 2013 a proof-of-concept for small scale accelerators was demonstrated, using micro-fabricated dielectric lasers (DLA). DLAs offer a more compact (aspiring to lie anywhere between 10 cm and 100 m) and economic design with an even steeper acceleration gradient (particle energy in eV per meter) than RF accelerators (more on how they work). If successful, the concept would have major impacts on particle accelerator application in medicine, condensed matter, high energy physics, and others.
In November 2015, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation invested $13.5 million towards the research at SLAC to complete a tabletop accelerator prototype over the next 5 years. Will a paper be published in a major physical science journal before January 1, 2021 on a DLA accelerator reporting an acceleration gradient of 1 GeV/meter to within 1 sigma? | true | 2018-01-03 | by 2021, will SLAC complete an "accelerator-on-a-chip" prototype with an acceleration gradient of 1 GeV/meter? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-06-28 | 2016-01-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-01", 0.05], ["2016-02-03", 0.06], ["2016-02-04", 0.082], ["2016-02-07", 0.074], ["2016-02-10", 0.072], ["2016-02-11", 0.101], ["2016-02-15", 0.099], ["2016-02-16", 0.089], ["2016-02-19", 0.093], ["2016-02-20", 0.085], ["2016-02-23", 0.083], ["2016-02-24", 0.081], ["2016-02-28", 0.096], ["2016-02-29", 0.087], ["2016-03-08", 0.085], ["2016-03-10", 0.097], ["2016-03-12", 0.112], ["2016-03-13", 0.129], ["2016-03-21", 0.127], ["2016-03-22", 0.123], ["2016-03-24", 0.123], ["2016-03-26", 0.136], ["2016-03-28", 0.163], ["2016-03-30", 0.174], ["2016-04-02", 0.182], ["2016-04-04", 0.18], ["2016-04-05", 0.18], ["2016-04-07", 0.183], ["2016-04-09", 0.183], ["2016-04-10", 0.187], ["2016-04-11", 0.181], ["2016-04-13", 0.181], ["2016-04-15", 0.185], ["2016-04-27", 0.185], ["2016-04-29", 0.183], ["2016-05-08", 0.182], ["2016-05-09", 0.18], ["2016-05-17", 0.181], ["2016-05-20", 0.181], ["2016-05-22", 0.18], ["2016-05-29", 0.18], ["2016-06-04", 0.18], ["2016-06-06", 0.178], ["2016-06-09", 0.178], ["2016-06-09", 0.182], ["2016-06-15", 0.182], ["2016-06-21", 0.182], ["2016-06-27", 0.181], ["2016-06-29", 0.179], ["2016-06-30", 0.173], ["2016-07-03", 0.172], ["2016-07-08", 0.172], ["2016-07-10", 0.172], ["2016-07-14", 0.172], ["2016-07-18", 0.172], ["2016-07-19", 0.172], ["2016-07-21", 0.171], ["2016-07-23", 0.171], ["2016-07-26", 0.171], ["2016-07-28", 0.17], ["2016-07-30", 0.173], ["2016-07-31", 0.171], ["2016-08-02", 0.166], ["2016-08-04", 0.165], ["2016-08-05", 0.168], ["2016-08-08", 0.172], ["2016-08-10", 0.171], ["2016-08-13", 0.17], ["2016-08-14", 0.17], ["2016-08-19", 0.169], ["2016-08-24", 0.168], ["2016-08-26", 0.168], ["2016-08-29", 0.169], ["2016-08-31", 0.169], ["2016-09-01", 0.168], ["2016-09-03", 0.167], ["2016-09-05", 0.167], ["2016-09-11", 0.166], ["2016-09-12", 0.165], ["2016-09-14", 0.164], ["2016-09-16", 0.163], ["2016-09-18", 0.165], ["2016-09-19", 0.167], ["2016-09-21", 0.165], ["2016-09-25", 0.165], ["2016-09-28", 0.164], ["2016-09-29", 0.164], ["2016-10-03", 0.162], ["2016-10-12", 0.162], ["2016-10-19", 0.162], ["2016-10-21", 0.16], ["2016-10-23", 0.16], ["2016-10-24", 0.158], ["2016-10-31", 0.156], ["2016-10-31", 0.156], ["2016-11-05", 0.158], ["2016-11-05", 0.158], ["2016-11-11", 0.158], ["2016-11-14", 0.157], ["2016-11-23", 0.156], ["2016-11-27", 0.156]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/65/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The idea that nuclear reactions at relatively low temperatures using relatively stable elements has a checkered past. Basic physics makes such phenomena difficult: the electromagnetic repulsion between two nuclei generally prevents fusion unless there is very high energy given to at least one of them, which suggests a very high temperature.
However, that does not mean such processes are physically impossible. For example, "pycnonuclear reactions" can occur at zero temperature and ultrahigh density, muons can catalyze fusion at low temperatures, and the right system can accelerate particles at low temperature up to MeVs over a millimeter.
The possibility of cheap unlimited energy has motivated several groups to pursue the possibility of "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" (LENR) energy production. As featured in a previous question, for the past 4 years, Andrea Rossi has been claiming to make large amounts of heat in his various "E-Cat" reactors, apparently inexplicable in terms of chemical reactions. A somewhat similar LENR project is led by Robert Godes, who runs the company Brillouin Energy. These efforts have generated several websites such as this one tracking news in the field.
There is a strong consensus in the physics community that these LENR efforts have a low probability of being scientifically valid and leading to a useful energy-generation technology. But how low? So we ask:
By Dec. 31, 2018, will Andrea Rossi/Leonardo/Industrial Heat or Robert Godes/Brillouin Energy have produced fairly convincing evidence (> 50% credence) that their new technology that generates substantial excess heat relative to electrical and chemical inputs?
The question resolves in the positive if Huw Price is declared winner of a bet of £1,000 against Carl Shulman's £10,000. The bet will be settled by Price and Shulman by New Years Eve 2018, and in the case of disagreement shall defer to majority vote of a panel of three physicists: Anthony Aguirre, Martin Rees, and Max Tegmark. | true | 2016-12-01 | Will radical new "low-energy nuclear reaction" technologies prove effective before 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-28 | 2016-01-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-14", 0.7], ["2016-01-14", 0.635], ["2016-01-15", 0.753], ["2016-01-16", 0.73], ["2016-01-18", 0.694], ["2016-01-19", 0.651], ["2016-01-20", 0.623], ["2016-01-21", 0.614], ["2016-01-22", 0.591], ["2016-01-22", 0.584], ["2016-01-23", 0.573], ["2016-01-26", 0.581], ["2016-01-27", 0.563], ["2016-01-27", 0.569], ["2016-01-28", 0.567], ["2016-01-28", 0.59], ["2016-01-29", 0.575], ["2016-01-31", 0.58], ["2016-02-01", 0.573], ["2016-02-02", 0.581], ["2016-02-02", 0.571], ["2016-02-04", 0.551], ["2016-02-04", 0.546], ["2016-02-04", 0.545], ["2016-02-05", 0.544], ["2016-02-06", 0.547], ["2016-02-06", 0.546], ["2016-02-10", 0.546], ["2016-02-10", 0.552], ["2016-02-15", 0.557], ["2016-02-16", 0.547], ["2016-02-18", 0.549], ["2016-02-19", 0.549], ["2016-02-19", 0.549], ["2016-02-20", 0.548], ["2016-02-20", 0.553], ["2016-02-21", 0.553], ["2016-02-21", 0.543], ["2016-02-23", 0.542], ["2016-02-24", 0.539], ["2016-02-28", 0.534], ["2016-02-28", 0.534], ["2016-03-02", 0.542], ["2016-03-02", 0.541], ["2016-03-03", 0.547], ["2016-03-05", 0.548], ["2016-03-09", 0.548], ["2016-03-10", 0.547], ["2016-03-10", 0.55], ["2016-03-11", 0.542], ["2016-03-11", 0.549], ["2016-03-12", 0.549], ["2016-03-13", 0.541], ["2016-03-13", 0.544], ["2016-03-14", 0.544], ["2016-03-15", 0.544], ["2016-03-17", 0.544], ["2016-03-17", 0.546], ["2016-03-18", 0.538], ["2016-03-20", 0.544], ["2016-03-22", 0.546], ["2016-03-22", 0.546], ["2016-03-23", 0.549], ["2016-03-25", 0.545], ["2016-03-29", 0.544], ["2016-03-30", 0.55], ["2016-04-01", 0.545], ["2016-04-04", 0.543], ["2016-04-08", 0.541], ["2016-04-13", 0.541], ["2016-04-14", 0.542], ["2016-04-15", 0.542], ["2016-04-15", 0.543], ["2016-04-17", 0.545], ["2016-04-18", 0.543], ["2016-04-20", 0.539], ["2016-04-26", 0.539], ["2016-05-01", 0.539], ["2016-05-10", 0.537], ["2016-05-10", 0.539], ["2016-05-11", 0.54], ["2016-05-12", 0.545], ["2016-05-13", 0.541], ["2016-05-13", 0.54], ["2016-05-16", 0.541], ["2016-05-16", 0.541], ["2016-05-18", 0.541], ["2016-05-19", 0.541], ["2016-05-25", 0.543], ["2016-06-01", 0.545], ["2016-06-07", 0.545], ["2016-06-07", 0.546], ["2016-06-09", 0.546], ["2016-06-09", 0.546], ["2016-06-11", 0.546], ["2016-06-11", 0.546], ["2016-06-12", 0.547], ["2016-06-12", 0.55], ["2016-06-13", 0.548], ["2016-06-14", 0.548], ["2016-06-15", 0.545]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/71/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In 2013, after several months of hints, Elon Musk and SpaceX released a white paper describing a new mode of transport dubbed the "hyperloop." The design calls for a pod in a low-pressure tube system; the pod rides on a cushion of air to eliminate friction with a track, and the low-pressure tube dramatically reduces air drag.
The resulting design could achieve speeds near 760 miles per hour, taking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 35 minutes. Compare that to the California High Speed Rail (CHSR) project, still under construction, which aspires to make the same journey in just under three hours at around a quarter of the speed. Musk proposed the Hyperloop as not just a more ambitious and futuristic alternative to CHSR; Hyperloop aspires to be safer, cheaper, and self-powering.
After initial skepticism, a consensus emerged that the Hyperloop idea is credible, and rather rapidly, several independent efforts to develop the Hyperloop concept began. At present, teams from the U.S. and abroad are preparing to present their own Hyperloop designs at the [design weekend] at Texas A&M University. Top designs will be tested at the SpaceX test track (also in construction) in California.
Meanwhile, the other two prominent hyperloop companies, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) and Hyperloop Technologies Inc. (HTI), compete to create their own Hyperloops; these will be operational at subsonic speeds, far below 800 mph but still faster than the CHSR projected speed. This means that prototype hyperloop technology may be demonstrated by one or more organizations as early as 2016.
The basic requirements that we'll use to define a Hyperloop are as follows. A pod or capsule in a tube of at least 2 m cross-section, suspended in an environment at pressures less than 1000 Pascals. A successful test is accomplished if the hyperloop transports a passenger load of at least 50 kg while reaching speeds of at least 300 km/h.
Will there be a successful demonstration of a Hyperloop by June 15, 2017?
(Updated 4/07: dropped acceleration limit of 0.5 g from criteria for success.) | true | 2016-06-15 | Will a successful proof of concept for a hyperloop be demonstrated by mid-2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-01 | 2016-01-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-11", 0.7], ["2016-01-12", 0.71], ["2016-01-12", 0.67], ["2016-01-12", 0.665], ["2016-01-12", 0.646], ["2016-01-12", 0.665], ["2016-01-12", 0.613], ["2016-01-13", 0.574], ["2016-01-14", 0.552], ["2016-01-15", 0.601], ["2016-01-17", 0.542]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/72/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | North Korea claimed that it had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb last week on January 6th. Seismic data the same day registered 5.1 magnitude body waves, corresponding to estimates that the blast would have contained between 4.7 and 7 kilotons of energy. That energy yield is much smaller that previous tests of H-bombs, which release upwards of 30 kilotons, and the current consensus (1,2) is that the test was not a thermonuclear device. While an H-bomb is most likely ruled out, it still leaves the possibility that North Korea has the capability to design compact nuclear weapons that use boosted fission, in which a relatively small energy release from nuclear fusion catalyzes a higher rate -- and higher yield -- of nuclear fission. A boosted fission nuclear device is still a threatening weapon of mass destruction and indicates a significant technological advance in the North Korean nuclear program.
By February 1, 2016, will a major news source run an article reporting that the blast detected on January 6th is from a boosted fission nuclear weapon? | true | 2016-01-18 | Has North Korea tested a boosted fission nuclear device? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-14 | 2016-01-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-14", 0.1], ["2016-01-15", 0.1], ["2016-01-16", 0.087], ["2016-01-16", 0.095], ["2016-01-18", 0.088], ["2016-01-19", 0.105], ["2016-01-19", 0.116], ["2016-01-19", 0.143], ["2016-01-20", 0.131], ["2016-01-20", 0.12], ["2016-01-21", 0.111], ["2016-01-21", 0.125], ["2016-01-21", 0.138], ["2016-01-22", 0.158], ["2016-01-23", 0.149], ["2016-01-23", 0.166], ["2016-01-24", 0.159], ["2016-01-25", 0.151], ["2016-01-26", 0.164], ["2016-01-26", 0.161], ["2016-01-26", 0.155], ["2016-01-27", 0.148], ["2016-01-27", 0.143], ["2016-01-27", 0.143], ["2016-01-28", 0.138], ["2016-01-28", 0.142], ["2016-01-28", 0.141], ["2016-01-28", 0.146], ["2016-01-28", 0.147], ["2016-01-28", 0.142], ["2016-01-30", 0.146], ["2016-01-31", 0.141], ["2016-01-31", 0.14], ["2016-02-01", 0.137], ["2016-02-02", 0.141], ["2016-02-03", 0.141], ["2016-02-03", 0.137], ["2016-02-04", 0.139], ["2016-02-04", 0.141], ["2016-02-05", 0.14], ["2016-02-05", 0.137], ["2016-02-08", 0.135], ["2016-02-08", 0.134], ["2016-02-09", 0.133], ["2016-02-09", 0.134], ["2016-02-09", 0.131], ["2016-02-09", 0.13], ["2016-02-10", 0.128], ["2016-02-10", 0.133], ["2016-02-10", 0.133], ["2016-02-10", 0.13], ["2016-02-10", 0.128], ["2016-02-10", 0.125], ["2016-02-10", 0.124], ["2016-02-11", 0.121], ["2016-02-11", 0.121], ["2016-02-11", 0.121], ["2016-02-13", 0.12], ["2016-02-14", 0.118], ["2016-02-14", 0.118], ["2016-02-14", 0.115], ["2016-02-14", 0.116], ["2016-02-15", 0.117], ["2016-02-15", 0.117], ["2016-02-15", 0.115]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/102/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Ted Koppel, of ABC News and Nightline fame, has been sounding the alarm about the vulnerability of the electrical grids in the U.S. to intentional sabotage.
In his book Lights Out, Koppel argues that the U.S. grid(s) are both so interconnected and so fragile that a well-crafted attack could knock out power for a multi-state region, leaving residents without electric power for months.
For the purposes of this question, an attack with less dramatic impact will do:
Between March 1 and September 1, 2016, will an intentional attack on our electrical power infrastructure knock out power for more than 30% of residents in one of the ten most populous U.S. cities for a period of 72 hours or more?
For a positive resolution, there must be a public statement by either a law enforcement organization or a utility company confirming that the outage was not an accident. | true | 2016-02-15 | Will an attack on the electrical grid cause an extended power outage for a major U.S. city? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-11-18 | 2016-01-14 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-14", 0.65], ["2016-01-15", 0.82], ["2016-01-16", 0.758], ["2016-01-18", 0.732], ["2016-01-19", 0.704], ["2016-01-20", 0.71], ["2016-01-21", 0.635], ["2016-01-23", 0.657], ["2016-01-26", 0.664], ["2016-01-27", 0.635], ["2016-01-28", 0.624], ["2016-01-31", 0.624], ["2016-01-31", 0.628], ["2016-02-01", 0.621], ["2016-02-03", 0.615], ["2016-02-03", 0.593], ["2016-02-04", 0.592], ["2016-02-05", 0.581], ["2016-02-08", 0.589], ["2016-02-09", 0.589], ["2016-02-11", 0.578], ["2016-02-12", 0.58], ["2016-02-15", 0.582], ["2016-02-15", 0.576], ["2016-02-16", 0.564], ["2016-02-17", 0.561], ["2016-02-19", 0.562], ["2016-02-20", 0.562], ["2016-02-20", 0.565], ["2016-02-21", 0.563], ["2016-02-23", 0.566], ["2016-02-24", 0.558], ["2016-02-28", 0.552], ["2016-02-28", 0.55], ["2016-03-02", 0.541], ["2016-03-03", 0.54], ["2016-03-07", 0.534], ["2016-03-08", 0.534], ["2016-03-09", 0.534], ["2016-03-10", 0.53], ["2016-03-11", 0.523], ["2016-03-12", 0.534], ["2016-03-13", 0.537], ["2016-03-13", 0.537], ["2016-03-15", 0.536], ["2016-03-16", 0.538], ["2016-03-18", 0.54], ["2016-03-18", 0.541], ["2016-03-20", 0.541], ["2016-03-21", 0.548], ["2016-03-22", 0.56], ["2016-03-24", 0.562], ["2016-03-26", 0.563], ["2016-03-27", 0.561], ["2016-03-28", 0.561], ["2016-03-29", 0.562], ["2016-03-30", 0.564], ["2016-04-01", 0.566], ["2016-04-02", 0.566], ["2016-04-06", 0.565], ["2016-04-09", 0.565], ["2016-04-09", 0.564], ["2016-04-12", 0.564], ["2016-04-13", 0.56], ["2016-04-14", 0.549], ["2016-04-15", 0.544], ["2016-04-16", 0.541], ["2016-04-18", 0.542], ["2016-04-18", 0.54], ["2016-04-20", 0.536], ["2016-04-23", 0.536], ["2016-04-26", 0.536], ["2016-04-27", 0.536], ["2016-04-28", 0.535], ["2016-04-29", 0.535], ["2016-05-03", 0.535], ["2016-05-03", 0.538], ["2016-05-08", 0.534], ["2016-05-09", 0.538], ["2016-05-16", 0.536], ["2016-05-17", 0.536], ["2016-05-21", 0.535], ["2016-05-23", 0.536], ["2016-05-23", 0.537], ["2016-06-04", 0.537], ["2016-06-04", 0.535], ["2016-06-06", 0.535], ["2016-06-07", 0.536], ["2016-06-08", 0.536], ["2016-06-17", 0.535], ["2016-06-17", 0.534], ["2016-06-20", 0.534], ["2016-06-21", 0.534], ["2016-06-21", 0.533], ["2016-06-24", 0.531], ["2016-06-25", 0.53], ["2016-06-26", 0.526], ["2016-06-27", 0.524], ["2016-06-29", 0.512], ["2016-06-30", 0.504], ["2016-06-30", 0.498]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/106/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Turing Test (aka the "Imitation Game") is a well-known thought experiment as well as an actual test that can be done on computer programs that converse via text. The idea is simple: a human judge converses with the machine, and if it cannot discern the machine from a human conversant, then the machine has "passed."
No conversing system (or "Chatbot") has passed the Turing test (despite some reports), but they are getting better. Each year there is an annual competition in artificial intelligence for the Loebner Prize, which awards a bronze-level prize to the most human chatbox, and offers a silver- and gold-level prizes for actually passing versions of the full Turing test.
To qualify for the conversation test, chatbot contestants answer 20 open-ended questions designed by a panel. The questions are new each year, and the same questions offered to each chatbot. You can see the 2014 and 2015 questions here, along with the answers that each of 15-20 chatbots gave.
Some of the chatbots give pretty convincing answers to many of the questions, scoring as much as 89% in the contest's scoring system. Examination suggests a typical human would easily score 100% most of the time.
As a step toward passing a full Turing test, in the 2016 or 2017 competitions, will a chatbot score 100% in the 20-question preliminary round? | true | 2016-07-01 | Will an AI successfully masquerade as human for 20 questions by 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-31 | 2016-01-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-18", 0.8], ["2016-01-18", 0.775], ["2016-01-19", 0.83], ["2016-01-19", 0.785], ["2016-01-19", 0.808], ["2016-01-19", 0.748], ["2016-01-19", 0.788], ["2016-01-20", 0.704], ["2016-01-20", 0.617], ["2016-01-21", 0.616], ["2016-01-21", 0.609], ["2016-01-22", 0.563], ["2016-01-22", 0.562], ["2016-01-23", 0.562], ["2016-01-23", 0.557], ["2016-01-26", 0.529], ["2016-01-26", 0.534], ["2016-01-26", 0.538], ["2016-01-27", 0.547], ["2016-01-27", 0.541], ["2016-01-28", 0.541], ["2016-01-28", 0.541], ["2016-01-28", 0.546], ["2016-01-28", 0.523], ["2016-01-28", 0.513], ["2016-01-30", 0.512], ["2016-01-30", 0.513], ["2016-01-31", 0.519], ["2016-02-02", 0.52], ["2016-02-02", 0.505], ["2016-02-02", 0.497], ["2016-02-02", 0.493], ["2016-02-03", 0.494], ["2016-02-03", 0.482], ["2016-02-04", 0.48], ["2016-02-04", 0.495], ["2016-02-04", 0.492], ["2016-02-05", 0.498], ["2016-02-05", 0.506], ["2016-02-05", 0.514], ["2016-02-05", 0.535], ["2016-02-06", 0.538], ["2016-02-06", 0.543], ["2016-02-07", 0.557], ["2016-02-08", 0.562], ["2016-02-08", 0.568], ["2016-02-09", 0.577], ["2016-02-09", 0.58], ["2016-02-09", 0.588], ["2016-02-09", 0.591], ["2016-02-09", 0.59], ["2016-02-09", 0.59], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.617], ["2016-02-10", 0.597], ["2016-02-10", 0.595], ["2016-02-10", 0.597], ["2016-02-10", 0.595], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.595], ["2016-02-10", 0.582], ["2016-02-10", 0.587], ["2016-02-10", 0.593], ["2016-02-10", 0.597], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.603], ["2016-02-10", 0.606], ["2016-02-10", 0.602], ["2016-02-10", 0.603], ["2016-02-10", 0.607], ["2016-02-10", 0.596], ["2016-02-10", 0.603], ["2016-02-10", 0.602], ["2016-02-10", 0.605], ["2016-02-10", 0.604], ["2016-02-10", 0.606], ["2016-02-10", 0.609], ["2016-02-10", 0.607], ["2016-02-10", 0.614], ["2016-02-10", 0.612], ["2016-02-11", 0.614], ["2016-02-11", 0.615], ["2016-02-11", 0.621], ["2016-02-11", 0.622], ["2016-02-11", 0.624], ["2016-02-11", 0.626], ["2016-02-11", 0.632], ["2016-02-11", 0.627], ["2016-02-11", 0.633], ["2016-02-11", 0.635], ["2016-02-11", 0.627], ["2016-02-11", 0.632], ["2016-02-11", 0.638], ["2016-02-11", 0.637], ["2016-02-11", 0.646], ["2016-02-11", 0.647], ["2016-02-11", 0.648]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/107/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) re-opened in September 2015 after a significant upgrade.
Designed with 10x greater sensitivity and a wider range of covered frequencies than the original LIGO, advanced LIGO should, according to its designers, have an "enhanced physics reach that during its first several hours of operation will exceed the integrated observations of the 1 year LIGO Science Run."
A full description of the experiment in gory detail can be found here.
Calculations of the expected detection rates suggest tens and potentially hundreds of detectable events per year under reasonable assumptions about neutron star and other types of binaries (and of course assuming General Relativity is correct, etc.)
Rumors have been flying that detections have happened.
Will the LIGO experiment publicly announce a 5-sigma (or equivalent) discovery of astrophysical gravitational waves by March 31, 2016? | true | 2016-02-11 | Will the advanced LIGO team announce the discovery of gravitational waves by end of March? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-07-05 | 2016-01-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-22", 0.63], ["2016-01-23", 0.498], ["2016-01-26", 0.496], ["2016-01-27", 0.463], ["2016-01-28", 0.485], ["2016-01-31", 0.507], ["2016-01-31", 0.514], ["2016-02-02", 0.53], ["2016-02-04", 0.513], ["2016-02-04", 0.507], ["2016-02-08", 0.507], ["2016-02-09", 0.507], ["2016-02-10", 0.5], ["2016-02-11", 0.492], ["2016-02-15", 0.489], ["2016-02-16", 0.484], ["2016-02-17", 0.484], ["2016-02-18", 0.482], ["2016-02-20", 0.486], ["2016-02-22", 0.472], ["2016-02-23", 0.463], ["2016-02-28", 0.46], ["2016-02-28", 0.46], ["2016-03-02", 0.461], ["2016-03-03", 0.451], ["2016-03-07", 0.448], ["2016-03-10", 0.445], ["2016-03-12", 0.447], ["2016-03-13", 0.446], ["2016-03-15", 0.442], ["2016-03-19", 0.442], ["2016-03-20", 0.441], ["2016-03-21", 0.436], ["2016-03-22", 0.436], ["2016-03-27", 0.437], ["2016-03-29", 0.437], ["2016-03-30", 0.43], ["2016-04-01", 0.428], ["2016-04-06", 0.427], ["2016-04-07", 0.426], ["2016-04-08", 0.426], ["2016-04-15", 0.429], ["2016-04-18", 0.43], ["2016-04-18", 0.43], ["2016-04-20", 0.428], ["2016-04-22", 0.426], ["2016-04-22", 0.423], ["2016-08-31", 0.421], ["2016-09-01", 0.414], ["2016-09-02", 0.421], ["2016-09-03", 0.425], ["2016-09-12", 0.421], ["2016-09-14", 0.418], ["2016-09-16", 0.416], ["2016-09-17", 0.422], ["2016-09-18", 0.422], ["2016-09-20", 0.418], ["2016-09-21", 0.407], ["2016-09-24", 0.412], ["2016-09-26", 0.413], ["2016-09-28", 0.411], ["2016-10-01", 0.409], ["2016-10-03", 0.412], ["2016-10-07", 0.409], ["2016-10-08", 0.412], ["2016-10-12", 0.412], ["2016-10-14", 0.409], ["2016-10-18", 0.41], ["2016-10-19", 0.41], ["2016-10-21", 0.406], ["2016-10-27", 0.408], ["2016-11-23", 0.408], ["2016-12-07", 0.408], ["2016-12-21", 0.408], ["2016-12-22", 0.408], ["2017-01-01", 0.407], ["2017-01-05", 0.41], ["2017-01-06", 0.41], ["2017-01-08", 0.406], ["2017-01-24", 0.406], ["2017-01-25", 0.404], ["2017-03-11", 0.406], ["2017-03-24", 0.407], ["2017-04-15", 0.407], ["2017-04-16", 0.408], ["2017-04-19", 0.407], ["2017-04-26", 0.407], ["2017-05-01", 0.409], ["2017-05-02", 0.408], ["2017-05-14", 0.408], ["2017-05-20", 0.408], ["2017-05-24", 0.409], ["2017-05-27", 0.409], ["2017-05-27", 0.409], ["2017-05-31", 0.41], ["2017-06-01", 0.415], ["2017-06-03", 0.416], ["2017-06-05", 0.416], ["2017-06-09", 0.415], ["2017-06-14", 0.415], ["2017-06-14", 0.415]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/108/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Ride sharing company Uber is being sued in June 2016 in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit is intended to deal with drivers' claims that they are misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees. The current definition of Uber's workers has several important legal implications, including whether the company or drivers pay for gas, insurance, vehicle upkeep, and other costs, conditions of hiring and firing drivers, ability to take tips, collective bargaining protections, etc.
Noted class-action labor lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan is leading the efforts of the lawsuit, and she has been raising labor rights issues with other companies with business models similar to Uber's. Arguing that the corpus of Uber drivers, sourced from the general population, does not qualify as a class lies at the core of Uber's fight against the case. Uber also argues that the lawsuit is against the interests of the workers, that establishing the drivers as employees will remove the flexibility of their scheduling.
A ruling against Uber would change Uber's business model and have significant economic impact on the company as well as the sharing market. The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial this June.
Will the trial be completed, and rule that Uber drivers have been misclassified as contractors?
To resolve as positive, the case must litigated through to a bench or jury verdict, there having been no settlement, and Uber's appeal of the certification of the class having been denied with finality. Also, this question regards only the case before judge Edward Chen, and not any subsequent appeals or parallel cases. | true | 2017-06-15 | Will Uber drivers win a class-action lawsuit to define them as employees? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-01-19 | ["https://wordleplay.io/"] | binary | [["2016-01-20", 0.68], ["2016-01-20", 0.618], ["2016-01-21", 0.586], ["2016-01-21", 0.581], ["2016-01-21", 0.556], ["2016-01-21", 0.559], ["2016-01-22", 0.549], ["2016-01-22", 0.538], ["2016-01-22", 0.531], ["2016-01-22", 0.534], ["2016-01-22", 0.518], ["2016-01-23", 0.523], ["2016-01-23", 0.527], ["2016-01-23", 0.52], ["2016-01-24", 0.519], ["2016-01-24", 0.521], ["2016-01-24", 0.527], ["2016-01-24", 0.535], ["2016-01-25", 0.536], ["2016-01-25", 0.534], ["2016-01-25", 0.541], ["2016-01-25", 0.535], ["2016-01-26", 0.536], ["2016-01-26", 0.532], ["2016-01-26", 0.535], ["2016-01-26", 0.542], ["2016-01-27", 0.54], ["2016-01-27", 0.539], ["2016-01-27", 0.539], ["2016-01-27", 0.529], ["2016-01-28", 0.529], ["2016-01-28", 0.529], ["2016-01-29", 0.526], ["2016-01-29", 0.523], ["2016-01-29", 0.522], ["2016-01-30", 0.524], ["2016-01-30", 0.527], ["2016-01-31", 0.529], ["2016-01-31", 0.531], ["2016-02-01", 0.53], ["2016-02-02", 0.527], ["2016-02-02", 0.527], ["2016-02-03", 0.524], ["2016-02-03", 0.518], ["2016-02-04", 0.517], ["2016-02-04", 0.517], ["2016-02-04", 0.513], ["2016-02-05", 0.514], ["2016-02-05", 0.513], ["2016-02-05", 0.51], ["2016-02-08", 0.509], ["2016-02-09", 0.508], ["2016-02-09", 0.509], ["2016-02-09", 0.509], ["2016-02-09", 0.508], ["2016-02-10", 0.508], ["2016-02-11", 0.505], ["2016-02-11", 0.503], ["2016-02-11", 0.502], ["2016-02-11", 0.496], ["2016-02-12", 0.496], ["2016-02-12", 0.495], ["2016-02-14", 0.493], ["2016-02-14", 0.493], ["2016-02-15", 0.493], ["2016-02-15", 0.49], ["2016-02-15", 0.488], ["2016-02-16", 0.482], ["2016-02-16", 0.48], ["2016-02-16", 0.479], ["2016-02-16", 0.474], ["2016-02-17", 0.472], ["2016-02-17", 0.474], ["2016-02-17", 0.474], ["2016-02-17", 0.477], ["2016-02-18", 0.476], ["2016-02-18", 0.476], ["2016-02-19", 0.475], ["2016-02-19", 0.475], ["2016-02-19", 0.474], ["2016-02-19", 0.472], ["2016-02-20", 0.471], ["2016-02-20", 0.471], ["2016-02-20", 0.469], ["2016-02-20", 0.468], ["2016-02-21", 0.466], ["2016-02-21", 0.463], ["2016-02-22", 0.461], ["2016-02-23", 0.46], ["2016-02-24", 0.459], ["2016-02-24", 0.459], ["2016-02-26", 0.458], ["2016-02-26", 0.458], ["2016-02-26", 0.458], ["2016-02-26", 0.457], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-28", 0.456], ["2016-02-29", 0.456], ["2016-02-29", 0.455]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/109/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In a provocative new paper published in the Astronomical Journal (see typical news story), two Caltech professors -- Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown -- propose the existence of a new, but as-yet unseen, planet in the outer solar system. This world, tentatively dubbed "Planet Nine", is predicted to have a mass ten times that of Earth, an orbital period of about 20,000 years, and a large eccentricity (e~0.6).
The evidence for Planet Nine is indirect, and is based on alignments of known Kuiper Belt objects that are very difficult to explain through simple chance occurrence. In essence, the presence of the new planet is inferred through the gravitational sculpting that it has produced in the trajectories of small objects that lie beyond Neptune's orbit.
The current distance to Planet Nine is likely about a thousand times the Earth-Sun distance, and so if it exists, it is quite faint, explaining why it has thus far gone unnoticed. Its detection would be possible, but would require a systematic search using large telescopes such as the Keck Observatory or Subaru Observatory telescopes on Mauna Kea.
Will the discovery by direct observation of a new solar system planet having characteristics substantially similar to those described in the Batygin-Brown paper be announced in a peer-reviewed paper prior to Dec. 31, 2016?
(For this question to resolve as "Yes", the new planet should have an inferred radius larger than that of Earth, an orbital period greater than 5,000 years, and an orbital eccentricity e > 0.25). | true | 2016-02-29 | Will "Planet Nine" be discovered in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-01-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-01", 0.1], ["2016-03-01", 0.35], ["2016-03-01", 0.3], ["2016-03-01", 0.275], ["2016-03-01", 0.318], ["2016-03-01", 0.31], ["2016-03-01", 0.292], ["2016-03-01", 0.257], ["2016-03-01", 0.244], ["2016-03-01", 0.256], ["2016-03-01", 0.255], ["2016-03-01", 0.266], ["2016-03-02", 0.276], ["2016-03-02", 0.268], ["2016-03-02", 0.266], ["2016-03-02", 0.259], ["2016-03-02", 0.251], ["2016-03-02", 0.236], ["2016-03-03", 0.239], ["2016-03-03", 0.246], ["2016-03-03", 0.253], ["2016-03-03", 0.252], ["2016-03-03", 0.239], ["2016-03-03", 0.242], ["2016-03-03", 0.255], ["2016-03-03", 0.248], ["2016-03-04", 0.248], ["2016-03-05", 0.254], ["2016-03-05", 0.267], ["2016-03-08", 0.27], ["2016-03-08", 0.267], ["2016-03-08", 0.265], ["2016-03-08", 0.264], ["2016-03-08", 0.267], ["2016-03-09", 0.258], ["2016-03-10", 0.258], ["2016-03-10", 0.255], ["2016-03-11", 0.254], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.257], ["2016-03-12", 0.257], ["2016-03-13", 0.255], ["2016-03-14", 0.255], ["2016-03-16", 0.255], ["2016-03-17", 0.258], ["2016-03-18", 0.26], ["2016-03-20", 0.269], ["2016-03-20", 0.271], ["2016-03-25", 0.269], ["2016-03-27", 0.271], ["2016-03-28", 0.268], ["2016-03-29", 0.268], ["2016-04-01", 0.269], ["2016-04-04", 0.266], ["2016-04-09", 0.267], ["2016-04-09", 0.273], ["2016-04-13", 0.28], ["2016-04-13", 0.295], ["2016-04-13", 0.295], ["2016-04-13", 0.309], ["2016-04-14", 0.308], ["2016-04-14", 0.308], ["2016-04-14", 0.31], ["2016-04-15", 0.308], ["2016-04-15", 0.304], ["2016-04-15", 0.301], ["2016-04-15", 0.3], ["2016-04-15", 0.299], ["2016-04-15", 0.312], ["2016-04-17", 0.307], ["2016-04-19", 0.311], ["2016-04-20", 0.306], ["2016-04-21", 0.306], ["2016-04-26", 0.302], ["2016-04-28", 0.3], ["2016-05-03", 0.297], ["2016-05-06", 0.298], ["2016-05-08", 0.299], ["2016-05-10", 0.3], ["2016-05-17", 0.301], ["2016-05-18", 0.303], ["2016-05-18", 0.302], ["2016-05-19", 0.302], ["2016-05-20", 0.301], ["2016-05-23", 0.3], ["2016-05-25", 0.297], ["2016-05-30", 0.285], ["2016-05-31", 0.284]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/110/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | NASA’s Kepler Mission revealed that the star KIC 8462852, a.k.a. "Tabby's Star" displays severe, aperiodic dips in brightness that have so far defied conventional astrophysical explanations.
Several explanations for this behavior have been put forward, ranging from [a family of comets] to a swarm of artificial, orbiting “megastructures.”
To add to the mystery, an analysis of historical plate data indicates this star has dimmed by nearly 0.2 magnitudes, which is "unprecedented" for a star of this type. (This analysis has been criticized at potentially being due to calibration error in the photographic plates.)
Searches for radio or other signals from the star, featured in a previous question, have as yet turned up nothing of note. As of March 01, 2016, no consensus explanation of this star's behavior has emerged.
Will a consensus emerge in 2016?
We'll use the following criteria to specify consensus. Let N be the number of refereed published journal papers that:
provide an explanation for the aperiodic dips seen in KIC 8462852, and
are cited by at least one published paper, or two preprints, supporting their explanation with additional analysis and/or data, and
are cited at least 5 times in total, and
are not cited by a published, refereed paper refuting the given explanation.
If N=1 we will consider a consensus to have been reached. If N > 1, and if all of the explanations are qualitatively the same, i.e. involving the same essential physics and objects (e.g. "Comet breakup"), we will also consider consensus to have been reached. Otherwise, we will consider that consensus has not yet been reached. | true | 2016-06-01 | Will a consensus explanation of the strange behavior of the star KIC 8462852 emerge this year? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-01 | 2016-01-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-01-28", 0.75], ["2016-01-28", 0.773], ["2016-01-29", 0.744], ["2016-01-30", 0.732], ["2016-01-30", 0.734], ["2016-01-31", 0.71], ["2016-01-31", 0.702], ["2016-02-01", 0.708], ["2016-02-01", 0.723], ["2016-02-02", 0.731], ["2016-02-02", 0.725], ["2016-02-02", 0.697], ["2016-02-03", 0.708], ["2016-02-03", 0.706], ["2016-02-03", 0.709], ["2016-02-04", 0.699], ["2016-02-04", 0.699], ["2016-02-04", 0.697], ["2016-02-05", 0.682], ["2016-02-05", 0.673], ["2016-02-06", 0.663], ["2016-02-06", 0.665], ["2016-02-07", 0.669], ["2016-02-08", 0.663], ["2016-02-08", 0.662], ["2016-02-09", 0.654], ["2016-02-09", 0.66], ["2016-02-10", 0.658], ["2016-02-10", 0.661], ["2016-02-10", 0.646], ["2016-02-10", 0.647], ["2016-02-11", 0.64], ["2016-02-11", 0.644], ["2016-02-12", 0.637], ["2016-02-12", 0.635], ["2016-02-13", 0.633], ["2016-02-14", 0.637], ["2016-02-14", 0.642], ["2016-02-15", 0.64], ["2016-02-15", 0.639], ["2016-02-15", 0.626], ["2016-02-16", 0.626], ["2016-02-16", 0.629], ["2016-02-16", 0.625], ["2016-02-16", 0.625], ["2016-02-16", 0.621], ["2016-02-17", 0.624], ["2016-02-17", 0.624], ["2016-02-17", 0.631], ["2016-02-17", 0.629], ["2016-02-18", 0.627], ["2016-02-18", 0.628], ["2016-02-19", 0.626], ["2016-02-19", 0.63], ["2016-02-19", 0.627], ["2016-02-19", 0.616], ["2016-02-19", 0.613], ["2016-02-20", 0.619], ["2016-02-20", 0.625], ["2016-02-20", 0.627], ["2016-02-20", 0.617], ["2016-02-21", 0.615], ["2016-02-21", 0.611], ["2016-02-22", 0.613], ["2016-02-22", 0.613], ["2016-02-23", 0.608], ["2016-02-23", 0.607], ["2016-02-23", 0.603], ["2016-02-24", 0.601], ["2016-02-24", 0.601], ["2016-02-25", 0.602], ["2016-02-27", 0.602], ["2016-02-27", 0.603], ["2016-02-27", 0.598], ["2016-02-28", 0.6], ["2016-02-28", 0.602], ["2016-02-28", 0.6], ["2016-02-28", 0.6], ["2016-02-29", 0.604], ["2016-02-29", 0.605], ["2016-02-29", 0.609], ["2016-02-29", 0.61], ["2016-03-01", 0.612], ["2016-03-01", 0.613], ["2016-03-02", 0.612], ["2016-03-02", 0.616], ["2016-03-02", 0.617], ["2016-03-03", 0.614], ["2016-03-03", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-05", 0.614], ["2016-03-05", 0.615], ["2016-03-06", 0.616], ["2016-03-07", 0.616], ["2016-03-07", 0.616], ["2016-03-07", 0.611], ["2016-03-07", 0.612], ["2016-03-08", 0.612], ["2016-03-08", 0.613]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/112/ | The game of Go originated in China more than 2,500 years ago. While similar to chess in many ways, Go is much more minimalist in its ruleset and more esoteric in strategy. The aspect of pattern recognition and the huge state space of possible moves in Go (vastly greater than chess) make it an excellent metric for the capabilities of artifical intelligence.
Whereas [DeepBlue defeated chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov] in 1997, it has taken 20 years for computer Go systems to become competitive with top human players. Recently, dramatic advances in ["deep learning"] AI systems have led to the development of much more competitive Go software.
In a [previous question] we asked if a computer Go system would defeat a professional player in 2016. In this question the stakes go up.
Google's [DeepMind] recently [announced] that their Go-playing program [AlphaGo] defeated European Go champion Fan Hui in a closed-door game, and will be playing against the reigning Go world champion, Lee Sedol, in a five-game match in March. Will AlphaGo win? | Science & Tech | This question will resolve positively if AlphaGo finishes five official games against Lee Sedol and wins three or more games, or if Lee Sedol concedes defeat. If AlphaGo loses or if the match is not finished by April 1 2016, the question resolves negatively. | true | 2016-03-08 | Will Google's AlphaGo beat Go player Lee Sedol in March 2016? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-04 | 2016-02-02 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-03", 0.1], ["2016-02-03", 0.1], ["2016-02-03", 0.07], ["2016-02-04", 0.055], ["2016-02-04", 0.108], ["2016-02-04", 0.092], ["2016-02-04", 0.087], ["2016-02-04", 0.116], ["2016-02-04", 0.167], ["2016-02-05", 0.155], ["2016-02-05", 0.142], ["2016-02-06", 0.152], ["2016-02-06", 0.187], ["2016-02-06", 0.177], ["2016-02-06", 0.18], ["2016-02-07", 0.189], ["2016-02-09", 0.196], ["2016-02-10", 0.197], ["2016-02-10", 0.201], ["2016-02-10", 0.206], ["2016-02-11", 0.206], ["2016-02-14", 0.213], ["2016-02-15", 0.21], ["2016-02-15", 0.202], ["2016-02-15", 0.232], ["2016-02-19", 0.235], ["2016-02-19", 0.238], ["2016-02-20", 0.237], ["2016-02-20", 0.24], ["2016-02-20", 0.245], ["2016-02-20", 0.256], ["2016-02-20", 0.252], ["2016-02-21", 0.244], ["2016-02-28", 0.259], ["2016-02-28", 0.261], ["2016-02-29", 0.263], ["2016-03-05", 0.263], ["2016-03-06", 0.268], ["2016-03-08", 0.267], ["2016-03-09", 0.265], ["2016-03-10", 0.266], ["2016-03-11", 0.267], ["2016-03-12", 0.266], ["2016-03-13", 0.283], ["2016-03-13", 0.285], ["2016-03-17", 0.286], ["2016-03-18", 0.291], ["2016-03-20", 0.294], ["2016-03-22", 0.295], ["2016-03-25", 0.296], ["2016-03-27", 0.299], ["2016-03-28", 0.297], ["2016-03-30", 0.313], ["2016-04-02", 0.313], ["2016-04-08", 0.311], ["2016-04-26", 0.305], ["2016-04-26", 0.305], ["2016-04-26", 0.301], ["2016-05-16", 0.303], ["2016-05-17", 0.303], ["2016-05-25", 0.308], ["2016-05-29", 0.308], ["2016-05-30", 0.302], ["2016-05-30", 0.306], ["2016-05-31", 0.295], ["2016-05-31", 0.293], ["2016-05-31", 0.297], ["2016-05-31", 0.297], ["2016-06-01", 0.297], ["2016-06-01", 0.298]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/122/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Modern theories of quantum gravity are generally thought to only be testable at the Planck scale - very high energies or very small distances beyond our current technological scope. However, in the past five years proposals have been made for tabletop experiments for quantum gravity. These experiments won't need to access Planck scale physics; rather, they could use recently successful laboratory techniques (1, 2) for manipulating macroscopic quantum systems, and attempt to observe quantum gravity phenomona in these systems.
Italian group Belenchia et al propose using opto-mechanical quantum oscillators to measure a specific predicted effect of quantum gravity. Opto-mechanical oscillators are macroscopic objects, like highly reflective silicone mirrors on springs, whose motions can be controlled by pulses of electromagnetic radiation. Belenchia et al explain that the specific effect to look for is a periodic squeezing, or localization of the oscillating component's position; the overall motion will no longer be simple harmonic oscillation, due to corrections from gravitational effects. Another paper by Australian group Gan et al also outlines the feasibility of testing quantum gravity in an opto-mechanical setting.
The design of these flavor of experiments is within technical scope, as claimed by the papers, albeit challenging. The opto-mechanical system must be supercooled into a highly quantum mechanical state and extremely precise measurements of the oscillator must be made. More importantly, the underlying concept's validity still needs to be explored through the peer review process.
Can opto-mechanical systems of the proposed type interestingly constrain quantum gravity models?
This question will resolve positively if the following are satisfied:
(a) either the Belanchia or Gan paper receives 10 or more citations on Google Scholar by the end of 2016
(b) an experimental physics paper is published by January 1, 2018 which cites either of the above articles and mentions opto-mechanics to study quantum gravity in the abstract. | true | 2016-06-01 | Can quantum gravity be interestingly constrained using tabletop experiments? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-01-18 | 2016-02-04 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-08", 0.35], ["2016-02-09", 0.574], ["2016-02-10", 0.561], ["2016-02-11", 0.561], ["2016-02-13", 0.552], ["2016-02-14", 0.554], ["2016-02-16", 0.624], ["2016-02-18", 0.638], ["2016-02-20", 0.676], ["2016-02-22", 0.685], ["2016-02-23", 0.689], ["2016-02-25", 0.687], ["2016-02-27", 0.69], ["2016-02-29", 0.695], ["2016-03-01", 0.693], ["2016-03-03", 0.701], ["2016-03-05", 0.701], ["2016-03-07", 0.701], ["2016-03-08", 0.701], ["2016-03-10", 0.714], ["2016-03-12", 0.721], ["2016-03-14", 0.712], ["2016-03-16", 0.713], ["2016-03-17", 0.714], ["2016-03-19", 0.713], ["2016-03-20", 0.714], ["2016-03-22", 0.728], ["2016-03-23", 0.728], ["2016-03-25", 0.729], ["2016-03-27", 0.73], ["2016-03-29", 0.731], ["2016-03-30", 0.731], ["2016-04-01", 0.735], ["2016-04-02", 0.738], ["2016-04-03", 0.737], ["2016-04-05", 0.736], ["2016-04-06", 0.735], ["2016-04-08", 0.739], ["2016-04-10", 0.741], ["2016-04-11", 0.741], ["2016-04-12", 0.742], ["2016-04-14", 0.733], ["2016-04-15", 0.739], ["2016-04-17", 0.741], ["2016-04-18", 0.737], ["2016-04-20", 0.738], ["2016-04-23", 0.738], ["2016-04-23", 0.739], ["2016-04-25", 0.739], ["2016-04-27", 0.743], ["2016-04-27", 0.745], ["2016-04-29", 0.746], ["2016-05-01", 0.744], ["2016-05-03", 0.744], ["2016-05-04", 0.747], ["2016-05-08", 0.747], ["2016-05-10", 0.748], ["2016-05-12", 0.75], ["2016-05-15", 0.751], ["2016-05-17", 0.757], ["2016-05-19", 0.763], ["2016-05-22", 0.764], ["2016-05-24", 0.764], ["2016-05-25", 0.765], ["2016-05-30", 0.766], ["2016-05-31", 0.766], ["2016-06-02", 0.768], ["2016-06-04", 0.768], ["2016-06-05", 0.768], ["2016-06-06", 0.766], ["2016-06-08", 0.766], ["2016-06-11", 0.766], ["2016-06-13", 0.764], ["2016-06-14", 0.766], ["2016-06-17", 0.766], ["2016-06-18", 0.767], ["2016-06-20", 0.768], ["2016-06-21", 0.77], ["2016-06-23", 0.77], ["2016-06-24", 0.77], ["2016-06-26", 0.771], ["2016-06-27", 0.77], ["2016-06-29", 0.77], ["2016-07-01", 0.769], ["2016-07-03", 0.77], ["2016-07-04", 0.77], ["2016-07-05", 0.77], ["2016-07-07", 0.771], ["2016-07-09", 0.774], ["2016-07-11", 0.773], ["2016-07-12", 0.775], ["2016-07-15", 0.772], ["2016-07-16", 0.771], ["2016-07-18", 0.771], ["2016-07-20", 0.772], ["2016-07-21", 0.773], ["2016-07-23", 0.775], ["2016-07-25", 0.775], ["2016-07-27", 0.775], ["2016-07-29", 0.774], ["2016-07-31", 0.773]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/126/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | Climate change driven largely by increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is generating an upward trend to the global average surface temperature, as exhibited in this summary plot
Last year (2015) the average temperature set new record highs by a large margin, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) data analysis.
Will 2016 again set a new record? Or will it fall below the level of 2015?
This will resolve in the positive if the NASA GISS global average temperature for 2016 is published above that of 2015. | true | 2016-07-31 | Will 2016 be the warmest year on record? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-02-07 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-10", 0.45], ["2016-02-10", 0.43], ["2016-02-10", 0.403], ["2016-02-10", 0.305], ["2016-02-10", 0.304], ["2016-02-10", 0.314], ["2016-02-10", 0.337], ["2016-02-10", 0.317], ["2016-02-10", 0.339], ["2016-02-10", 0.349], ["2016-02-10", 0.358], ["2016-02-10", 0.344], ["2016-02-10", 0.351], ["2016-02-11", 0.357], ["2016-02-11", 0.362], ["2016-02-11", 0.365], ["2016-02-13", 0.386], ["2016-02-13", 0.376], ["2016-02-14", 0.379], ["2016-02-15", 0.375], ["2016-02-15", 0.368], ["2016-02-15", 0.355], ["2016-02-16", 0.35], ["2016-02-16", 0.35], ["2016-02-18", 0.353], ["2016-02-19", 0.355], ["2016-02-19", 0.351], ["2016-02-19", 0.361], ["2016-02-19", 0.36], ["2016-02-19", 0.36], ["2016-02-19", 0.362], ["2016-02-20", 0.363], ["2016-02-20", 0.365], ["2016-02-20", 0.361], ["2016-02-20", 0.364], ["2016-02-20", 0.359], ["2016-02-21", 0.349], ["2016-02-22", 0.339], ["2016-02-23", 0.337], ["2016-02-28", 0.348], ["2016-02-28", 0.35], ["2016-03-05", 0.351], ["2016-03-05", 0.348], ["2016-03-07", 0.348], ["2016-03-09", 0.347], ["2016-03-11", 0.347], ["2016-03-11", 0.343], ["2016-03-12", 0.341], ["2016-03-13", 0.356], ["2016-03-15", 0.369], ["2016-03-16", 0.37], ["2016-03-18", 0.366], ["2016-03-22", 0.368], ["2016-03-22", 0.368], ["2016-03-30", 0.382], ["2016-04-02", 0.382], ["2016-04-08", 0.377], ["2016-04-13", 0.377], ["2016-04-15", 0.378], ["2016-04-16", 0.378], ["2016-04-18", 0.375], ["2016-04-19", 0.378], ["2016-04-22", 0.378], ["2016-05-03", 0.377], ["2016-05-04", 0.376], ["2016-05-16", 0.376], ["2016-05-17", 0.377], ["2016-06-01", 0.375], ["2016-06-07", 0.371], ["2016-06-08", 0.371], ["2016-06-08", 0.371], ["2016-06-17", 0.369], ["2016-06-20", 0.369], ["2016-06-20", 0.367], ["2016-06-26", 0.355], ["2016-06-26", 0.351], ["2016-06-26", 0.351], ["2016-06-28", 0.351], ["2016-06-28", 0.352], ["2016-06-28", 0.355], ["2016-06-29", 0.355], ["2016-06-29", 0.356], ["2016-06-29", 0.356], ["2016-06-29", 0.356], ["2016-06-29", 0.353], ["2016-06-29", 0.349], ["2016-06-29", 0.346], ["2016-06-30", 0.346], ["2016-06-30", 0.347], ["2016-06-30", 0.338], ["2016-06-30", 0.338], ["2016-06-30", 0.343]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/127/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Education & Research | The so-called "abc conjecture" (or the Oesterlé–Masse conjecture) states that, given relatively prime numbers (a,b,c) such that a+b=c, and the product d of the unique prime factors of a,b, and c, then for a specified value of an index , there are only a finite number of triples (a,b,c) such that
(That is, almost all the time d is substantially greater than c -- for instance for a=5, b=7, c=12, we have d=2 x 3 x 5 x 7=210 > c. An example of the opposite (rare, finitely occuring) kind is a=3,b=125,c=128, where d=2 x 3 x 5=30. )
The abc conjecture, if true, is regarded as a revelation of deep and surprising connections between the basic arithmetical operations of addition and multiplication, and its truth would have a large number of implications for number theory.
In 2012 the mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted several long papers on his website in which he claimed to have found a proof of the conjecture. Mochizuki is a highly respected mathematician, but the papers (and previous results) total more than five hundred pages and the mathematics community has yet to understand Mochizuki's work, let alone verify the proof. A conference of experts in December 2015 that took place in Oxford was unable to resolve the matter, but some progress is being made, and a further conference is scheduled for July 2016.
The question will be regarded as answered in the affirmative if a formal paper (or set of papers) by Mochizuki proving the abc conjecture is accepted by a peer-reviewed mathematics journal by the end of December 2017. | true | 2016-07-01 | Will Mochizuki's proof of the "abc conjecture" be formally accepted by the mathematics community by the end of 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-02-14 | 2016-02-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-10", 0.54], ["2016-02-10", 0.52], ["2016-02-10", 0.547], ["2016-02-10", 0.635], ["2016-02-10", 0.588], ["2016-02-10", 0.598], ["2016-02-10", 0.599], ["2016-02-10", 0.592], ["2016-02-10", 0.583], ["2016-02-10", 0.59], ["2016-02-10", 0.585], ["2016-02-10", 0.582], ["2016-02-11", 0.578], ["2016-02-11", 0.581], ["2016-02-11", 0.573], ["2016-02-13", 0.574], ["2016-02-14", 0.564], ["2016-02-16", 0.566], ["2016-02-16", 0.573], ["2016-02-17", 0.564], ["2016-02-19", 0.563], ["2016-02-19", 0.564], ["2016-02-19", 0.57], ["2016-02-19", 0.567], ["2016-02-19", 0.576], ["2016-02-20", 0.573], ["2016-02-20", 0.572], ["2016-02-20", 0.57], ["2016-02-20", 0.557], ["2016-02-20", 0.562], ["2016-02-20", 0.573], ["2016-02-22", 0.555], ["2016-02-23", 0.556], ["2016-02-28", 0.556], ["2016-02-28", 0.561], ["2016-03-01", 0.565], ["2016-03-02", 0.577], ["2016-03-03", 0.577], ["2016-03-05", 0.573], ["2016-03-07", 0.572], ["2016-03-08", 0.57], ["2016-03-09", 0.57], ["2016-03-09", 0.568], ["2016-03-09", 0.579], ["2016-03-10", 0.58], ["2016-03-12", 0.576], ["2016-03-12", 0.576], ["2016-03-13", 0.563], ["2016-03-14", 0.565], ["2016-03-16", 0.563], ["2016-03-18", 0.563], ["2016-03-18", 0.563], ["2016-03-18", 0.563], ["2016-03-19", 0.566], ["2016-03-19", 0.571], ["2016-03-20", 0.572], ["2016-03-20", 0.573], ["2016-03-22", 0.57], ["2016-03-22", 0.568], ["2016-03-23", 0.567], ["2016-03-23", 0.561], ["2016-03-25", 0.56], ["2016-03-28", 0.56], ["2016-03-29", 0.56], ["2016-03-30", 0.567], ["2016-04-04", 0.567], ["2016-04-04", 0.57], ["2016-04-11", 0.564], ["2016-04-11", 0.567], ["2016-04-12", 0.572], ["2016-04-14", 0.572], ["2016-04-15", 0.566], ["2016-04-15", 0.566], ["2016-04-15", 0.565], ["2016-04-15", 0.566], ["2016-04-15", 0.567], ["2016-04-15", 0.566]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/129/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Brain Preservation Foundation has created a two-part prize for a team that can demonstrate high fidelity preservation of neural tissue.
The first part of this prize, the Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize (for a rabbit brain) was won today.
The winning team (21st Century Medicine) had to demonstrate complete ultrastructural preservation of 99+% of the animals connectome, as validated by electron microscopy.
Will the Brain Preservation Foundation announce a winner of the currently outstanding Large Mammal Brain Preservation prize (a pig or larger animal) within the next 12 months? | true | 2016-04-15 | Will the Brain Preservation Foundation's Large Mammal preservation prize be won by Feb 9th, 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-04-16 | 2016-02-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-12", 0.5], ["2016-02-12", 0.46], ["2016-02-12", 0.47], ["2016-02-13", 0.397], ["2016-02-13", 0.312], ["2016-02-13", 0.488], ["2016-02-13", 0.486], ["2016-02-13", 0.455], ["2016-02-13", 0.476], ["2016-02-13", 0.488], ["2016-02-14", 0.482], ["2016-02-14", 0.482], ["2016-02-14", 0.506], ["2016-02-14", 0.5], ["2016-02-14", 0.508], ["2016-02-14", 0.506], ["2016-02-15", 0.509], ["2016-02-16", 0.518], ["2016-02-17", 0.488], ["2016-02-19", 0.488], ["2016-02-19", 0.487], ["2016-02-19", 0.493], ["2016-02-19", 0.503], ["2016-02-19", 0.503], ["2016-02-20", 0.503], ["2016-02-20", 0.502], ["2016-02-20", 0.515], ["2016-02-20", 0.516], ["2016-02-20", 0.513], ["2016-02-20", 0.52], ["2016-02-22", 0.537], ["2016-02-23", 0.539], ["2016-02-24", 0.539], ["2016-02-25", 0.536], ["2016-02-28", 0.527], ["2016-02-28", 0.528], ["2016-03-02", 0.512], ["2016-03-02", 0.511], ["2016-03-03", 0.512], ["2016-03-05", 0.508], ["2016-03-09", 0.509], ["2016-03-10", 0.512], ["2016-03-12", 0.514], ["2016-03-13", 0.514], ["2016-03-14", 0.512], ["2016-03-15", 0.514], ["2016-03-18", 0.514], ["2016-03-19", 0.514], ["2016-03-22", 0.517], ["2016-03-27", 0.517], ["2016-03-30", 0.526], ["2016-04-08", 0.526], ["2016-04-13", 0.524], ["2016-04-14", 0.524], ["2016-04-14", 0.523], ["2016-04-14", 0.522], ["2016-04-15", 0.522], ["2016-04-18", 0.522], ["2016-04-19", 0.523], ["2016-04-20", 0.519], ["2016-04-26", 0.519], ["2016-05-19", 0.519], ["2016-06-01", 0.519], ["2016-06-11", 0.518], ["2016-06-14", 0.512], ["2016-06-18", 0.51], ["2016-06-20", 0.513], ["2016-06-20", 0.514], ["2016-06-25", 0.515], ["2016-06-26", 0.508], ["2016-06-28", 0.507], ["2016-06-28", 0.507], ["2016-06-29", 0.507], ["2016-06-29", 0.511], ["2016-06-29", 0.512]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/130/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE is a prize for a company that can create a device specified as follows:
As envisioned for this competition, the device will be a tool capable of capturing key health metrics and diagnosing a set of 12 diseases. Metrics for health could include such elements as blood pressure, respiratory rate, and temperature. Ultimately, this tool will collect large volumes of data from ongoing measurement of health states through a combination of wireless sensors, imaging technologies, and portable, non-invasive laboratory replacements.
The devices are expected to accurately diagnose 13 health conditions (12 diseases and the absence of conditions) – 10 required core conditions and a choice of three elective conditions – in addition to capturing five real-time health vital signs, independent of a health care worker or facility, and in a way that provides a compelling consumer experience.
Will this prize be awarded by the end of 2017?
At the moment the Final Round is scheduled to occur from September 2016 through early 2017. The question resolves as true if the prize is awarded in 2017, and as false if it is not awarded in 2017, even if the deadline is extended. | true | 2016-06-30 | The Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE to be awarded to a team in 2017? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-09-27 | 2016-02-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-12", 0.22], ["2016-04-12", 0.418], ["2016-04-12", 0.478], ["2016-04-12", 0.479], ["2016-04-12", 0.476], ["2016-04-12", 0.453], ["2016-04-12", 0.444], ["2016-04-12", 0.453], ["2016-04-13", 0.438], ["2016-04-13", 0.442], ["2016-04-14", 0.419], ["2016-04-14", 0.426], ["2016-04-14", 0.424], ["2016-04-14", 0.407], ["2016-04-15", 0.395], ["2016-04-18", 0.395], ["2016-04-19", 0.392], ["2016-04-19", 0.388], ["2016-04-19", 0.397], ["2016-04-19", 0.393], ["2016-04-20", 0.387], ["2016-04-21", 0.377], ["2016-04-21", 0.375], ["2016-04-24", 0.38], ["2016-04-26", 0.379], ["2016-04-26", 0.381], ["2016-05-01", 0.374], ["2016-05-05", 0.369], ["2016-05-06", 0.363], ["2016-05-12", 0.358], ["2016-05-12", 0.352], ["2016-05-15", 0.35], ["2016-05-15", 0.342], ["2016-05-18", 0.337], ["2016-05-31", 0.335], ["2016-06-01", 0.331], ["2016-06-01", 0.332], ["2016-06-05", 0.341], ["2016-06-05", 0.33], ["2016-06-06", 0.326], ["2016-06-13", 0.317], ["2016-06-20", 0.316], ["2016-06-21", 0.308], ["2016-06-21", 0.307], ["2016-06-23", 0.305], ["2016-06-23", 0.305], ["2016-06-29", 0.3], ["2016-06-29", 0.3], ["2016-06-30", 0.3], ["2016-06-30", 0.304], ["2016-06-30", 0.3], ["2016-07-03", 0.297], ["2016-07-06", 0.293], ["2016-07-07", 0.291], ["2016-07-08", 0.289], ["2016-07-08", 0.276], ["2016-07-08", 0.273], ["2016-07-10", 0.271], ["2016-07-11", 0.266], ["2016-07-13", 0.263], ["2016-07-21", 0.262], ["2016-07-22", 0.283], ["2016-07-22", 0.272], ["2016-07-22", 0.271], ["2016-07-23", 0.266], ["2016-07-25", 0.264], ["2016-07-25", 0.262], ["2016-07-26", 0.263], ["2016-07-26", 0.256], ["2016-07-27", 0.256], ["2016-07-29", 0.258], ["2016-07-30", 0.254], ["2016-07-31", 0.255], ["2016-07-31", 0.253], ["2016-08-01", 0.248], ["2016-08-03", 0.244], ["2016-08-03", 0.24], ["2016-08-04", 0.24], ["2016-08-06", 0.236], ["2016-08-07", 0.237], ["2016-08-09", 0.236], ["2016-08-10", 0.232], ["2016-08-13", 0.23], ["2016-08-15", 0.224], ["2016-08-15", 0.23], ["2016-08-19", 0.228], ["2016-08-19", 0.227], ["2016-08-22", 0.214], ["2016-08-24", 0.211], ["2016-08-25", 0.212], ["2016-08-26", 0.207], ["2016-08-28", 0.205], ["2016-08-29", 0.204], ["2016-08-29", 0.204], ["2016-08-30", 0.204], ["2016-08-31", 0.204], ["2016-08-31", 0.203], ["2016-08-31", 0.203], ["2016-08-31", 0.202], ["2016-08-31", 0.2], ["2016-09-01", 0.198]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/131/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Medical testing and devices company Theranos has recently come into controversy after a Wall Street Journal article asserted that it has over-promised and under-delivered on its testing suite.
As summarized by The Washington Post,
Theranos, once valued at $9 billion based on its immense promise to make blood testing cheaper and more efficient, has been embroiled in questions about its technology and regulatory strategy for months. The scrutiny was sparked by a Wall Street Journal investigation that revealed that the intensely secret company's much-touted fingerprick blood tests were barely being used and employees had raised questions about the accuracy of its tests.
In response, Theranos itself claims:
Our proprietary devices are making it possible to run finger-stick samples for tests that could never be run on finger-stick before. We began using our proprietary devices in our lab at the launch of our retail operations. And we initiated filings with FDA two years ago—by choice, not necessity—because we are seeking to create a new model for laboratory testing standards, and have championed FDA oversight ever since. It is the right thing, which is also the hard thing. [...]
Capabilities of Theranos' devices: The article implies that Theranos' proprietary devices were only capable of running a limited number of tests. First, "Edison" is only one of many proprietary devices used as part of Theranos proprietary technologies. In total, Theranos research and development has developed hundreds of tests for finger-stick samples using our proprietary devices. [...]
Theranos' filings with FDA show the versatility of Theranos devices, and our confidence in the results of our tests: Theranos has publicly advocated for FDA regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and over 120 of the tests developed for use on our devices used as part of Theranos proprietary technologies have been submitted in pre-submissions to FDA.
Will Theranos succeed in getting 100 or more tests approved by the end of 2018?
Question will be resolved per announcement by Theranos or in a major media article. | true | 2016-09-01 | Will Theranos get more than 100 FDA approvals for blood tests by the end of 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-02-11 | 2016-02-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-11", 0.7], ["2016-02-11", 0.615], ["2016-02-11", 0.607]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/138/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | So far, this year hasn't worked out particularly well for the stock market. The S&P 500 index is down 10% since the start of 2016, the price of oil has tanked, and the VIX volatility index has jumped by more than 50%, with recent closes consistently above 25.
In the popular financial press, the VIX Index is often referred to as the “fear gauge”, and indeed, it's behavior can be modeled as the rate of flow from a reservoir of "fear" that is replenished by an autocorrelated process.
In reality, it is a quantitative assessment of expected stock market volatility over the next thirty day period, and is computed from S&P 500 stock index option prices.
To rule-of-thumb accuracy, the numerical value of the VIX corresponds to the annualized one-sigma percentage change in the value of the S&P 500 Index over the next month. So at present, with the VIX standing at 26, the market ascribes roughly a 30% chance that stocks will have changed in price by more than 7.5%, come March 10th (a month from now).
Typically, the value of the VIX lies between 10 and 20, but it regularly spikes during times of market turmoil. During the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the VIX briefly reached values above 80.
Prior to the close of the US equities markets at 4:00 PM EDT on March 15th, 2016, will the VIX Index have an intra-day print with a value above 30? | true | 2016-02-11 | Wil the VIX index top 30 before March 15th, 2016? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-02-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-18", 0.22], ["2016-08-18", 0.2], ["2016-08-18", 0.267], ["2016-08-18", 0.255], ["2016-08-19", 0.244], ["2016-08-19", 0.302], ["2016-08-19", 0.328], ["2016-08-19", 0.292], ["2016-08-19", 0.311], ["2016-08-19", 0.311], ["2016-08-19", 0.325], ["2016-08-19", 0.331], ["2016-08-19", 0.325], ["2016-08-19", 0.33], ["2016-08-19", 0.39], ["2016-08-19", 0.395], ["2016-08-20", 0.383], ["2016-08-20", 0.379], ["2016-08-22", 0.394], ["2016-08-23", 0.403], ["2016-08-24", 0.405], ["2016-08-25", 0.388], ["2016-08-28", 0.394], ["2016-08-30", 0.389], ["2016-08-30", 0.4], ["2016-08-31", 0.418], ["2016-08-31", 0.409], ["2016-08-31", 0.413], ["2016-09-01", 0.408], ["2016-09-02", 0.402], ["2016-09-02", 0.426], ["2016-09-05", 0.42], ["2016-09-07", 0.412], ["2016-09-07", 0.406], ["2016-09-13", 0.398], ["2016-09-14", 0.416], ["2016-09-14", 0.412], ["2016-09-14", 0.431], ["2016-09-15", 0.441], ["2016-09-15", 0.458], ["2016-09-16", 0.473], ["2016-09-16", 0.471], ["2016-09-16", 0.484], ["2016-09-16", 0.492], ["2016-09-16", 0.479], ["2016-09-16", 0.48], ["2016-09-16", 0.48], ["2016-09-17", 0.481], ["2016-09-18", 0.481], ["2016-09-19", 0.475], ["2016-09-19", 0.481], ["2016-09-21", 0.471], ["2016-09-21", 0.472], ["2016-09-22", 0.471], ["2016-09-22", 0.471], ["2016-09-24", 0.47], ["2016-09-26", 0.471], ["2016-09-26", 0.476], ["2016-09-27", 0.479], ["2016-09-29", 0.474], ["2016-09-30", 0.477], ["2016-09-30", 0.476], ["2016-09-30", 0.464], ["2016-09-30", 0.464], ["2016-10-01", 0.469], ["2016-10-01", 0.469], ["2016-10-01", 0.464], ["2016-10-01", 0.464], ["2016-10-01", 0.461], ["2016-10-03", 0.452], ["2016-10-16", 0.452], ["2016-10-16", 0.462], ["2016-10-20", 0.462], ["2016-10-20", 0.473], ["2016-10-20", 0.469], ["2016-10-21", 0.453], ["2016-10-21", 0.453], ["2016-10-23", 0.45], ["2016-10-23", 0.449], ["2016-10-25", 0.449], ["2016-10-25", 0.449], ["2016-10-27", 0.44]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/139/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) regulates all over-the-counter and prescription drugs released for sale to the public. CDER approves hundreds of new medications each year, most of which are variations of existing products (such as new dosages or generics). A small portion of these approvals are for “novel drugs,” products that are innovative and/or previously unavailable. These are approved either as new molecular entities under New Drug Applications or as new therapeutic biologics under Biologics License Applications.
From 2006 to 2014, CDER averaged about 28 novel drug approvals per year. In 2015, CDER hit a 19-year high with 45 approvals. The higher number is due in part to the center’s implementation of four expedited pathways to hasten the approval and release of certain medications judged to be important for the public; 27 of 2015’s 45 novel drugs were approved through this expedited process. A context of rapid progress in a range of medical technologies may also foster a “hyper-innovation age”, yielding many new kinds of therapies and potentially increasing the quantity of innovative drugs approved. As of July 27, CDER lists 16 novel drug approvals for 2016.
Will the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research make more than 45 novel drug approvals in 2016? Note: this figure does not include approvals made by the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which regulates certain categories of biologically derived drugs.
The question will resolve as positive if CDER’s list of novel drug approvals for 2016 shows 46 or more entries by January 1, 2017. | true | 2016-11-01 | Will there be more novel new drugs approved by the FDA in 2016 than in 2015? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-31 | 2016-02-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-08-17", 0.63], ["2016-08-17", 0.81], ["2016-08-17", 0.67], ["2016-08-17", 0.628], ["2016-08-18", 0.598], ["2016-08-18", 0.598], ["2016-08-18", 0.609], ["2016-08-18", 0.639], ["2016-08-18", 0.624], ["2016-08-19", 0.599], ["2016-08-19", 0.589], ["2016-08-19", 0.579], ["2016-08-19", 0.565], ["2016-08-20", 0.563], ["2016-08-20", 0.572], ["2016-08-23", 0.564], ["2016-08-24", 0.56], ["2016-08-27", 0.566], ["2016-08-30", 0.562], ["2016-08-31", 0.542], ["2016-08-31", 0.544], ["2016-09-01", 0.535], ["2016-09-01", 0.545], ["2016-09-03", 0.543], ["2016-09-14", 0.522], ["2016-09-14", 0.54], ["2016-09-14", 0.532], ["2016-09-15", 0.522], ["2016-09-16", 0.524], ["2016-09-16", 0.54], ["2016-09-17", 0.539], ["2016-09-19", 0.544], ["2016-09-20", 0.528], ["2016-09-21", 0.541], ["2016-09-24", 0.554], ["2016-09-26", 0.555], ["2016-09-29", 0.556], ["2016-09-29", 0.556], ["2016-09-29", 0.563], ["2016-10-03", 0.565], ["2016-10-04", 0.565], ["2016-10-19", 0.555], ["2016-10-19", 0.555], ["2016-10-19", 0.557], ["2016-10-20", 0.566], ["2016-10-21", 0.567], ["2016-10-23", 0.577], ["2016-10-23", 0.577], ["2016-10-23", 0.576], ["2016-10-24", 0.577], ["2016-11-08", 0.577], ["2016-11-14", 0.579], ["2016-11-17", 0.579], ["2016-11-23", 0.581], ["2016-11-24", 0.583], ["2016-11-29", 0.583], ["2016-12-07", 0.583], ["2016-12-21", 0.583], ["2016-12-22", 0.58], ["2016-12-31", 0.58], ["2017-01-01", 0.582], ["2017-01-02", 0.585], ["2017-01-04", 0.586], ["2017-01-10", 0.586], ["2017-01-10", 0.582], ["2017-01-10", 0.582], ["2017-01-11", 0.582], ["2017-01-27", 0.582], ["2017-01-28", 0.577], ["2017-01-31", 0.579], ["2017-02-14", 0.578], ["2017-02-21", 0.581], ["2017-02-21", 0.581], ["2017-02-23", 0.581], ["2017-02-24", 0.581], ["2017-02-24", 0.583], ["2017-02-26", 0.583], ["2017-03-01", 0.581], ["2017-03-03", 0.581], ["2017-03-10", 0.58], ["2017-03-11", 0.58], ["2017-03-12", 0.582], ["2017-03-15", 0.583], ["2017-03-15", 0.583]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/140/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | Along with ride-sharing services Lyft and Uber, AirBnB is a vanguard company in the "sharing economy" in which people make money sharing their property with complete strangers. It's a fairly new business model that hasn't yet achieved profitability or cleared all of its regulatory hurdles.
The concept is simple - people looking to spend the night in a certain city, but who don't want to shell out for a hotel, can rent spare rooms and spare spaces in people's houses. AirBnB provides the platform for renters and owners to connect, and collects a percentage of the transactions as its revenue. Pluses: The company doesn't have to spend a dime on building hotel properties or hiring hospitality staff. It's just a marketplace, where renters and owners do most of the work.
Minuses: The company is getting blowback from the governments of both San Francisco and New York City, both of whom are cracking down on non-hotel rentals less than 30 days in duration.
Since 2014, rumors have been circulating that AirBnB was preparing for an initial public offering, or IPO, that would make it a publicly-owned company, with stock available on a major stock exchange. As recently as June 2016 the rumors were ramping up again, based on financial rumblings that the company could initiate an IPO to raise cash for expansion. AirBnB turned again to private investors, however, raising around $850 million and valuing the company at $30 billion dollars. After such a large cash infusion, it may be a while before AirBnB need to raise more money from the public.
A successful IPO may be all in the timing, however. New York's and San Francisco's objections to the room-sharing economy could stall growth in those major markets and decrease eventual demand for stock.
Will AirBnB go public before 2019?
To resolve as positive, AirBnB must file the requisite documents for an initial public offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before December 31, 2018. | true | 2017-03-15 | Will AirBnB will go public before 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-03 | 2016-02-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-14", 0.35], ["2016-02-14", 0.45], ["2016-02-14", 0.435], ["2016-02-14", 0.483], ["2016-02-14", 0.49], ["2016-02-14", 0.492], ["2016-02-14", 0.572], ["2016-02-14", 0.553], ["2016-02-15", 0.517], ["2016-02-15", 0.479], ["2016-02-15", 0.481], ["2016-02-15", 0.498], ["2016-02-15", 0.498], ["2016-02-15", 0.485], ["2016-02-15", 0.493], ["2016-02-16", 0.494], ["2016-02-16", 0.505], ["2016-02-17", 0.487], ["2016-02-17", 0.475], ["2016-02-17", 0.466], ["2016-02-18", 0.468], ["2016-02-18", 0.46], ["2016-02-18", 0.473], ["2016-02-19", 0.474], ["2016-02-19", 0.475], ["2016-02-19", 0.47], ["2016-02-19", 0.461], ["2016-02-19", 0.461], ["2016-02-19", 0.451], ["2016-02-19", 0.453], ["2016-02-19", 0.455], ["2016-02-20", 0.457], ["2016-02-20", 0.458], ["2016-02-20", 0.447], ["2016-02-20", 0.44], ["2016-02-20", 0.451], ["2016-02-20", 0.455], ["2016-02-22", 0.442], ["2016-02-24", 0.441], ["2016-02-28", 0.435], ["2016-02-28", 0.434], ["2016-02-29", 0.438], ["2016-03-02", 0.439], ["2016-03-02", 0.454], ["2016-03-02", 0.455], ["2016-03-03", 0.46], ["2016-03-05", 0.46], ["2016-03-10", 0.46], ["2016-03-10", 0.461], ["2016-03-11", 0.46], ["2016-03-12", 0.457], ["2016-03-13", 0.457], ["2016-03-13", 0.469], ["2016-03-13", 0.47], ["2016-03-13", 0.472], ["2016-03-14", 0.467], ["2016-03-16", 0.468], ["2016-03-18", 0.469], ["2016-03-20", 0.467], ["2016-03-22", 0.465], ["2016-03-22", 0.48], ["2016-03-28", 0.481], ["2016-03-30", 0.496], ["2016-04-02", 0.492], ["2016-04-04", 0.483], ["2016-04-07", 0.483], ["2016-04-09", 0.478], ["2016-04-14", 0.477], ["2016-04-14", 0.477], ["2016-04-15", 0.475], ["2016-04-15", 0.485], ["2016-04-19", 0.487], ["2016-04-20", 0.484], ["2016-04-21", 0.483], ["2016-04-21", 0.473], ["2016-04-21", 0.479], ["2016-04-24", 0.478], ["2016-04-24", 0.471], ["2016-04-25", 0.469], ["2016-04-25", 0.469], ["2016-04-26", 0.461], ["2016-04-26", 0.448], ["2016-04-27", 0.446], ["2016-04-27", 0.442], ["2016-04-27", 0.44], ["2016-04-28", 0.438], ["2016-04-28", 0.436], ["2016-04-28", 0.436], ["2016-04-29", 0.427], ["2016-04-29", 0.425], ["2016-04-29", 0.425], ["2016-04-30", 0.423], ["2016-04-30", 0.423], ["2016-04-30", 0.422], ["2016-04-30", 0.422]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/142/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Facebook announced in March 2014 its plans to harness satellite, drone and other technology as part of an ambitious and costly effort to beam Internet connectivity to people in underdeveloped parts of the world.
By mid-2015, Facebook unveiled a solar-powered drone, code-named Aquila, which is able to fly in the air for 90 days at a time. Helium balloons will be attached to the plane and float it up into the air. The drones have a wingspan of 42 meters and will circle a three-km radius. During the day, they will float up to 90,000 feet and at night will drift down to 60,000 feet to conserve energy .
Will there be a credible media report or Facebook official announcement that Facebook has flight-tested one of these drones prior to May 31, 2016? | true | 2016-05-01 | Will Facebook flight-test the Aquila drone in the U.S early this year? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-20 | 2016-02-15 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-15", 0.5], ["2016-02-16", 0.301], ["2016-02-19", 0.295], ["2016-02-21", 0.278], ["2016-02-24", 0.272], ["2016-02-28", 0.274], ["2016-03-01", 0.27], ["2016-03-05", 0.262], ["2016-03-08", 0.261], ["2016-03-11", 0.274], ["2016-03-12", 0.268], ["2016-03-15", 0.28], ["2016-03-18", 0.272], ["2016-03-22", 0.271], ["2016-03-22", 0.268], ["2016-04-01", 0.263], ["2016-04-08", 0.263], ["2016-04-09", 0.262], ["2016-04-14", 0.26], ["2016-04-16", 0.256], ["2016-04-18", 0.255], ["2016-04-19", 0.253], ["2016-04-26", 0.253], ["2016-04-28", 0.248], ["2016-05-03", 0.244], ["2016-05-10", 0.241], ["2016-05-12", 0.239], ["2016-05-15", 0.239], ["2016-05-17", 0.243], ["2016-05-18", 0.242], ["2016-05-22", 0.243], ["2016-05-31", 0.242], ["2016-06-07", 0.24], ["2016-06-12", 0.238], ["2016-06-13", 0.236], ["2016-06-19", 0.235], ["2016-06-21", 0.23], ["2016-06-28", 0.23], ["2016-07-01", 0.222], ["2016-07-03", 0.221], ["2016-07-06", 0.221], ["2016-07-09", 0.22], ["2016-07-11", 0.218], ["2016-07-17", 0.217], ["2016-07-21", 0.215], ["2016-07-23", 0.213], ["2016-07-26", 0.212], ["2016-07-27", 0.197], ["2016-07-29", 0.2], ["2016-07-31", 0.197], ["2016-08-02", 0.195], ["2016-08-04", 0.196], ["2016-08-06", 0.194], ["2016-08-08", 0.192], ["2016-08-11", 0.191], ["2016-08-14", 0.192], ["2016-08-17", 0.193], ["2016-08-19", 0.192], ["2016-08-21", 0.19], ["2016-08-24", 0.191], ["2016-08-28", 0.193], ["2016-09-01", 0.191], ["2016-09-03", 0.185], ["2016-09-08", 0.185], ["2016-09-11", 0.184], ["2016-09-14", 0.187], ["2016-09-16", 0.186], ["2016-09-19", 0.193], ["2016-09-21", 0.192], ["2016-09-23", 0.197], ["2016-09-25", 0.197], ["2016-09-29", 0.195], ["2016-10-02", 0.195], ["2016-10-04", 0.194], ["2016-10-06", 0.194], ["2016-10-13", 0.193], ["2016-10-19", 0.194], ["2016-10-20", 0.191], ["2016-10-23", 0.191], ["2016-10-24", 0.192], ["2016-10-31", 0.192], ["2016-11-02", 0.191], ["2016-11-05", 0.19], ["2016-11-12", 0.19], ["2016-11-14", 0.188], ["2016-11-23", 0.188], ["2016-11-26", 0.188], ["2016-12-06", 0.188], ["2016-12-21", 0.189], ["2017-01-01", 0.189], ["2017-01-03", 0.189], ["2017-01-10", 0.189], ["2017-01-10", 0.188], ["2017-01-22", 0.189], ["2017-01-24", 0.188], ["2017-02-01", 0.188], ["2017-02-04", 0.189], ["2017-02-06", 0.188], ["2017-02-08", 0.19], ["2017-02-12", 0.19], ["2017-02-14", 0.189]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/143/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Scientists are beginning to target aging itself as a pathology, viewing it as a root cause to many age-related problems like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's. The World Health Organization (WHO) is being pushed by many drug developers to classify aging as a disease, which would allow pharmaceuticals to produce commercialized medication that specifically targets the process, and in turn treating all the pathology, of aging.
A change like this would take place in the final release of ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision), which will be released by WHO by 2018. The change in classification would have an imact in aging research and drugs that are currently in trial or under review, allowing for a non-ambiguous approach to treating aging itself as a condition. For example, the drug Metformin, whose marketed intent is to treat type II diabetes but shown to increase longevity in animal studies, would gain traction with the FDA to officially classify it as an aging treatment.
Will WHO recognize ageing as a disease in ICD-11?
This question resolves in the affirmative if the ICD-11 carries a health code for the biological process of ageing or senescence by December 31, 2018. | true | 2017-02-15 | Will the WHO classify aging as a disease by 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-02-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-18", 0.65], ["2016-02-18", 0.32], ["2016-02-18", 0.34], ["2016-02-18", 0.328], ["2016-02-18", 0.36], ["2016-02-18", 0.377], ["2016-02-19", 0.389], ["2016-02-19", 0.398], ["2016-02-19", 0.424], ["2016-02-19", 0.423], ["2016-02-19", 0.423], ["2016-02-19", 0.414], ["2016-02-19", 0.416], ["2016-02-19", 0.415], ["2016-02-19", 0.416], ["2016-02-20", 0.417], ["2016-02-20", 0.413], ["2016-02-20", 0.414], ["2016-02-20", 0.4], ["2016-02-20", 0.395], ["2016-02-20", 0.397], ["2016-02-20", 0.387], ["2016-02-22", 0.406], ["2016-02-23", 0.401], ["2016-02-23", 0.403], ["2016-02-23", 0.403], ["2016-02-23", 0.396], ["2016-02-24", 0.395], ["2016-02-24", 0.394], ["2016-02-28", 0.404], ["2016-02-28", 0.402], ["2016-02-29", 0.408], ["2016-03-01", 0.407], ["2016-03-02", 0.422], ["2016-03-03", 0.418], ["2016-03-05", 0.415], ["2016-03-07", 0.415], ["2016-03-09", 0.418], ["2016-03-09", 0.43], ["2016-03-10", 0.424], ["2016-03-10", 0.428], ["2016-03-10", 0.421], ["2016-03-10", 0.415], ["2016-03-10", 0.416], ["2016-03-11", 0.412], ["2016-03-11", 0.412], ["2016-03-11", 0.417], ["2016-03-11", 0.42], ["2016-03-11", 0.42], ["2016-03-12", 0.424], ["2016-03-12", 0.421], ["2016-03-12", 0.421], ["2016-03-12", 0.421], ["2016-03-12", 0.421], ["2016-03-12", 0.419], ["2016-03-12", 0.426], ["2016-03-13", 0.435], ["2016-03-19", 0.431], ["2016-03-19", 0.431], ["2016-03-21", 0.433], ["2016-03-22", 0.434], ["2016-03-22", 0.435], ["2016-03-23", 0.437], ["2016-03-28", 0.436], ["2016-03-30", 0.441], ["2016-03-30", 0.446], ["2016-04-01", 0.443], ["2016-04-04", 0.442], ["2016-04-04", 0.44], ["2016-04-07", 0.44], ["2016-04-09", 0.444], ["2016-04-10", 0.445], ["2016-04-12", 0.448], ["2016-04-13", 0.446], ["2016-04-14", 0.446], ["2016-04-14", 0.449], ["2016-04-15", 0.449], ["2016-04-15", 0.449], ["2016-04-18", 0.448], ["2016-04-18", 0.446], ["2016-04-19", 0.442], ["2016-04-25", 0.443], ["2016-04-26", 0.443], ["2016-04-26", 0.444], ["2016-04-26", 0.446], ["2016-04-27", 0.448], ["2016-04-28", 0.447], ["2016-05-03", 0.446], ["2016-05-06", 0.447], ["2016-05-06", 0.447], ["2016-05-16", 0.446], ["2016-05-17", 0.446], ["2016-05-19", 0.447], ["2016-05-19", 0.445], ["2016-05-22", 0.441], ["2016-05-22", 0.443], ["2016-05-24", 0.443], ["2016-05-24", 0.441], ["2016-05-28", 0.445], ["2016-05-30", 0.438], ["2016-05-31", 0.431]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/147/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | On 11 Feb 2016 the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) collaboration announced for the first time the observation of gravitational waves from a black hole merger, ushering the era of gravitational wave astronomy. Furthermore, the detected event (GW150914) had a number of unusual features:
The black holes involved in the merger were heavier than expected to be seen, likely requiring the adjustment of stellar evolution models.
The event was observed almost as soon as the machine was turned on. This, combined with the fact that another significant trigger event was also seen in the first few days of data (LVT151012), though not yet confirmed to be genuine, suggests a rate of mergers at the high end of what was considered possible.
A gamma ray burst counterpart candidate was unexpectedly observed by Fermi GBM 0.4s after the merger.
This all suggests that an influx of gravitational wave discoveries will challenge prevailing astrophysical assumptions. Will the burgeoning field of gravitational wave astronomy discover something totally unexpected in 2016?
The question will be resolved yes if and only if, by 2017 Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC, all of the following conditions hold:
There is a published paper or preprint by the LIGO scientific collaboration, VIRGO scientific collaboration or other relevant gravitational wave experiments, possibly in coordination with electromagnetic and neutrino observatories, announcing the observation of a gravitational wave event.
The gravitational wave event is observed with high statistical significance in multiple detectors (>4 sigma equivalent combined significance) and does not correlate with any known background or possible noise source. This observation is possibly accompanied by a high statistical significance detection of an electromagnetic or neutrino counterpart.
At least two distinct explanations for the event have been proposed and published in peer reviewed journals by the resolve date OR at least three distinct explanations have been proposed in preprints on the arXiv or published papers. ("Distinct" here implies qualitatively different physical processes or objects involved.)
(note: third criterion updated 2/23/16) | true | 2016-05-31 | In 2016, will gravitational wave astronomy discover something completely new? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-29 | 2016-02-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-18", 0.5], ["2016-02-18", 0.325], ["2016-02-18", 0.367], ["2016-02-18", 0.375], ["2016-02-18", 0.302], ["2016-02-18", 0.322], ["2016-02-18", 0.32], ["2016-02-18", 0.303], ["2016-02-18", 0.284], ["2016-02-18", 0.27], ["2016-02-18", 0.289], ["2016-02-18", 0.262], ["2016-02-19", 0.256], ["2016-02-19", 0.251], ["2016-02-19", 0.249], ["2016-02-19", 0.247], ["2016-02-19", 0.225], ["2016-02-19", 0.215], ["2016-02-19", 0.213], ["2016-02-19", 0.212], ["2016-02-19", 0.219], ["2016-02-19", 0.221], ["2016-02-19", 0.207], ["2016-02-19", 0.221], ["2016-02-19", 0.214], ["2016-02-19", 0.204], ["2016-02-19", 0.211], ["2016-02-19", 0.21], ["2016-02-19", 0.22], ["2016-02-19", 0.22], ["2016-02-19", 0.212], ["2016-02-19", 0.203], ["2016-02-19", 0.197], ["2016-02-19", 0.196], ["2016-02-20", 0.196], ["2016-02-20", 0.196], ["2016-02-20", 0.2], ["2016-02-20", 0.199], ["2016-02-20", 0.192], ["2016-02-20", 0.191], ["2016-02-20", 0.187], ["2016-02-20", 0.187], ["2016-02-20", 0.194], ["2016-02-20", 0.193], ["2016-02-20", 0.19], ["2016-02-20", 0.185], ["2016-02-20", 0.18], ["2016-02-20", 0.179], ["2016-02-21", 0.181], ["2016-02-21", 0.177], ["2016-02-21", 0.174], ["2016-02-21", 0.17], ["2016-02-22", 0.171], ["2016-02-22", 0.168], ["2016-02-23", 0.168], ["2016-02-23", 0.166], ["2016-02-23", 0.163], ["2016-02-23", 0.164], ["2016-02-23", 0.172], ["2016-02-23", 0.165], ["2016-02-23", 0.165], ["2016-02-23", 0.163], ["2016-02-24", 0.159], ["2016-02-24", 0.158], ["2016-02-24", 0.157], ["2016-02-24", 0.153], ["2016-02-24", 0.152], ["2016-02-24", 0.148], ["2016-02-25", 0.147], ["2016-02-25", 0.146], ["2016-02-25", 0.145], ["2016-02-26", 0.143], ["2016-02-26", 0.144], ["2016-02-26", 0.141], ["2016-02-26", 0.141], ["2016-02-26", 0.14], ["2016-02-27", 0.138], ["2016-02-27", 0.138], ["2016-02-27", 0.139]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/150/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | The past several years have seen escalating tension between tech giants such as Apple and Google, and government agencies including the CIA and FBI, over the encryption of data on devices and over the internet.
In recent weeks this has escalated into a confrontation between the FBI and Apple computer concerning encryption on iPhones. In this case, the FBI wishes for Apple to provide it access to an iPhone owned by Syed Farook, alleged shooter in the San Bernardino shooting event.
On Feb. 16, a judge ordered Apple to assist the FBI in providing access to this device via a "one time" weakening of the security technology, in essence allowing the FBI to much more quickly brute-force the iPhone's pin.
Apple, via CEO Tim Cook, has protested this, writing in a letter to its customers that this would compromise security of iPhones in general, to which it is strongly committed. On Feb. 18, Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed support for Apple's position.
This conflict raises long-term questions about the future of encryption in consumer devices. Here, we address just the short term question:
Will the FBI have access to the information on the iphone in question by March 30, 2016?
Resolution will be positive if credible media reports by March 30, 2016 report that Apple has indeed complied with the order to assist the FBI, and the FBI has indeed accessed the data. | true | 2016-02-28 | Will Apple help the FBI access the 'San Bernardino iPhone'? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-06-02 | 2016-02-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-24", 0.5], ["2016-02-24", 0.411], ["2016-02-25", 0.417], ["2016-02-26", 0.429], ["2016-02-27", 0.433], ["2016-02-28", 0.471], ["2016-02-29", 0.472], ["2016-03-02", 0.473], ["2016-03-03", 0.461], ["2016-03-05", 0.452], ["2016-03-07", 0.454], ["2016-03-08", 0.454], ["2016-03-09", 0.464], ["2016-03-09", 0.448], ["2016-03-10", 0.444], ["2016-03-11", 0.434], ["2016-03-12", 0.433], ["2016-03-13", 0.427], ["2016-03-14", 0.441], ["2016-03-15", 0.439], ["2016-03-17", 0.43], ["2016-03-19", 0.433], ["2016-03-22", 0.435], ["2016-04-04", 0.435], ["2016-04-14", 0.43], ["2016-04-15", 0.426], ["2016-04-19", 0.427], ["2016-04-20", 0.413], ["2016-04-26", 0.413], ["2016-06-20", 0.41], ["2016-06-21", 0.419], ["2016-06-30", 0.42], ["2016-06-30", 0.42], ["2016-07-04", 0.418], ["2016-07-06", 0.416], ["2016-07-23", 0.421], ["2016-07-24", 0.421], ["2016-07-26", 0.421], ["2016-07-27", 0.413], ["2016-07-29", 0.416], ["2016-07-30", 0.418], ["2016-07-31", 0.42], ["2016-08-01", 0.423], ["2016-08-04", 0.424], ["2016-08-06", 0.418], ["2016-08-09", 0.413], ["2016-08-13", 0.413], ["2016-08-15", 0.415], ["2016-08-19", 0.414], ["2016-08-23", 0.413], ["2016-08-26", 0.41], ["2016-08-31", 0.405], ["2016-09-02", 0.4], ["2016-09-04", 0.397], ["2016-09-05", 0.396], ["2016-09-12", 0.396], ["2016-09-15", 0.401], ["2016-09-16", 0.405], ["2016-09-17", 0.395], ["2016-09-18", 0.399], ["2016-09-19", 0.402], ["2016-09-21", 0.403], ["2016-09-26", 0.406], ["2016-09-29", 0.403], ["2016-10-03", 0.399], ["2016-10-07", 0.398], ["2016-10-07", 0.398], ["2016-10-19", 0.397], ["2016-10-20", 0.392], ["2016-10-20", 0.39], ["2016-10-23", 0.386], ["2016-11-12", 0.386], ["2016-11-12", 0.385], ["2016-11-21", 0.386], ["2016-11-23", 0.386], ["2016-12-04", 0.386], ["2016-12-21", 0.383], ["2017-01-01", 0.382], ["2017-01-06", 0.382], ["2017-01-24", 0.378], ["2017-02-02", 0.376], ["2017-02-25", 0.376], ["2017-02-26", 0.38], ["2017-03-02", 0.38], ["2017-03-04", 0.38], ["2017-03-14", 0.38], ["2017-03-28", 0.379], ["2017-04-13", 0.377], ["2017-04-15", 0.377], ["2017-05-01", 0.374], ["2017-05-02", 0.373], ["2017-05-14", 0.372], ["2017-05-14", 0.372], ["2017-05-17", 0.372], ["2017-05-18", 0.371], ["2017-05-20", 0.369], ["2017-05-21", 0.366], ["2017-05-27", 0.366], ["2017-05-30", 0.363], ["2017-05-31", 0.362], ["2017-05-31", 0.358]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/156/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | The U.S. nuclear weapons policy under the Obama administration includes large-scale modernization of the nuclear triad, with projections nearing $1 Trillion in spending over the next 30 years. ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) in particular are slated for renovation; the LGM-30 Minuteman III has been in service since 1970 and planned to remain in operation only until 2030. Although the stockpile of Minuteman III missiles has been upgraded over the years, the spending plan incorporates a budget for a new line of ICBMs, which may be mobile and may even feature a new basing option.
The only live ICBMs are currently based in silos; more exotic basing options were outlined in this Cold War era 1980 paper, including mobile options that use rail systems that constantly shuffle ICBM positions as a way of increasing survivability.
Will one of the top 25 news outlets by media traffic publish a story by June 1st, 2019 reporting that the Minuteman III ICBMs will be replaced with a new model of ICBM that is either (a) mobilized or (b) not silo-based? | true | 2017-06-01 | Will the nuclear triad be modernized with mobile or exotically-based ICBMs? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-02 | 2016-02-23 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-24", 0.91], ["2016-02-24", 0.725], ["2016-02-24", 0.72], ["2016-02-24", 0.725], ["2016-02-24", 0.663], ["2016-02-24", 0.523], ["2016-02-24", 0.498], ["2016-02-24", 0.498], ["2016-02-24", 0.503], ["2016-02-24", 0.503], ["2016-02-24", 0.484], ["2016-02-24", 0.479], ["2016-02-24", 0.481], ["2016-02-25", 0.528], ["2016-02-25", 0.525], ["2016-02-25", 0.518], ["2016-02-26", 0.537], ["2016-02-27", 0.502], ["2016-02-27", 0.501], ["2016-02-28", 0.511], ["2016-02-28", 0.516], ["2016-02-28", 0.514], ["2016-02-28", 0.499], ["2016-02-28", 0.499], ["2016-02-29", 0.5], ["2016-03-02", 0.5], ["2016-03-03", 0.509], ["2016-03-05", 0.501], ["2016-03-07", 0.501], ["2016-03-09", 0.481], ["2016-03-09", 0.501], ["2016-03-09", 0.491], ["2016-03-10", 0.495], ["2016-03-10", 0.495], ["2016-03-10", 0.479], ["2016-03-11", 0.479], ["2016-03-12", 0.474], ["2016-03-13", 0.469], ["2016-03-14", 0.466], ["2016-03-15", 0.466], ["2016-03-16", 0.467], ["2016-03-18", 0.463], ["2016-03-18", 0.464], ["2016-03-20", 0.464], ["2016-03-22", 0.465], ["2016-03-22", 0.468], ["2016-03-28", 0.468], ["2016-03-30", 0.468], ["2016-03-30", 0.484], ["2016-04-04", 0.479], ["2016-04-09", 0.477], ["2016-04-15", 0.48], ["2016-04-19", 0.471], ["2016-04-20", 0.474], ["2016-04-20", 0.472], ["2016-04-21", 0.472], ["2016-04-21", 0.466], ["2016-04-21", 0.463], ["2016-04-21", 0.457], ["2016-04-23", 0.456], ["2016-04-24", 0.457], ["2016-04-25", 0.455], ["2016-04-26", 0.452], ["2016-04-26", 0.438], ["2016-04-27", 0.437], ["2016-04-27", 0.435], ["2016-04-29", 0.433], ["2016-04-29", 0.427], ["2016-04-29", 0.426], ["2016-04-30", 0.425]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/157/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Mid 2015, a paper by Gary Prezéau of NASA Jet Propulsion Lab was submitted to ApJ exploring the theoretical dynamics of fine-grained dark matter filaments, streams of dark matter particles, that may be emanating out of the Earth and other bodies in our solar system.
So called dark matter "hairs," these would constitute a new prediction of the Big Bang standard model of cosmology, CDM. Dark matter halos are known to collect themselves into cosmic scale filaments, but if the dark matter is sufficiently cold, smaller filaments can also exist on scales comparable to our solar system. Prezéau predicts that if one of these fine-grain streams passes through a planet, gravity squeezes the streams into dense regions (hairs), which exhibit points of critical density (roots) at specified distances away from the center of the planet in question.
In the case of Earth, these roots would be located around km away from the planetary center, a bit more than twice the distance to the Moon. They would be high-density hot spots for us to look for dark matter particles. If Prezéau's findings are substantially valid, they provide a potential channel of discovery for detecting dark matter. Will dark matter hairs receive scientific support over the next year?
This question resolves positively if by June 2017, Prezéau's paper Dense Dark Matter Hairs Spreading Out from Earth, Jupiter and Other Compact Bodies is cited more than 5 times on Google scholar by papers which mention dark matter hairs as a supporting directive in the abstract. | true | 2016-05-01 | Will the (theoretical) existence of "dark matter hair" change the way we look for dark matter? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-03 | 2016-02-27 | [] | binary | [["2016-02-27", 0.4], ["2016-02-27", 0.5], ["2016-02-27", 0.5], ["2016-02-27", 0.448], ["2016-02-27", 0.398], ["2016-02-27", 0.418], ["2016-02-27", 0.437], ["2016-02-27", 0.44], ["2016-02-27", 0.448], ["2016-02-27", 0.434], ["2016-02-27", 0.421], ["2016-02-27", 0.425], ["2016-02-27", 0.431], ["2016-02-27", 0.427], ["2016-02-27", 0.411], ["2016-02-27", 0.407], ["2016-02-27", 0.411], ["2016-02-27", 0.419], ["2016-02-27", 0.416], ["2016-02-28", 0.44], ["2016-02-28", 0.443], ["2016-02-28", 0.444], ["2016-02-28", 0.451], ["2016-02-28", 0.435], ["2016-02-28", 0.431], ["2016-02-28", 0.422], ["2016-02-28", 0.43], ["2016-02-28", 0.432], ["2016-02-28", 0.425], ["2016-02-28", 0.424], ["2016-02-28", 0.416], ["2016-02-28", 0.418], ["2016-02-28", 0.421], ["2016-02-28", 0.422], ["2016-02-28", 0.422], ["2016-02-28", 0.42], ["2016-02-29", 0.416], ["2016-02-29", 0.416], ["2016-02-29", 0.422], ["2016-02-29", 0.423], ["2016-02-29", 0.424], ["2016-02-29", 0.423], ["2016-02-29", 0.421], ["2016-02-29", 0.415], ["2016-02-29", 0.414], ["2016-03-01", 0.414], ["2016-03-01", 0.414], ["2016-03-01", 0.413]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/159/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Nate Silver has achieved significant notoriety for developing a system to carefully aggregate election polls to create well-calibrated statistical forecasts of outcome elections; his site publishes daily updates to predictions for primary and general elections in House, Senate and Presidential races.
Prediction markets have offered an alternative to poll aggregation in forecasting elections. Markets such as (the now defunct) InTrade, the Iowa Electronic Markets, PredictIt, and others ask users to buy and sell shares assigned to each candidate in each race, so that the price point corresponds to the probability of victory. In this question we focus on PredictIt, which allows users to place relatively small real-money bets on candidates.
Both fivethirtyeight.com and PredictIt have published probabilities for each of the 11 Super Tuesday Primaries on both the Republican and Democratic side.
Which forecasts will prove to be more accurate?
To compare, we will score each set of predictions using a Brier score averaged over all races, computed as where j enumerates the possible outcomes (i.e. possible winners) in the ith race out of N, where is the forecast probability of candidate j winning the ith race, and is assigned 1 if candidate j wins the ith race, and 0 otherwise.
For example, PredictIt assigns (as of writing) 52% to Clinton and 48% to Sanders in the Minnesota Democratic Primary. If this were the only primary, and Clinton won, PredictIt would achieve a Brier Score of A lower Brier score is better, with perfect predictions corresponding to . (In the case where PredictIt's prices do not add up to $1, we will normalize them to $1 to convert to probabilities.)
This question resolves positively if the Brier score for the 22 races is lower for PredictIt's probabilities than for fivethirtyeight.com's probabilities, where we will take values as of noon EST on 2/29/2016, and election outcomes as reported on 3/1-3/2. | true | 2016-03-01 | Will a prediction market outperform Nate Silver's forecasts for the Super Tuesday primaries? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-04-15 | 2016-03-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-03", 0.63], ["2016-03-03", 0.43], ["2016-03-03", 0.285], ["2016-03-03", 0.65], ["2016-03-03", 0.64], ["2016-03-03", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.602], ["2016-03-04", 0.602], ["2016-03-04", 0.617], ["2016-03-04", 0.602], ["2016-03-04", 0.592], ["2016-03-04", 0.598], ["2016-03-05", 0.6], ["2016-03-05", 0.588], ["2016-03-05", 0.602], ["2016-03-05", 0.604], ["2016-03-06", 0.611], ["2016-03-07", 0.611], ["2016-03-07", 0.614], ["2016-03-07", 0.59], ["2016-03-08", 0.588], ["2016-03-08", 0.576], ["2016-03-08", 0.576], ["2016-03-08", 0.58], ["2016-03-09", 0.581], ["2016-03-09", 0.582], ["2016-03-09", 0.557], ["2016-03-09", 0.557], ["2016-03-09", 0.556], ["2016-03-09", 0.559], ["2016-03-10", 0.568], ["2016-03-10", 0.57], ["2016-03-10", 0.569], ["2016-03-10", 0.576], ["2016-03-11", 0.57], ["2016-03-11", 0.567], ["2016-03-11", 0.563], ["2016-03-12", 0.571], ["2016-03-12", 0.574], ["2016-03-12", 0.576], ["2016-03-13", 0.56], ["2016-03-14", 0.553], ["2016-03-18", 0.553], ["2016-03-18", 0.55], ["2016-03-19", 0.551], ["2016-03-19", 0.553], ["2016-03-20", 0.556], ["2016-03-20", 0.556], ["2016-03-22", 0.562], ["2016-03-22", 0.563], ["2016-03-30", 0.578], ["2016-04-01", 0.58], ["2016-04-09", 0.582], ["2016-04-09", 0.584], ["2016-04-09", 0.582], ["2016-04-12", 0.578], ["2016-04-12", 0.579], ["2016-04-14", 0.58], ["2016-04-14", 0.579], ["2016-04-15", 0.581], ["2016-04-16", 0.583], ["2016-04-19", 0.587], ["2016-04-20", 0.588], ["2016-04-26", 0.59], ["2016-04-26", 0.591], ["2016-05-01", 0.593], ["2016-05-05", 0.591], ["2016-05-06", 0.591], ["2016-05-09", 0.588], ["2016-05-16", 0.587], ["2016-05-17", 0.589], ["2016-05-21", 0.591], ["2016-05-25", 0.59], ["2016-05-25", 0.587], ["2016-05-27", 0.584], ["2016-05-27", 0.585], ["2016-05-31", 0.579], ["2016-05-31", 0.576], ["2016-05-31", 0.576], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577], ["2016-05-31", 0.577]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/164/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The NSA revelations in 2013 demonstrated how vulnerable and frequently breached the world's internet data is. Following Edward Snowden's advocacy, and the advocacy of the CA Security Council, Wikipedia CEO Jimmy Wales and other internet leaders have pushed for the move to end-to-end encryption, or the practice of encrypting data packets at every stage between user and host. This movement is dubbed 'Always-On SSL,' a reference to the cryptographic protocols used to elevate HTTP domains to HTTPS (HTTP - Secure). Many sites with huge traffic shares, like Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, have already been moving towards end-to-end encryption.
According to this report by Sandvine, the amount of encrypted data packets in North American internet traffic is projected to increase from 29.1% (April 2015) to nearly 60-70% by 2017. A large contributor to the projections could be Netflix, comprising over 30% of downloaded traffic, which announced last April to shareholders that it would be moving towards HTTPS soon.
These projections suggest a rapid transition, but there is reasonable speculation that full end-to-end encryption won't be accomplished as soon as reports predict.
By April 2017, will Sandvine or one of the top 25 media outlets publish a report finding that 70% or more of either North American or the world's internet traffic be encrypted? | true | 2016-06-01 | Will over 70% of internet traffic be encrypted by 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-08 | 2016-03-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-03", 0.3], ["2016-03-03", 0.5], ["2016-03-03", 0.45], ["2016-03-03", 0.45], ["2016-03-03", 0.4], ["2016-03-03", 0.41], ["2016-03-03", 0.417], ["2016-03-04", 0.403], ["2016-03-04", 0.396], ["2016-03-04", 0.402], ["2016-03-04", 0.412], ["2016-03-04", 0.425], ["2016-03-04", 0.431], ["2016-03-04", 0.436], ["2016-03-04", 0.448], ["2016-03-04", 0.444], ["2016-03-04", 0.455], ["2016-03-04", 0.451], ["2016-03-04", 0.436], ["2016-03-04", 0.438], ["2016-03-04", 0.435], ["2016-03-04", 0.444]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/165/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets are designed to be re-used after landing vertically on a floating barge-based landing site. SpaceX has successfully landed a rocket on land, but so far has not succeeded with a barge.
Will SpaceX's next attempt to land a Falcon 9 on a barge be a success?
Resolution is positive if the Falcon 9 rocket sustains little enough damage that it can be re-used, and negative if the rocket is in either small or large pieces on or near the landing site. | true | 2016-03-05 | Will SpaceX's next attempt to land a Falcon 9 rocket on a barge be successful? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-01 | 2016-03-03 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-04", 0.5], ["2016-03-04", 0.637], ["2016-03-04", 0.69], ["2016-03-04", 0.712], ["2016-03-04", 0.702], ["2016-03-04", 0.697], ["2016-03-04", 0.698], ["2016-03-04", 0.703], ["2016-03-05", 0.71], ["2016-03-05", 0.7], ["2016-03-05", 0.7], ["2016-03-05", 0.688], ["2016-03-05", 0.698], ["2016-03-07", 0.698], ["2016-03-07", 0.698], ["2016-03-07", 0.694], ["2016-03-07", 0.694], ["2016-03-07", 0.688], ["2016-03-08", 0.689], ["2016-03-08", 0.686], ["2016-03-08", 0.689], ["2016-03-08", 0.692], ["2016-03-09", 0.69], ["2016-03-09", 0.69], ["2016-03-09", 0.704], ["2016-03-09", 0.707], ["2016-03-09", 0.704], ["2016-03-09", 0.711], ["2016-03-09", 0.722], ["2016-03-10", 0.723], ["2016-03-10", 0.72], ["2016-03-10", 0.709], ["2016-03-10", 0.707], ["2016-03-11", 0.707], ["2016-03-11", 0.708], ["2016-03-11", 0.711], ["2016-03-11", 0.709], ["2016-03-11", 0.707], ["2016-03-12", 0.706], ["2016-03-12", 0.707], ["2016-03-12", 0.708], ["2016-03-12", 0.715], ["2016-03-13", 0.714], ["2016-03-13", 0.712], ["2016-03-13", 0.694], ["2016-03-13", 0.694], ["2016-03-13", 0.694], ["2016-03-14", 0.694], ["2016-03-14", 0.694], ["2016-03-14", 0.694], ["2016-03-16", 0.699], ["2016-03-16", 0.703], ["2016-03-16", 0.705], ["2016-03-17", 0.713], ["2016-03-17", 0.716], ["2016-03-17", 0.72], ["2016-03-17", 0.722], ["2016-03-17", 0.725], ["2016-03-18", 0.725], ["2016-03-18", 0.725], ["2016-03-18", 0.73], ["2016-03-18", 0.728], ["2016-03-18", 0.728], ["2016-03-18", 0.729], ["2016-03-19", 0.731], ["2016-03-19", 0.73], ["2016-03-20", 0.725], ["2016-03-20", 0.726], ["2016-03-20", 0.725], ["2016-03-20", 0.726], ["2016-03-20", 0.73], ["2016-03-21", 0.728], ["2016-03-21", 0.733], ["2016-03-21", 0.731], ["2016-03-21", 0.722], ["2016-03-21", 0.735], ["2016-03-21", 0.735], ["2016-03-21", 0.735], ["2016-03-22", 0.74], ["2016-03-22", 0.739], ["2016-03-22", 0.738], ["2016-03-23", 0.739], ["2016-03-24", 0.745], ["2016-03-25", 0.746], ["2016-03-26", 0.751], ["2016-03-26", 0.756], ["2016-03-26", 0.758], ["2016-03-26", 0.758], ["2016-03-26", 0.758], ["2016-03-26", 0.757], ["2016-03-26", 0.758], ["2016-03-26", 0.762], ["2016-03-27", 0.763], ["2016-03-28", 0.763], ["2016-03-29", 0.763], ["2016-03-30", 0.764], ["2016-03-30", 0.764], ["2016-03-30", 0.765], ["2016-03-30", 0.764], ["2016-03-30", 0.769], ["2016-03-31", 0.77]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/166/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | There is intense interest in Tesla's Model 3 (originally the "Model E", perhaps for Energy or to go between "S" and "X"). Their fourth production vehicle, it is slated to cost of order $35,000 USD and move Tesla out of the somewhat niche market required by the model S and X's price tags.
Tesla has now scheduled a March 31 "unveiling" of the Model 3. There is varying speculation on whether or not Tesla will unveil a full scale Model 3 prototype, or just pictures.
Will Tesla exhibit a full prototype of the Model E at the event, in the form of a physical car with an operating electrical system?
A non-functioning chassis, photos, holograms, or virtual reality do not qualify. | true | 2016-03-31 | Will a full prototype car be unveiled at the Tesla Model 3 event on March 31? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-05-31 | 2016-03-08 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-08", 0.4], ["2016-03-09", 0.365], ["2016-03-10", 0.363], ["2016-03-11", 0.365], ["2016-03-12", 0.376], ["2016-03-13", 0.406], ["2016-03-16", 0.405], ["2016-03-18", 0.402], ["2016-03-18", 0.402], ["2016-03-20", 0.41], ["2016-03-22", 0.413], ["2016-03-22", 0.403], ["2016-03-30", 0.426], ["2016-04-06", 0.428], ["2016-04-12", 0.427], ["2016-04-14", 0.424], ["2016-04-14", 0.424], ["2016-04-19", 0.43], ["2016-04-26", 0.432], ["2016-04-29", 0.43], ["2016-05-01", 0.426], ["2016-06-07", 0.433], ["2016-06-20", 0.437], ["2016-06-21", 0.445], ["2016-06-21", 0.459], ["2016-06-30", 0.46], ["2016-07-06", 0.463], ["2016-07-06", 0.46], ["2016-07-23", 0.464], ["2016-07-26", 0.473], ["2016-07-27", 0.471], ["2016-07-28", 0.473], ["2016-07-30", 0.475], ["2016-07-30", 0.47], ["2016-08-02", 0.465], ["2016-08-03", 0.469], ["2016-08-04", 0.469], ["2016-08-05", 0.475], ["2016-08-06", 0.469], ["2016-08-06", 0.461], ["2016-08-07", 0.458], ["2016-08-10", 0.459], ["2016-08-10", 0.455], ["2016-08-11", 0.449], ["2016-08-13", 0.449], ["2016-08-14", 0.446], ["2016-08-15", 0.451], ["2016-08-16", 0.453], ["2016-08-18", 0.455], ["2016-08-22", 0.463], ["2016-08-24", 0.459], ["2016-08-26", 0.458], ["2016-08-28", 0.46], ["2016-08-31", 0.461], ["2016-09-01", 0.462], ["2016-09-02", 0.465], ["2016-09-03", 0.463], ["2016-09-03", 0.465], ["2016-09-06", 0.463], ["2016-09-06", 0.462], ["2016-09-12", 0.462], ["2016-09-12", 0.463], ["2016-09-14", 0.458], ["2016-09-15", 0.459], ["2016-09-16", 0.46], ["2016-09-17", 0.463], ["2016-09-17", 0.467], ["2016-09-18", 0.463], ["2016-09-21", 0.459], ["2016-09-21", 0.464], ["2016-09-26", 0.465], ["2016-09-26", 0.468], ["2016-09-29", 0.468], ["2016-09-30", 0.458], ["2016-09-30", 0.459], ["2016-10-03", 0.457], ["2016-10-05", 0.459], ["2016-10-08", 0.458], ["2016-10-10", 0.459], ["2016-10-13", 0.459], ["2016-10-14", 0.46], ["2016-10-19", 0.462], ["2016-10-20", 0.466], ["2016-10-21", 0.458], ["2016-10-26", 0.458], ["2016-10-26", 0.455], ["2016-10-31", 0.455], ["2016-11-03", 0.456], ["2016-11-05", 0.453], ["2016-11-05", 0.453], ["2016-11-10", 0.453], ["2016-11-11", 0.456], ["2016-11-12", 0.457], ["2016-11-13", 0.457], ["2016-11-14", 0.455], ["2016-11-14", 0.452], ["2016-11-15", 0.452], ["2016-11-17", 0.453], ["2016-11-17", 0.453], ["2016-11-19", 0.453], ["2016-11-26", 0.452]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/168/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The attention of policymakers and business leaders is being drawn towards space weather, the body of environmental dynamics of the solar wind, magnetosphere and thermosphere, and the risks it poses to global infrastructure. The NOAA tracks space weather, and has a set of space weather scales for solar radiation storms and geomagnetic storms. The highest ratings, S5 and G5, can disable satellites, affect power grids, and cause other mayhem.
This scale would appear to cover too little dynamic range, however, as much stronger storms than S5 and G5 are a matter of historical record (see for example the Carrington Event of 1859), and extrapolating the frequencies provided by the NOAA suggests a high probability of trans-G5 geomagnetic storms in the coming two decades, and a ~1-10\% probabilitiy of a Carrington-like event with an order of magnitude higher energy. Given modern infrastructure, such an event could lead to widespread and long-term blackouts, and cause trillions in damage.
In October 2015, the White House published a space weather plan outlining the challenges, and enumerating a number of action items to increase monitoring, understanding, and mitigation of space weather.
A key issue is monitoring: early warning of a solar storm can allow significantly mitigation of its effects. While there are already numerous observation sites on Earth and a handful of satellites (SOHO, STEREO, the Van Allen probes, ACE, and most recently DSCOVR) monitoring space weather phenomena, there is a huge volume of measurement left untouched. Most of the aforementioned spacecraft observe solar wind and the Sun's surface, while the Van Allen probes watch for radiation and magnetic storms; DSCOVR is the only satellite to provide early detection of coronal mass ejections.
Plans to find a long-term replacement for DSCOVR at the L1 Lagrange point do exist as part of the National Space Weather Program's mission over the next decade. Beyond just finding replacements, the recommendations of policymakers (like this whisper coming out of this year's AAAS meeting) push for more observation spacecraft which can collect forecast data in assessment of risks from space weather. The space weather plan contains the action item (5.3.2) to be completed by October 2016:
NASA and DOC will assess space-weather-observation platforms with deep-space orbital positions (including candidate propulsion technology), which allow for additional warning time of incoming space-weather events.
By June 2017, will a US or NASA budget appropriation exist (making reference to the October 2015 report) for the (perhaps initial) design and/or development of a spacecraft whose chief mission is to provide early warning of space weather events? | true | 2016-12-01 | Will the US develop a new satellite for early-warning of severe geomagnetic storms? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-05 | 2016-03-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-06-23", 0.1], ["2016-06-24", 0.322], ["2016-06-24", 0.32], ["2016-06-24", 0.298], ["2016-06-24", 0.291], ["2016-06-25", 0.298], ["2016-06-28", 0.298], ["2016-06-28", 0.325], ["2016-06-28", 0.341], ["2016-06-30", 0.341], ["2016-06-30", 0.349], ["2016-06-30", 0.362], ["2016-07-01", 0.397], ["2016-07-09", 0.401], ["2016-07-10", 0.396], ["2016-07-12", 0.4], ["2016-07-22", 0.398], ["2016-07-23", 0.391], ["2016-07-26", 0.395], ["2016-07-26", 0.398], ["2016-07-27", 0.4], ["2016-07-27", 0.409], ["2016-07-27", 0.413], ["2016-08-01", 0.423], ["2016-08-02", 0.438], ["2016-08-04", 0.438], ["2016-08-04", 0.44], ["2016-08-05", 0.441], ["2016-08-06", 0.429], ["2016-08-10", 0.438], ["2016-08-11", 0.451], ["2016-08-13", 0.453], ["2016-08-15", 0.447], ["2016-08-27", 0.45], ["2016-08-28", 0.454], ["2016-08-30", 0.446], ["2016-09-02", 0.447], ["2016-09-05", 0.445], ["2016-09-12", 0.445], ["2016-09-15", 0.452], ["2016-09-15", 0.442], ["2016-09-17", 0.44], ["2016-09-17", 0.443], ["2016-09-18", 0.442], ["2016-09-18", 0.439], ["2016-09-19", 0.436], ["2016-09-21", 0.447], ["2016-09-26", 0.441], ["2016-09-26", 0.442], ["2016-09-28", 0.442], ["2016-09-29", 0.442], ["2016-09-29", 0.427], ["2016-09-29", 0.431], ["2016-10-03", 0.441], ["2016-10-12", 0.441], ["2016-10-19", 0.44], ["2016-10-19", 0.44], ["2016-10-20", 0.441], ["2016-10-23", 0.443], ["2016-10-23", 0.443], ["2016-10-23", 0.444], ["2016-10-24", 0.444], ["2016-10-27", 0.433], ["2016-11-12", 0.433], ["2016-11-16", 0.433], ["2016-11-21", 0.43], ["2016-11-23", 0.432], ["2016-11-23", 0.429], ["2016-11-23", 0.43], ["2016-12-08", 0.43], ["2016-12-21", 0.43], ["2017-01-01", 0.432], ["2017-01-24", 0.432], ["2017-03-20", 0.432], ["2017-05-14", 0.432], ["2017-05-18", 0.432], ["2017-05-20", 0.429], ["2017-06-02", 0.431], ["2017-06-09", 0.431], ["2017-06-11", 0.43], ["2017-06-12", 0.429], ["2017-06-12", 0.429], ["2017-06-19", 0.429], ["2017-06-19", 0.43], ["2017-06-19", 0.429], ["2017-06-20", 0.429], ["2017-06-20", 0.428], ["2017-06-20", 0.426], ["2017-06-20", 0.424], ["2017-06-21", 0.424], ["2017-06-21", 0.425], ["2017-06-21", 0.425], ["2017-06-23", 0.425], ["2017-06-26", 0.425], ["2017-06-28", 0.424], ["2017-06-28", 0.425], ["2017-06-29", 0.418], ["2017-06-29", 0.418], ["2017-06-30", 0.411], ["2017-06-30", 0.41], ["2017-06-30", 0.41]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/169/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Brown dwarfs occupy an astronomical netherworld. Too small to stably burn hydrogen as full-fledged stars and too massive to qualify as planets, they drift in vast numbers through interstellar space, slowly cooling as they radiate remnant heat from their formation.
After years of dedicated searching, the first brown dwarf was found in the Pleiades Cluster in 1994, and its discovery was published in Nature in 1995. During the past two decades, over 1,800 brown dwarfs have been identified, several of which rank among the nearest known extrasolar objects. The binary brown dwarf system Luhman 16 A and B is particularly remarkable. It was discovered in 2013 by Prof. Kevin Luhman of Pennsylvania State University using publicly available archival data from NASA's WISE Mission. Only Barnard's star and the Alpha-Proxima Centauri triple system lie closer than Luhman 16 AB's 6.5 light year distance. Wikipedia has an up-to-date list of the nearest stars and brown dwarfs to the Sun.
Prior to 31 December, 2017, will a brown dwarf that lies closer to the Sun than Luhman 16 AB be discovered and published in the peer-reviewed astronomical literature? For the purposes of the question, a brown dwarf must have a mass between 13 and 75 Jupiter masses. | true | 2017-06-30 | Will a record-setting brown dwarf be discovered by the end of 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-03-17 | 2016-03-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-10", 0.4], ["2016-03-10", 0.242], ["2016-03-10", 0.234], ["2016-03-10", 0.303], ["2016-03-10", 0.303], ["2016-03-10", 0.238], ["2016-03-10", 0.25], ["2016-03-10", 0.247], ["2016-03-10", 0.247], ["2016-03-10", 0.247], ["2016-03-10", 0.246], ["2016-03-10", 0.247], ["2016-03-10", 0.281], ["2016-03-10", 0.296], ["2016-03-10", 0.297], ["2016-03-10", 0.289], ["2016-03-11", 0.276], ["2016-03-11", 0.278], ["2016-03-11", 0.278], ["2016-03-11", 0.277], ["2016-03-11", 0.293], ["2016-03-11", 0.293], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.295], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.29], ["2016-03-11", 0.29], ["2016-03-11", 0.29], ["2016-03-11", 0.29], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.297], ["2016-03-11", 0.304], ["2016-03-11", 0.304], ["2016-03-11", 0.304], ["2016-03-11", 0.304], ["2016-03-11", 0.304], ["2016-03-11", 0.308], ["2016-03-11", 0.316], ["2016-03-11", 0.31], ["2016-03-11", 0.326], ["2016-03-11", 0.321], ["2016-03-11", 0.321], ["2016-03-11", 0.321], ["2016-03-11", 0.321], ["2016-03-11", 0.319], ["2016-03-11", 0.319], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.314], ["2016-03-11", 0.314], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-11", 0.315], ["2016-03-12", 0.315], ["2016-03-12", 0.315], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.305], ["2016-03-12", 0.3], ["2016-03-12", 0.3], ["2016-03-12", 0.295], ["2016-03-12", 0.28], ["2016-03-12", 0.276], ["2016-03-12", 0.276], ["2016-03-12", 0.276], ["2016-03-12", 0.276], ["2016-03-12", 0.276], ["2016-03-12", 0.274], ["2016-03-12", 0.274], ["2016-03-12", 0.269], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.257], ["2016-03-12", 0.253], ["2016-03-12", 0.244], ["2016-03-12", 0.244], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.256], ["2016-03-12", 0.254], ["2016-03-12", 0.253], ["2016-03-12", 0.249], ["2016-03-12", 0.249], ["2016-03-12", 0.248], ["2016-03-12", 0.246]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/170/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Sports | Attention worldwide has been riveted to the unfolding match between Go master Lee Sedol and DeepMind's new Go-playing AI system AlphaGo, with millions of viewers watching, and a million dollars (along with some portion of the human mind's dignity) at stake.
Prior to the match, Metaculus had pegged a 64% probability of an overall AlphaGo victory.
So far, AlphaGo has prevailed in two games played on March 8th and 9th. Although Sedol felt he had made some weak moves in game one, Sedol and many commentators felt that he played a very strong second game that was very close until the very end.
With the match now at 2-0, the question becomes not just whether Sedol can with the match, but whether he can win any of the three remaining games.
(Note: This question's closing time will be retroactively changed to 30 minutes prior to end of the first game won by Sedol, or alternatively the 5th game of the match if Sedol does not win any games.) | true | 2016-03-13 | Will Lee Sedol defeat AlphaGo in any of the three games remaining? | metaculus | 1 |
2020-11-03 | 2016-03-11 | [] | binary | [["2016-09-23", 0.34], ["2016-10-04", 0.31], ["2016-10-18", 0.31], ["2016-10-24", 0.271], ["2016-11-05", 0.252], ["2016-11-17", 0.257], ["2016-11-28", 0.268], ["2016-12-06", 0.264], ["2016-12-15", 0.26], ["2016-12-21", 0.26], ["2017-01-01", 0.262], ["2017-01-08", 0.261], ["2017-04-11", 0.261], ["2017-04-13", 0.26], ["2017-04-26", 0.258], ["2017-05-08", 0.259], ["2017-05-20", 0.256], ["2017-06-01", 0.256], ["2017-06-09", 0.253], ["2017-06-17", 0.251], ["2017-06-26", 0.254], ["2017-07-18", 0.258], ["2017-08-04", 0.257], ["2017-08-10", 0.247], ["2017-08-18", 0.24], ["2017-08-27", 0.24], ["2017-09-06", 0.233], ["2017-09-21", 0.233], ["2017-10-08", 0.232], ["2017-10-09", 0.23], ["2017-10-25", 0.23], ["2017-11-07", 0.229], ["2017-11-17", 0.228], ["2017-12-05", 0.227], ["2017-12-18", 0.227], ["2017-12-22", 0.227], ["2018-02-02", 0.224], ["2018-02-11", 0.224], ["2018-02-18", 0.218], ["2018-03-02", 0.218], ["2018-03-11", 0.215], ["2018-03-21", 0.214], ["2018-04-01", 0.213], ["2018-04-09", 0.214], ["2018-04-16", 0.212], ["2018-04-25", 0.2], ["2018-05-03", 0.199], ["2018-05-13", 0.197], ["2018-05-26", 0.188], ["2018-06-07", 0.189], ["2018-06-17", 0.189], ["2018-06-27", 0.186], ["2018-07-10", 0.184], ["2018-07-20", 0.183], ["2018-07-26", 0.181], ["2018-08-04", 0.176], ["2018-08-14", 0.166], ["2018-08-24", 0.165], ["2018-08-31", 0.165], ["2018-09-12", 0.167], ["2018-09-19", 0.165], ["2018-10-01", 0.168], ["2018-10-12", 0.165], ["2018-10-23", 0.165], ["2018-10-31", 0.165], ["2018-11-15", 0.165], ["2018-11-23", 0.166], ["2018-11-30", 0.166], ["2018-12-18", 0.166], ["2018-12-28", 0.166], ["2019-01-07", 0.164], ["2019-01-14", 0.163], ["2019-01-21", 0.16], ["2019-01-29", 0.163], ["2019-02-06", 0.163], ["2019-02-22", 0.163], ["2019-03-06", 0.16], ["2019-03-17", 0.16], ["2019-03-27", 0.16], ["2019-04-09", 0.16], ["2019-04-28", 0.159], ["2019-05-08", 0.158], ["2019-05-16", 0.158], ["2019-06-03", 0.158], ["2019-06-08", 0.157], ["2019-07-01", 0.157], ["2019-07-05", 0.155], ["2019-07-30", 0.153], ["2019-08-08", 0.152], ["2019-08-17", 0.15], ["2019-08-29", 0.149], ["2019-09-10", 0.149], ["2019-10-05", 0.148], ["2019-10-16", 0.146], ["2019-10-27", 0.145], ["2019-11-08", 0.144], ["2019-11-18", 0.145], ["2019-11-30", 0.145], ["2019-12-14", 0.142], ["2019-12-30", 0.143], ["2019-12-31", 0.137]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/172/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | Although critical to the democratic model of government, voting in America has some problems. Turnout is often low, and the terms "butterfly ballot" and "hanging chad" still linger in our collective consciousness following the uncertainty of the 2000 presidential election.
Since we are already able to do practically everything else via the internet –bank, shop, communicate, etc., – online voting seems like a natural next step. Some argue that online voting would increase turnout and bring voting access to anyone with the internet, without the need to go to a polling place on Election Day.
Currently, 22 states allow for some form of online voting, allowing members of the military and other citizens living overseas to return their ballots by email. Only one state - Alaska - allows any registered voter, provided they pre-register, to use an online voting portal. Four other states offer an online voting portal. In March 2016 the Utah Republican Party offered online voting to all registered voters in its presidential caucus.
The major problem that hampers every proposal for online voting is security. Repeated analyses find that, given the impossibility of sufficiently protecting the millions of personal devices that would be used in an online election, the risk of malicious interference in the election is too high to recommend proceeding with online voting. The stakes are also too high, the analysts say, with no less than the balance of American political power in play.
Still, multiple online voting vendors exist, each claiming to be secure. The fate of online voting may depend on who can make the most innovative advances in internet security: vendors or hackers.
Will online voting for all registered voters expand by the 2020 general election?
To resolve as positive, a credible news outlet must report that at least five states will allow any registered voter to submit their ballot for the 2020 general election via email or an online voting portal on or before November 3, 2020. | true | 2020-01-01 | Will online voting spread in the US before the next presidential election? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-13 | 2016-03-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-13", 0.6], ["2016-03-13", 0.71], ["2016-03-13", 0.723], ["2016-03-13", 0.73], ["2016-03-13", 0.764], ["2016-03-13", 0.737], ["2016-03-13", 0.667], ["2016-03-13", 0.67], ["2016-03-13", 0.663], ["2016-03-13", 0.652], ["2016-03-13", 0.658], ["2016-03-13", 0.651], ["2016-03-14", 0.646], ["2016-03-14", 0.634], ["2016-03-14", 0.661], ["2016-03-14", 0.667], ["2016-03-14", 0.651], ["2016-03-15", 0.659], ["2016-03-15", 0.651], ["2016-03-16", 0.643], ["2016-03-17", 0.646], ["2016-03-18", 0.652], ["2016-03-18", 0.649], ["2016-03-18", 0.646], ["2016-03-19", 0.648], ["2016-03-19", 0.651], ["2016-03-20", 0.646], ["2016-03-20", 0.642], ["2016-03-20", 0.634], ["2016-03-22", 0.636], ["2016-03-22", 0.618], ["2016-03-22", 0.62], ["2016-03-22", 0.607], ["2016-03-27", 0.605], ["2016-03-30", 0.609], ["2016-03-31", 0.612], ["2016-04-01", 0.619], ["2016-04-01", 0.622], ["2016-04-04", 0.631], ["2016-04-07", 0.635], ["2016-04-11", 0.629], ["2016-04-12", 0.634], ["2016-04-12", 0.638], ["2016-04-13", 0.646], ["2016-04-13", 0.647]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/177/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | On February 1st of 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially recognized a public health emergency taking place in Central and South America: a sudden increase in cases of a mosquito-borne and sexually tansmitted disease known as Zika virus. This particular outbreak indicated a direct correlation with the incidence of microencephaly in children born to infected mothers. As of writing, Zika cases have been reported in dozens of countries in North and South America and the Caribbean.
A growing focus on the situation has also sparked significant controversy surrounding the methods being employed to combat the disease, specifically the genetic modification of infection vectors such as Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, to produce sterile offspring. The intent of this effort would be to effectively reduce the A. aegypti population and thus the potential for spreading the virus.
Among the numerous (if somewhat unlikely) alternate explanations for the Zika outbreak, there appears to be consensus in scientific community on one point: the absence of direct evidence linking Zika to microencephaly. While some studies have shown that Zika is capable of infecting neural tissue, it is still speculative whether or not it can pass the blood-brain barrier. Due to the recent rise in popularity of the subject, researchers will undoubtedly begin digging deeper into the pathology of Zika virus and its close cousins West Nile and Dengue.
By January 1st, 2017, will the CDC report Zika virus to be the the known (or with words which capture a high degree of certainty) direct cause of microencephaly in developing humans? | true | 2016-04-13 | By 2017, will research definitively show Zika virus to be the direct cause of microencephaly in developing humans? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-05-12 | 2016-03-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-13", 0.5], ["2016-03-13", 0.4], ["2016-03-13", 0.5], ["2016-03-13", 0.533], ["2016-03-13", 0.525], ["2016-03-13", 0.472], ["2016-03-14", 0.44], ["2016-03-14", 0.441], ["2016-03-14", 0.471], ["2016-03-14", 0.486], ["2016-03-14", 0.487], ["2016-03-14", 0.541], ["2016-03-14", 0.55], ["2016-03-14", 0.55], ["2016-03-14", 0.562], ["2016-03-14", 0.565], ["2016-03-14", 0.558], ["2016-03-15", 0.565], ["2016-03-15", 0.561], ["2016-03-15", 0.563], ["2016-03-15", 0.566], ["2016-03-16", 0.556], ["2016-03-16", 0.553], ["2016-03-17", 0.561], ["2016-03-17", 0.564], ["2016-03-18", 0.562], ["2016-03-18", 0.562], ["2016-03-18", 0.562], ["2016-03-18", 0.566], ["2016-03-20", 0.563], ["2016-03-22", 0.556], ["2016-03-24", 0.556], ["2016-03-24", 0.556], ["2016-03-25", 0.556], ["2016-03-25", 0.564], ["2016-03-26", 0.565], ["2016-03-26", 0.558], ["2016-03-26", 0.554], ["2016-03-26", 0.551], ["2016-03-27", 0.55], ["2016-04-02", 0.543], ["2016-04-03", 0.543], ["2016-04-04", 0.544], ["2016-04-04", 0.546], ["2016-04-04", 0.544], ["2016-04-04", 0.544], ["2016-04-06", 0.546], ["2016-04-07", 0.548], ["2016-04-08", 0.532], ["2016-04-08", 0.522], ["2016-04-08", 0.498], ["2016-04-09", 0.485], ["2016-04-09", 0.478], ["2016-04-09", 0.471], ["2016-04-11", 0.467], ["2016-04-11", 0.461], ["2016-04-11", 0.451], ["2016-04-12", 0.454], ["2016-04-12", 0.447], ["2016-04-12", 0.449], ["2016-04-14", 0.441], ["2016-04-14", 0.439], ["2016-04-14", 0.441], ["2016-04-15", 0.44], ["2016-04-15", 0.438]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/178/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In a recent paper, Backović has studied the phenomenon of "ambulance chasing" in particle physics, i.e. the flood of papers in the months following a tentative experimental signal, only to slow as interest is lost, fresh ideas are exhausted or the experimental signatures disproven.
Backović shows that a simple two parameter model accurately fits the evolution of the cumulative number of preprints on a topic for nine episodes of ambulance chasing in recent history. The model is then used to forecast the total number of preprints that will be written about the recent 750 GeV diphoton excess seen at the Large Hadron Collider. There is a recent Metaculus question about this topic, asking whether the statistical significance of the excess will increase by the ICHEP conference. The present question is not about the excess itself, but about whether Backović's forecast for the number of preprints on the excess will prove correct.
Specifically, Backović predicts that the number of preprints on the arxiv about the diphoton excess by June 1, 2016 follows a Poisson distribution with a mean of 271 papers. In other words, the 90% credible interval for the number of preprints is predicted as 244 to 298 (inclusive).
This question resolves positively if, on June 1, 2016, the number of preprints on the diphoton excess falls within the range given above. The number of preprints is measured using Backović's methodology, namely, trawling the inSPIRE and arXiv repositories for citations to the original announcement of an excess by ATLAS and selecting only those papers with an arXiv number assigned. | true | 2016-04-15 | Ambulance chasing the LHC diphoton resonance | metaculus | 0 |
2019-12-30 | 2016-03-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-14", 0.5], ["2016-03-18", 0.22], ["2016-03-22", 0.202], ["2016-03-26", 0.198], ["2016-03-30", 0.191], ["2016-04-03", 0.234], ["2016-04-11", 0.24], ["2016-04-12", 0.232], ["2016-04-15", 0.214], ["2016-04-17", 0.217], ["2016-04-20", 0.199], ["2016-04-29", 0.199], ["2016-04-30", 0.199], ["2016-05-19", 0.194], ["2016-05-22", 0.19], ["2016-06-01", 0.189], ["2016-06-05", 0.197], ["2016-06-08", 0.201], ["2016-06-14", 0.201], ["2016-06-20", 0.2], ["2016-06-30", 0.199], ["2016-07-03", 0.197], ["2016-07-06", 0.194], ["2016-07-11", 0.191], ["2016-07-12", 0.192], ["2016-07-23", 0.201], ["2016-07-27", 0.205], ["2016-07-31", 0.202], ["2016-08-02", 0.2], ["2016-08-04", 0.227], ["2016-08-08", 0.221], ["2016-08-11", 0.218], ["2016-08-15", 0.22], ["2016-08-18", 0.219], ["2016-08-28", 0.219], ["2016-09-01", 0.211], ["2016-09-07", 0.218], ["2016-09-16", 0.215], ["2016-09-18", 0.224], ["2016-09-22", 0.209], ["2016-09-27", 0.211], ["2016-09-29", 0.208], ["2016-10-06", 0.205], ["2016-10-14", 0.205], ["2016-10-19", 0.204], ["2016-10-20", 0.21], ["2016-10-24", 0.203], ["2016-11-02", 0.203], ["2016-11-10", 0.202], ["2016-11-12", 0.203], ["2016-11-23", 0.209], ["2016-12-21", 0.212], ["2016-12-23", 0.212], ["2016-12-26", 0.216], ["2017-01-01", 0.215], ["2017-01-28", 0.215], ["2017-02-01", 0.222], ["2017-02-04", 0.222], ["2017-03-03", 0.221], ["2017-03-04", 0.221], ["2017-03-09", 0.221], ["2017-03-10", 0.217], ["2017-05-12", 0.217], ["2017-05-15", 0.219], ["2017-05-17", 0.219], ["2017-05-20", 0.219], ["2017-05-23", 0.212], ["2017-05-31", 0.212], ["2017-07-08", 0.211], ["2017-07-11", 0.211], ["2017-07-18", 0.216], ["2017-08-04", 0.216], ["2017-08-07", 0.201], ["2017-08-09", 0.198], ["2017-08-12", 0.196], ["2017-08-14", 0.194], ["2017-08-18", 0.194], ["2017-08-30", 0.194], ["2017-08-31", 0.192], ["2017-09-05", 0.197], ["2017-09-10", 0.197], ["2017-09-14", 0.196], ["2017-09-22", 0.196], ["2017-09-27", 0.196], ["2017-09-30", 0.197], ["2017-10-03", 0.199], ["2017-10-06", 0.197], ["2017-10-10", 0.198], ["2017-10-14", 0.197], ["2017-10-23", 0.197], ["2017-10-25", 0.197], ["2017-11-01", 0.199], ["2017-11-02", 0.199], ["2017-11-07", 0.2], ["2017-11-10", 0.199], ["2017-11-13", 0.198], ["2017-11-17", 0.201], ["2017-11-21", 0.197], ["2017-11-25", 0.198], ["2017-11-29", 0.198], ["2017-11-30", 0.199]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/179/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Security & Defense | Weapons in which the energy is provided by nuclear fission or fusion have only twice in history been detonated outside of a controlled test environment, in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki events in World War II.
Since then, the world has nearly gone to nuclear war as a result of international conflict (during the Cuban Missile Crisis) and by accident. There have also been a number of narrowly-averted accidental nuclear detonations. See this timeline for a sobering look at how close we have come.
This question (which any sane person will hope resolves negatively) regards the probability that a nuclear detonation will occur by Jan 1, 2020, outside of controlled tests. This could include:
Deliberate or nuclear attack.
Accidental nuclear attack (launched by accident or on the basis of erroneous information.)
Accidental detonation of a weapon.
Nuclear terrorism.
For these purposes we do not consider a radiological weapon — where any fission/fusion energy is energetically sub-dominant to chemical or other explosives — to be a nuclear attack. | true | 2017-12-01 | Will a non-test nuclear weapon be detonated by 2020? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-01-02 | 2016-03-15 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-15", 0.4], ["2016-03-19", 0.436], ["2016-03-22", 0.446], ["2016-04-09", 0.445], ["2016-04-12", 0.442], ["2016-04-14", 0.451], ["2016-04-18", 0.44], ["2016-04-20", 0.436], ["2016-04-26", 0.436], ["2016-04-29", 0.435], ["2016-05-05", 0.445], ["2016-05-06", 0.473], ["2016-05-10", 0.475], ["2016-05-12", 0.474], ["2016-05-17", 0.472], ["2016-05-19", 0.483], ["2016-05-25", 0.487], ["2016-05-29", 0.488], ["2016-06-04", 0.482], ["2016-06-07", 0.498], ["2016-06-12", 0.493], ["2016-06-13", 0.487], ["2016-06-19", 0.486], ["2016-06-20", 0.481], ["2016-06-23", 0.478], ["2016-06-27", 0.474], ["2016-06-30", 0.47], ["2016-07-03", 0.471], ["2016-07-05", 0.469], ["2016-07-09", 0.46], ["2016-07-11", 0.456], ["2016-07-16", 0.454], ["2016-07-17", 0.46], ["2016-07-21", 0.456], ["2016-07-23", 0.453], ["2016-07-26", 0.449], ["2016-07-28", 0.436], ["2016-08-01", 0.452], ["2016-08-02", 0.44], ["2016-08-05", 0.427], ["2016-08-06", 0.427], ["2016-08-10", 0.427], ["2016-08-12", 0.423], ["2016-08-15", 0.423], ["2016-08-17", 0.421], ["2016-08-20", 0.419], ["2016-08-23", 0.417], ["2016-08-27", 0.421], ["2016-08-29", 0.42], ["2016-08-31", 0.425], ["2016-09-03", 0.426], ["2016-09-05", 0.429], ["2016-09-08", 0.431], ["2016-09-11", 0.435], ["2016-09-13", 0.443], ["2016-09-15", 0.448], ["2016-09-18", 0.501], ["2016-09-21", 0.508], ["2016-09-24", 0.517], ["2016-09-27", 0.517], ["2016-09-30", 0.523], ["2016-10-03", 0.524], ["2016-10-06", 0.523], ["2016-10-11", 0.524], ["2016-10-14", 0.526], ["2016-10-17", 0.528], ["2016-10-21", 0.526], ["2016-10-23", 0.53], ["2016-10-26", 0.533], ["2016-10-31", 0.531], ["2016-11-02", 0.532], ["2016-11-10", 0.53], ["2016-11-12", 0.53], ["2016-11-17", 0.534], ["2016-11-19", 0.535], ["2016-11-21", 0.536], ["2016-11-25", 0.537], ["2016-11-28", 0.538], ["2016-11-29", 0.538], ["2016-12-05", 0.538], ["2016-12-11", 0.538], ["2016-12-13", 0.537], ["2016-12-15", 0.538], ["2016-12-20", 0.54], ["2016-12-23", 0.542], ["2016-12-27", 0.543], ["2016-12-31", 0.544], ["2017-01-02", 0.547], ["2017-01-04", 0.547], ["2017-01-12", 0.547], ["2017-01-13", 0.548], ["2017-01-17", 0.548], ["2017-01-19", 0.549], ["2017-01-25", 0.548], ["2017-01-29", 0.549], ["2017-01-30", 0.55], ["2017-02-02", 0.549], ["2017-02-06", 0.55], ["2017-02-08", 0.55], ["2017-02-12", 0.551], ["2017-02-14", 0.549]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/181/ | This is a sister question to the [other Metaculus Self-Driving Car question], which asked if a commercially available car would be released by 2018. This one will ask if an autonomous vehicle fleet will be in operation for ride sharing, taxi, or shuttling services.
Self-driving car (SDC) fleets are seen as perfect for rideshare business models like those of Lyft or Uber, who have effort in moving toward autonomous technology. This focus on rideshare became more apparent when [GM invested] $500M in autonomous vehicle fleet for Lyft, and the other dominant figures in autonomous vehicle tech like [Google], [Tesla], and [Ford] are developing fleets of their own with speculated intent for ridesharing. Like the sister question, technological maturity, regulation, cost, public policy, and safety are the primary obstacles in bringing fully autonomous vehicles to market. | Science & Tech | By January 1st, 2019, will a fleet of autonomous vehicles be used in a ridesharing or hailing-like service?
To resolve positively, there must exist a service in some geographical region available to members of the general public, taking users between two destinations within the region as chosen by the user. There must be at least 50 autonomous vehicles in use in the service, and if the autonomous vehicles are part of a service mixing autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles, rides by autonomous vehicles should make up at least 20% of all rides provided by the overall service within the area served by the autonomous vehicles. | true | 2017-02-15 | Will a Self-Driving Car be available for ride service by the end of 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-04-30 | 2016-03-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-17", 0.4], ["2016-03-17", 0.55], ["2016-03-17", 0.543], ["2016-03-17", 0.418], ["2016-03-17", 0.4], ["2016-03-17", 0.39], ["2016-03-17", 0.359], ["2016-03-17", 0.354], ["2016-03-17", 0.411], ["2016-03-17", 0.393], ["2016-03-17", 0.397], ["2016-03-17", 0.395], ["2016-03-18", 0.396], ["2016-03-18", 0.415], ["2016-03-18", 0.407], ["2016-03-18", 0.408], ["2016-03-19", 0.401], ["2016-03-20", 0.402], ["2016-03-20", 0.396], ["2016-03-20", 0.397], ["2016-03-22", 0.39], ["2016-03-22", 0.395], ["2016-03-26", 0.391], ["2016-03-27", 0.396], ["2016-04-01", 0.397], ["2016-04-09", 0.4], ["2016-04-10", 0.397], ["2016-04-10", 0.398], ["2016-04-12", 0.42], ["2016-04-18", 0.42], ["2016-04-18", 0.419], ["2016-04-19", 0.419], ["2016-04-19", 0.404], ["2016-04-20", 0.402], ["2016-06-05", 0.413], ["2016-06-07", 0.426], ["2016-06-20", 0.432], ["2016-06-30", 0.434], ["2016-07-06", 0.439], ["2016-07-23", 0.435], ["2016-07-26", 0.439], ["2016-07-26", 0.437], ["2016-07-26", 0.439], ["2016-07-26", 0.445], ["2016-07-30", 0.434], ["2016-07-31", 0.431], ["2016-08-03", 0.428], ["2016-08-06", 0.418], ["2016-08-07", 0.429], ["2016-08-07", 0.435], ["2016-08-13", 0.437], ["2016-08-13", 0.439], ["2016-08-19", 0.44], ["2016-08-28", 0.439], ["2016-09-02", 0.432], ["2016-09-05", 0.43], ["2016-09-06", 0.427], ["2016-09-12", 0.427], ["2016-09-15", 0.433], ["2016-09-15", 0.431], ["2016-09-16", 0.436], ["2016-09-16", 0.434], ["2016-09-16", 0.438], ["2016-09-16", 0.444], ["2016-09-17", 0.445], ["2016-09-19", 0.445], ["2016-09-21", 0.443], ["2016-09-25", 0.443], ["2016-09-28", 0.439], ["2016-09-29", 0.435], ["2016-10-03", 0.428], ["2016-10-11", 0.431], ["2016-10-12", 0.434], ["2016-10-14", 0.428], ["2016-10-21", 0.427], ["2016-10-22", 0.426], ["2016-10-23", 0.426], ["2016-10-23", 0.421], ["2016-11-23", 0.427], ["2016-12-16", 0.427], ["2016-12-21", 0.429], ["2016-12-21", 0.429], ["2016-12-21", 0.43], ["2017-01-01", 0.433], ["2017-01-01", 0.433], ["2017-01-03", 0.434], ["2017-01-04", 0.432], ["2017-01-10", 0.431], ["2017-01-30", 0.431], ["2017-01-31", 0.433], ["2017-01-31", 0.436], ["2017-01-31", 0.435], ["2017-01-31", 0.435], ["2017-01-31", 0.436], ["2017-02-04", 0.435], ["2017-02-05", 0.435], ["2017-02-12", 0.435], ["2017-02-14", 0.433]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/183/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | MIT researchers Kadambi et al have developed a 3D imaging system called Polarized 3D that integrates the polarization of light in its rendering of depth maps. Incorporating polarization into enhancing a map of a 3D surface hasn't been engineered before, and the advantage it offers is additional information about the geometry of physical objects based on the way polarized light interacts with their surfaces. For example, specular highlights on objects often lower the rendering capability of computer vision algorithms, but it can be subtracted from objects in computer vision by using polarization filters.
The obvious focus for applications of Polarized 3D is in the 3D camera and printing industry. Less obvious is whether this technology can be used on driverless and autonomous cars, most of which require stereoscopic camera arrays as part of their object detection and depth sensing. Self-driving cars do well in fair conditions, but in high precipitation environments, water helps create a variety of optical aberrations that throw off an autonomous car's vision algorithms. In particular, those specular highlights mentioned earlier get amplified on various surfaces in rainy conditions, and subtracting them out would allow for a more accurate depth map.
Will an autonomous vehicle project, like the Google Self-Driving Car, integrate light polarization technology into their 3D vision systems by 2019?
This question will resolve positively if there is an article published by a top media news outlet, or if a public release is made by an autonomous vehicle developer stating that Polarized 3D (or a closely-related system) is being used to enhance the computer vision systems on a production-model autonomous vehicle. | true | 2017-02-15 | Will Polarized 3D vision tech be used on self-driving cars by 2019? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-01-21 | 2016-03-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-17", 0.3], ["2016-03-27", 0.421], ["2016-04-11", 0.427], ["2016-04-20", 0.418], ["2016-04-26", 0.425], ["2016-05-17", 0.428], ["2016-05-19", 0.433], ["2016-06-01", 0.438], ["2016-06-07", 0.431], ["2016-06-20", 0.437], ["2016-06-24", 0.444], ["2016-06-30", 0.431], ["2016-07-11", 0.437], ["2016-07-23", 0.444], ["2016-08-03", 0.497], ["2016-08-08", 0.489], ["2016-08-13", 0.502], ["2016-08-21", 0.512], ["2016-08-31", 0.494], ["2016-09-08", 0.496], ["2016-09-18", 0.537], ["2016-09-26", 0.549], ["2016-10-06", 0.554], ["2016-10-14", 0.558], ["2016-10-24", 0.569], ["2016-11-01", 0.569], ["2016-11-09", 0.579], ["2016-11-17", 0.58], ["2016-11-23", 0.581], ["2016-12-06", 0.581], ["2016-12-12", 0.581], ["2016-12-22", 0.581], ["2016-12-31", 0.581], ["2017-01-08", 0.585], ["2017-01-24", 0.585], ["2017-01-25", 0.585], ["2017-02-14", 0.586], ["2017-02-23", 0.584], ["2017-02-25", 0.585], ["2017-03-09", 0.585], ["2017-03-14", 0.583], ["2017-03-30", 0.582], ["2017-04-01", 0.582], ["2017-04-12", 0.582], ["2017-04-15", 0.581], ["2017-05-14", 0.58], ["2017-05-20", 0.581], ["2017-05-28", 0.583], ["2017-06-07", 0.583], ["2017-06-09", 0.583], ["2017-06-19", 0.583], ["2017-06-27", 0.583], ["2017-07-18", 0.583], ["2017-07-26", 0.584], ["2017-08-04", 0.583], ["2017-08-14", 0.572], ["2017-08-20", 0.573], ["2017-08-28", 0.571], ["2017-09-04", 0.571], ["2017-09-10", 0.571], ["2017-09-26", 0.57], ["2017-10-03", 0.569], ["2017-10-12", 0.569], ["2017-10-17", 0.568], ["2017-10-26", 0.569], ["2017-11-01", 0.568], ["2017-11-18", 0.566], ["2017-11-27", 0.565], ["2017-12-07", 0.565], ["2017-12-16", 0.563], ["2017-12-29", 0.563], ["2018-01-05", 0.563], ["2018-01-13", 0.561], ["2018-01-31", 0.562], ["2018-02-07", 0.559], ["2018-02-14", 0.552], ["2018-03-09", 0.552], ["2018-03-16", 0.549], ["2018-03-23", 0.551], ["2018-03-30", 0.55], ["2018-04-06", 0.55], ["2018-04-14", 0.549], ["2018-04-22", 0.546], ["2018-05-01", 0.545], ["2018-05-11", 0.546], ["2018-05-19", 0.545], ["2018-05-26", 0.545], ["2018-06-03", 0.543], ["2018-06-12", 0.542], ["2018-06-22", 0.541], ["2018-07-02", 0.541], ["2018-07-12", 0.54], ["2018-07-21", 0.539], ["2018-07-31", 0.537], ["2018-08-10", 0.533], ["2018-08-19", 0.531], ["2018-08-29", 0.526], ["2018-09-09", 0.521], ["2018-09-19", 0.515], ["2018-09-27", 0.513], ["2018-09-30", 0.506]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/184/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | In April of 2015, it was announced that scientists in China had successfully edited the genome of a human embryo using the CRISPR/Cas9 system--a standard synthetic biology tool for gene editing. February 1st of this 2016 marked another major turning point in the field when UK regulators approved gene editing in viable human embryos. This is the first time that any kind of regulatory agency has approved the use of synthetic techniques in humans at the embryonic stage. This may present an open door for other agencies to make similar judgments. It should be noted that the genes targeted in the newly-approved study were chosen by the UK researchers to probe embryonic development, and specifically disapproved for future implantation and maturation.
Single-cell embryos are excellent subjects for CRISPR research; their relatively large size enables routine microinjection of the biological macromolecules necessary to perform the edit. A significant drawback, however, is CRISPR efficiency. Like any mutagenic process, it leaves a lot of room for improvement. Its targets still have a low chance of being successfully and appropriately edited, thus requiring a sequencing screen to find a match. This has the potential to leave many human embryos unwanted or no longer viable, as in the relatively rare case of an improper edit.
On the other hand, there are a number of genetic disorders (cystic fibrosis, for instance) that are rapidly fatal anyway, presenting some cases as prime candidates for CRISPR editing. Now, development of the system in human embryos has precedent, which may lead to other agencies following the example set by the UK. While still strictly illegal in the UK and US,
by 2020, will the remaining roadblocks be lifted (or circumvented), leading to an implanted human embryo brought fully to term with CRISPR (or a similar system) edited DNA?
This question will resolve positively if the aforementioned event is reported in one of the top 25 media outlets by October 1st, 2020. | true | 2018-10-01 | By 2020, will an implanted human embryo with artificially edited DNA be brought to term? | metaculus | 1 |
2016-05-25 | 2016-03-17 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-17", 0.5], ["2016-03-17", 0.68], ["2016-03-17", 0.715], ["2016-03-17", 0.505], ["2016-03-17", 0.537], ["2016-03-17", 0.57], ["2016-03-17", 0.555], ["2016-03-17", 0.595], ["2016-03-17", 0.582], ["2016-03-17", 0.502], ["2016-03-17", 0.422], ["2016-03-17", 0.385], ["2016-03-17", 0.396], ["2016-03-17", 0.509], ["2016-03-17", 0.566], ["2016-03-17", 0.619], ["2016-03-17", 0.694], ["2016-03-18", 0.691], ["2016-03-18", 0.697], ["2016-03-18", 0.689], ["2016-03-18", 0.702], ["2016-03-18", 0.684], ["2016-03-18", 0.653], ["2016-03-18", 0.65], ["2016-03-18", 0.668], ["2016-03-18", 0.667], ["2016-03-18", 0.664], ["2016-03-18", 0.65], ["2016-03-18", 0.663], ["2016-03-18", 0.659], ["2016-03-18", 0.663], ["2016-03-18", 0.671], ["2016-03-18", 0.67], ["2016-03-19", 0.667], ["2016-03-19", 0.688], ["2016-03-19", 0.69], ["2016-03-19", 0.683], ["2016-03-20", 0.689], ["2016-03-20", 0.677], ["2016-03-20", 0.68], ["2016-03-20", 0.681], ["2016-03-20", 0.678], ["2016-03-20", 0.672], ["2016-03-21", 0.672], ["2016-03-22", 0.683], ["2016-03-22", 0.69], ["2016-03-22", 0.697], ["2016-03-22", 0.697], ["2016-03-22", 0.69], ["2016-03-22", 0.684], ["2016-03-23", 0.691], ["2016-03-23", 0.697], ["2016-03-24", 0.707], ["2016-03-24", 0.708], ["2016-03-25", 0.715], ["2016-03-25", 0.717], ["2016-03-27", 0.718], ["2016-03-27", 0.716], ["2016-03-27", 0.717], ["2016-03-29", 0.717], ["2016-03-29", 0.718], ["2016-03-29", 0.719], ["2016-03-30", 0.717], ["2016-03-30", 0.718], ["2016-03-30", 0.718], ["2016-03-30", 0.725], ["2016-04-01", 0.726], ["2016-04-01", 0.731], ["2016-04-01", 0.737], ["2016-04-02", 0.745], ["2016-04-02", 0.746], ["2016-04-02", 0.747], ["2016-04-02", 0.748], ["2016-04-03", 0.749], ["2016-04-04", 0.747], ["2016-04-07", 0.75], ["2016-04-08", 0.751], ["2016-04-09", 0.748], ["2016-04-12", 0.75], ["2016-04-12", 0.753], ["2016-04-12", 0.751], ["2016-04-12", 0.755], ["2016-04-12", 0.76], ["2016-04-13", 0.772], ["2016-04-13", 0.773], ["2016-04-13", 0.773], ["2016-04-13", 0.774], ["2016-04-13", 0.776], ["2016-04-13", 0.775], ["2016-04-14", 0.778], ["2016-04-14", 0.779], ["2016-04-14", 0.777], ["2016-04-14", 0.778], ["2016-04-14", 0.777], ["2016-04-14", 0.779]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/186/ | Dramatic recent progress in narrow (and arguably general) purpose AI has led to a myriad of practical but nascent technologies including autonomous vehicles, automated call-answering systems, highly automated factories, medical and legal expert systems, and so on.
While the automation of repetitive physical labor is an old story, the advent of AI/robotic systems to perform essentially any repetitive physical labor, as well as many non-repetitive physical tasks and also repetitive or non-repetitive cognitive tasks, is likely to dramatically change the dynamics governing human labor and its place in the global economy.
In their book, Brynjolfsson & McAfee argue that we are in the early stages of this process, but that it is already underway and has contributed significantly to income inequality and other difficulties in the labor pool. It is thus quite possible that the cause of much of the anger and frustration being channeled by the Trump and Sanders campaigns is fundamentally caused by an automation process that is likely just getting started.
However, while a significant topic of conversation in tech and some economic circles, and while politicians love to talk about jobs, the automation of labor has played little to no role in the presidential election thus far. Will this continue to be the case? | Politics & Governance | Will the total time devoted to questions (and answers) directly referring to AI and/or robotic automation of labor in the remaining Republican and Democratic presidential primary debates be less than 5 minutes?
(Note: we will launch a similar question about the post-primary presidential debates) | true | 2016-04-15 | Will robotic/AI automation be essentially ignored in the primary races? | metaculus | 1 |
2017-01-01 | 2016-03-18 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-18", 0.1], ["2016-03-18", 0.489], ["2016-03-18", 0.461], ["2016-03-18", 0.487], ["2016-03-19", 0.497], ["2016-03-20", 0.495], ["2016-03-20", 0.495], ["2016-03-21", 0.495], ["2016-03-21", 0.48], ["2016-03-22", 0.481], ["2016-03-22", 0.469], ["2016-03-22", 0.482], ["2016-03-26", 0.478], ["2016-03-27", 0.479], ["2016-03-29", 0.476], ["2016-03-30", 0.505], ["2016-04-02", 0.503], ["2016-04-04", 0.507], ["2016-04-06", 0.509], ["2016-04-07", 0.515], ["2016-04-10", 0.512], ["2016-04-10", 0.512], ["2016-04-11", 0.514], ["2016-04-11", 0.516], ["2016-04-12", 0.516], ["2016-04-14", 0.515], ["2016-04-14", 0.514], ["2016-04-14", 0.515], ["2016-04-15", 0.516], ["2016-04-17", 0.526], ["2016-04-18", 0.526], ["2016-04-18", 0.526], ["2016-04-18", 0.52], ["2016-04-19", 0.533], ["2016-04-19", 0.536], ["2016-04-20", 0.524], ["2016-04-20", 0.525], ["2016-04-21", 0.529], ["2016-04-24", 0.529], ["2016-04-26", 0.524], ["2016-04-26", 0.523], ["2016-04-27", 0.523], ["2016-04-29", 0.52], ["2016-05-01", 0.517], ["2016-05-16", 0.518], ["2016-05-26", 0.53], ["2016-05-28", 0.529], ["2016-06-04", 0.523], ["2016-06-06", 0.523], ["2016-06-07", 0.517], ["2016-06-08", 0.516], ["2016-06-12", 0.516], ["2016-06-17", 0.517], ["2016-06-18", 0.511], ["2016-06-19", 0.512], ["2016-06-20", 0.509], ["2016-06-20", 0.494], ["2016-06-21", 0.499], ["2016-06-24", 0.498], ["2016-06-27", 0.5], ["2016-06-28", 0.499], ["2016-06-29", 0.488], ["2016-06-29", 0.484], ["2016-06-29", 0.48], ["2016-06-30", 0.469], ["2016-06-30", 0.468], ["2016-06-30", 0.471], ["2016-06-30", 0.47], ["2016-07-02", 0.468], ["2016-07-06", 0.463], ["2016-07-07", 0.465], ["2016-07-12", 0.464], ["2016-07-12", 0.464], ["2016-07-13", 0.462], ["2016-07-16", 0.458], ["2016-07-18", 0.457], ["2016-07-22", 0.455], ["2016-07-23", 0.458], ["2016-07-24", 0.457], ["2016-07-24", 0.453], ["2016-07-26", 0.453], ["2016-07-26", 0.451], ["2016-07-26", 0.448], ["2016-07-26", 0.449], ["2016-07-26", 0.437], ["2016-07-27", 0.437], ["2016-07-27", 0.437], ["2016-07-27", 0.434], ["2016-07-27", 0.428], ["2016-07-28", 0.428], ["2016-07-28", 0.428], ["2016-07-28", 0.418], ["2016-07-29", 0.418], ["2016-07-29", 0.418], ["2016-07-29", 0.421], ["2016-07-29", 0.416], ["2016-07-30", 0.409], ["2016-07-30", 0.397], ["2016-07-30", 0.396], ["2016-07-30", 0.393], ["2016-07-31", 0.392]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/188/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In mid-January, two Caltech Professors -- Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown -- created a worldwide stir by proposing the existence of a new, but as-yet unseen, planet in the outer solar system. This world, now known as "Planet Nine", is predicted to have a mass roughly ten times that of Earth, an orbital period of about 20,000 years, and a large eccentricity (e~0.6).
Batygin and Brown's paper (which, by 3/17, had been downloaded a staggering 307,188 times) presents indirect dynamical evidence for Planet Nine. Its presence is inferred through the gravitational sculpting that it has produced in the trajectories of small Pluto-like worlds that lie beyond Neptune's orbit.
A recent paper by Fienga et al. adds credibility and detail to the Planet Nine hypothesis. The authors examine how Planet Nine affects the orbit of Saturn, whose orbital trajectory can be measured to great accuracy using ranging data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Inclusion of Planet Nine in the ultra-precise INPOP Solar System ephemerides reduces the error in Cassini's position relative to the model if Planet Nine's true anomaly is of order 118 degrees.
Based on the Fienga et al. result, Metaculus calculates a most probable current sky position for Planet Nine of RA=2h, Dec=-20 deg, in the constellation Cetus. This area of the sky becomes visible to ground-based wide-field cameras in mid-Summer. At the most probable location, the planet's current distance would be r=620 AU, and the expected V magnitude is 21. An update to our original Planet Nine question is thus definitely in order:
Will the discovery by direct observation of a new solar system planet having characteristics substantially similar to those described in the Batygin-Brown paper, and at a sky position within 20 degrees of the Fienga et al. best-fit location be announced in a peer-reviewed paper prior to Dec. 31, 2016?
(For this question to resolve as "Yes", the new planet should have an inferred radius larger than that of Earth, an orbital period greater than 5,000 years, and an orbital eccentricity e > 0.25). | true | 2016-07-31 | Will Planet Nine be found in 2016? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-01 | 2016-03-20 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-20", 0.5], ["2016-03-20", 0.4], ["2016-03-20", 0.553], ["2016-03-20", 0.54], ["2016-03-20", 0.542], ["2016-03-20", 0.51], ["2016-03-20", 0.538], ["2016-03-20", 0.53], ["2016-03-20", 0.526], ["2016-03-20", 0.504], ["2016-03-20", 0.504], ["2016-03-20", 0.532], ["2016-03-21", 0.507], ["2016-03-21", 0.508], ["2016-03-21", 0.501], ["2016-03-21", 0.476], ["2016-03-22", 0.46], ["2016-03-22", 0.452], ["2016-03-22", 0.449], ["2016-03-22", 0.444], ["2016-03-22", 0.436], ["2016-03-23", 0.448], ["2016-03-23", 0.446], ["2016-03-24", 0.444], ["2016-03-24", 0.455], ["2016-03-26", 0.452], ["2016-03-26", 0.447], ["2016-03-27", 0.446], ["2016-03-27", 0.45], ["2016-03-28", 0.452], ["2016-03-30", 0.485], ["2016-04-01", 0.467], ["2016-04-02", 0.468], ["2016-04-08", 0.464], ["2016-04-09", 0.457], ["2016-04-12", 0.455], ["2016-04-13", 0.451], ["2016-04-15", 0.454], ["2016-04-15", 0.454], ["2016-04-16", 0.447], ["2016-04-16", 0.445], ["2016-04-19", 0.448], ["2016-04-19", 0.442], ["2016-04-25", 0.441], ["2016-04-26", 0.441], ["2016-04-29", 0.447], ["2016-04-29", 0.441], ["2016-04-29", 0.444], ["2016-04-29", 0.445], ["2016-04-30", 0.441], ["2016-04-30", 0.444], ["2016-05-01", 0.435], ["2016-05-03", 0.424], ["2016-05-06", 0.423], ["2016-05-09", 0.424], ["2016-05-12", 0.414], ["2016-05-12", 0.42], ["2016-05-16", 0.42], ["2016-05-16", 0.417], ["2016-05-16", 0.417], ["2016-05-16", 0.412], ["2016-05-16", 0.405], ["2016-05-16", 0.403], ["2016-05-16", 0.403], ["2016-05-16", 0.394], ["2016-05-16", 0.391], ["2016-05-16", 0.398], ["2016-05-17", 0.396], ["2016-05-19", 0.398], ["2016-05-21", 0.395], ["2016-05-21", 0.393], ["2016-05-22", 0.39], ["2016-05-22", 0.394], ["2016-05-22", 0.393], ["2016-05-23", 0.392], ["2016-05-25", 0.391], ["2016-05-29", 0.39], ["2016-05-30", 0.381], ["2016-05-31", 0.367], ["2016-05-31", 0.363], ["2016-05-31", 0.362]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/190/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | Oxitec, a UK-based synthetic biology company specializing in infectious vector control, has been a focus of major news outlets since the recent spike in human Zika virus cases in South America. The mosquito species Aedes aegypti has been identified as the primary carrier of Zika and several other pathogens including dengue fever. Oxitec's brand of "self-limiting" GMO Aedes aegypti has passed regulatory approval in several countries in central and South America, and has since shown significant efficacy in attenuating the population within targeted regions. Brazil has recently begun expanding Oxitec's vector control program, which they started in 2012.
The US state of Florida is now following suit with their own investigative trials into GMO mosquito control. Mosquito transmissions of Zika and dengue do not necessarily pose an imminent threat to the North American region, although there have been several recently-reported cases of transmission due to human-to-human contact. Aedes aegypti is nonetheless an invasive, non-native species. Whether for cost reduction, preemptive disease control, agricultural protection, or other environmental concerns, the US government has selected Oxitec's "friendly Aedes aegypti" as a candidate in the Florida Keys.
The proof-of-concept experiment to show efficacy and environmental impact is being conducted in Key Haven, an island in the Florida Keys. Oxitec announced in a press release on March 11th that the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine had determined that the GM mosquito trial yielded "no significant impact" on the greater ecology of the area; information on the efficacy of the trial on the mosquito population is not yet released. The FDA report is open to comments until early April.
Will the FDA approve expanded use of Oxitec's self-limiting mosquitos for Aedes aegypti population control in the United States by September 1, 2016?
To resolve positively, the official approval by the FDA (which may be announced by the FDA itself or a credible media outlet) must occur by 9/1/16, and allow use of Oxitec mosquitos throughout all of at least one US state. | true | 2016-06-01 | Will the FDA approve GMO mosquitos for widespread release? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-12-20 | 2016-03-21 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-21", 0.45], ["2016-03-21", 0.47], ["2016-03-21", 0.455], ["2016-03-21", 0.43], ["2016-03-21", 0.51], ["2016-03-21", 0.582], ["2016-03-21", 0.612], ["2016-03-21", 0.598], ["2016-03-21", 0.599], ["2016-03-21", 0.604], ["2016-03-21", 0.603], ["2016-03-21", 0.599], ["2016-03-21", 0.606], ["2016-03-21", 0.601], ["2016-03-22", 0.608], ["2016-03-22", 0.589], ["2016-03-22", 0.589], ["2016-03-22", 0.584], ["2016-03-22", 0.576], ["2016-03-22", 0.572], ["2016-03-23", 0.562], ["2016-03-23", 0.561], ["2016-03-24", 0.57], ["2016-03-24", 0.569], ["2016-03-26", 0.572], ["2016-03-26", 0.569], ["2016-03-27", 0.566], ["2016-03-28", 0.571], ["2016-03-29", 0.576], ["2016-04-02", 0.576], ["2016-04-07", 0.585], ["2016-04-08", 0.591], ["2016-04-08", 0.589], ["2016-04-09", 0.591], ["2016-04-11", 0.594], ["2016-04-12", 0.599], ["2016-04-14", 0.604], ["2016-04-14", 0.604], ["2016-04-14", 0.604], ["2016-04-14", 0.586], ["2016-04-14", 0.586], ["2016-04-14", 0.586], ["2016-04-18", 0.582], ["2016-04-19", 0.581], ["2016-04-26", 0.586], ["2016-04-26", 0.585], ["2016-04-28", 0.588], ["2016-05-15", 0.589], ["2016-05-16", 0.589], ["2016-05-17", 0.589], ["2016-06-06", 0.578], ["2016-06-07", 0.579], ["2016-06-07", 0.581], ["2016-06-08", 0.58], ["2016-06-14", 0.58], ["2016-06-17", 0.581], ["2016-06-17", 0.583], ["2016-06-19", 0.583], ["2016-06-21", 0.581], ["2016-06-25", 0.578], ["2016-06-26", 0.583], ["2016-06-28", 0.584], ["2016-06-28", 0.583], ["2016-06-28", 0.583], ["2016-06-29", 0.583], ["2016-06-29", 0.582], ["2016-06-29", 0.582], ["2016-06-29", 0.585], ["2016-06-29", 0.58], ["2016-06-30", 0.58], ["2016-06-30", 0.579], ["2016-06-30", 0.582], ["2016-06-30", 0.585]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/191/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The NASA Discovery Program space missions are designed to be low cost but effective missions in the space and planetary exploration of our solar system. InSight, and the InSight Mars lander, is the 12th standalone Discovery Program mission managed at NASA JPL. It's purpose: investigate the seismic activity of Mars by drilling to position a seismomitor a few meters under the martian surface.
The InSight probe would have been mission-ready this March if not for mechanical failures on the craft and budget constraints. The failure was a leak in the vacuum chamber that contains the seismometer's sensors, discovered last December, and costing at least $150M to fix and exceeding the overall budget of $625M.
Even with the budget constraints, NASA announced on March 9, 2016 that the repairs would be carried out and the launch would be rescheduled for May of 2018. Given that there was a failure during the course of development of this craft, and the success history of Mars missions is known, what can be said about the likelihood of success for the InSight probe?
Note that the probe must be mission-ready by May, otherwise it will miss the critical launch window when Mars and Earth are closest in their orbits, and the mission will have to wait another 26 months.
Will the Insight Mars probe land safely on the Martian surface by January 1st, 2019? | true | 2016-07-01 | Will NASA's InSight Mars Mission Launch in 2018? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-02-22 | 2016-03-22 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-08", 0.6], ["2016-11-08", 0.393], ["2016-11-08", 0.46], ["2016-11-08", 0.46], ["2016-11-08", 0.386], ["2016-11-09", 0.386], ["2016-11-09", 0.399], ["2016-11-09", 0.43], ["2016-11-09", 0.437], ["2016-11-09", 0.437], ["2016-11-09", 0.492], ["2016-11-09", 0.492], ["2016-11-09", 0.512], ["2016-11-09", 0.508], ["2016-11-10", 0.508], ["2016-11-10", 0.507], ["2016-11-10", 0.496], ["2016-11-10", 0.498], ["2016-11-10", 0.497], ["2016-11-11", 0.503], ["2016-11-11", 0.503], ["2016-11-12", 0.503], ["2016-11-12", 0.504], ["2016-11-12", 0.503], ["2016-11-12", 0.503], ["2016-11-12", 0.503], ["2016-11-12", 0.501], ["2016-11-12", 0.474], ["2016-11-12", 0.491], ["2016-11-12", 0.491], ["2016-11-12", 0.509], ["2016-11-12", 0.509], ["2016-11-12", 0.511], ["2016-11-12", 0.53], ["2016-11-12", 0.54], ["2016-11-12", 0.54], ["2016-11-12", 0.542], ["2016-11-12", 0.559], ["2016-11-12", 0.55], ["2016-11-12", 0.546], ["2016-11-13", 0.536], ["2016-11-13", 0.537], ["2016-11-13", 0.53], ["2016-11-14", 0.53], ["2016-11-14", 0.532], ["2016-11-14", 0.532], ["2016-11-14", 0.534], ["2016-11-14", 0.534], ["2016-11-14", 0.534], ["2016-11-14", 0.534], ["2016-11-14", 0.535], ["2016-11-14", 0.535], ["2016-11-14", 0.53], ["2016-11-15", 0.513], ["2016-11-15", 0.512], ["2016-11-15", 0.512], ["2016-11-15", 0.511], ["2016-11-16", 0.511], ["2016-11-17", 0.511], ["2016-11-18", 0.518], ["2016-11-24", 0.515], ["2016-11-24", 0.515], ["2016-11-27", 0.511], ["2016-12-05", 0.514], ["2016-12-05", 0.502], ["2016-12-05", 0.5], ["2016-12-07", 0.5], ["2016-12-21", 0.506], ["2016-12-21", 0.506], ["2016-12-21", 0.5], ["2016-12-21", 0.5], ["2016-12-26", 0.499], ["2016-12-29", 0.499], ["2017-01-01", 0.504], ["2017-01-01", 0.504], ["2017-01-01", 0.492], ["2017-01-04", 0.493], ["2017-01-05", 0.491], ["2017-01-06", 0.487], ["2017-01-24", 0.485], ["2017-01-28", 0.483], ["2017-01-31", 0.483], ["2017-01-31", 0.483], ["2017-02-05", 0.481], ["2017-02-14", 0.48], ["2017-02-17", 0.479], ["2017-02-17", 0.479], ["2017-02-17", 0.469], ["2017-02-17", 0.469], ["2017-02-18", 0.469], ["2017-02-19", 0.469], ["2017-02-23", 0.471], ["2017-02-24", 0.47]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/192/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Economics & Business | London, England ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the world. Property prices grew by nearly 10% in 2015, stoking fears of a housing price bubble. In May 2013, the median home price in London topped 600,000 GBP, around double the median price in 2009, during the Great Recession. Afraid of a bubble bursting, particularly among the priciest homes, the Bank of Ireland in March stated that it would not give loans greater than 500,000 GBP to protect itself from possible losses in a market correction.
To support prices that are well out of range for average Londoners, the British government amended its Help to Buy program, which allows prospective homeowners to borrow up to 20% of the cost of the home from the government before seeking a mortgage for the rest. In London, the government borrowing limit is up to 40% of the home's value, and is capped at 600,000 GBP. But critics note that the program still requires a hefty down payment with loopholes that benefit the wealthy, keeping affordable housing out of reach.
Add into this mix the specter of the Brexit referendum. In the weeks following the vote, the number of homes sold in London's wealthiest neighborhoods dropped 43% from the same period the year before. Sales dropped around 18% in other neighborhoods.
Will 2017 be the year that the London housing market deflates?
This question will resolve as positive if the Mix-adjusted average house price and annual change by region, December 2017 for the London region drops below zero.
(Edit 11/12/16: fixed resolution criterion and question body to match title: 2017 NOT 2016.) | true | 2017-03-01 | Will the London housing market deflate in 2017? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-05-01 | 2016-03-23 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-23", 0.3], ["2016-03-23", 0.405], ["2016-03-23", 0.475], ["2016-03-24", 0.483], ["2016-03-24", 0.488], ["2016-03-24", 0.396], ["2016-03-24", 0.39], ["2016-03-24", 0.391], ["2016-03-24", 0.368], ["2016-03-24", 0.349], ["2016-03-24", 0.339], ["2016-03-24", 0.343], ["2016-03-24", 0.346], ["2016-03-24", 0.343], ["2016-03-26", 0.338], ["2016-03-27", 0.328], ["2016-03-27", 0.333], ["2016-03-28", 0.315], ["2016-03-28", 0.326], ["2016-03-29", 0.332], ["2016-03-30", 0.336], ["2016-03-30", 0.372], ["2016-04-07", 0.359], ["2016-04-12", 0.342], ["2016-04-15", 0.339], ["2016-04-19", 0.335], ["2016-04-25", 0.322], ["2016-04-25", 0.333], ["2016-04-25", 0.333], ["2016-04-25", 0.327], ["2016-04-26", 0.327], ["2016-04-26", 0.326], ["2016-05-01", 0.327], ["2016-06-05", 0.338], ["2016-06-07", 0.329], ["2016-06-13", 0.33], ["2016-06-20", 0.331], ["2016-06-30", 0.331], ["2016-07-08", 0.328], ["2016-07-12", 0.329], ["2016-07-23", 0.342], ["2016-07-26", 0.348], ["2016-07-27", 0.342], ["2016-07-27", 0.332], ["2016-08-03", 0.323], ["2016-08-03", 0.322], ["2016-08-06", 0.314], ["2016-08-07", 0.309], ["2016-08-13", 0.31], ["2016-08-19", 0.315], ["2016-08-30", 0.307], ["2016-08-30", 0.304], ["2016-09-05", 0.302], ["2016-09-12", 0.302], ["2016-09-14", 0.307], ["2016-09-14", 0.318], ["2016-09-15", 0.328], ["2016-09-16", 0.321], ["2016-09-16", 0.32], ["2016-09-16", 0.308], ["2016-09-16", 0.316], ["2016-09-17", 0.318], ["2016-09-17", 0.321], ["2016-09-18", 0.323], ["2016-09-21", 0.336], ["2016-09-21", 0.336], ["2016-09-26", 0.33], ["2016-09-26", 0.333], ["2016-09-28", 0.334], ["2016-09-29", 0.33], ["2016-09-29", 0.33], ["2016-09-29", 0.33], ["2016-09-29", 0.324], ["2016-10-01", 0.324], ["2016-10-02", 0.323], ["2016-10-03", 0.334], ["2016-10-19", 0.334], ["2016-10-20", 0.326], ["2016-10-20", 0.326], ["2016-10-21", 0.327], ["2016-10-21", 0.327], ["2016-10-23", 0.327], ["2016-10-23", 0.327], ["2016-10-24", 0.327], ["2016-10-25", 0.322], ["2016-10-25", 0.321], ["2016-11-11", 0.32], ["2016-11-14", 0.319]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/193/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | In the US, medical research on potentially human-harmful viral and bacterial pathogen and other "select agents" generally takes place in Biosafety level 3 and level 4 labs.
The US select agents program regulates the identification, acquisition, use, transfer, and disposal of select agents. Part of this program is a detailed reporting system of the theft, loss, or accidental release of select agents.
A summary of the reports under this system from 2004-2010 by Henkel et al. found eleven laboratory-acquired infections (LAIs) during this period (along with 639 accidental "releases"), but none leading to human fatality. The report showed steadily and quickly increasing (> 29%/year) report numbers from 2004-2010, suggesting increasing reporting rates. (It is also likely that the number of labs working with select agents increased, and in-principle possible that the accident rate increased, but these seem unlikely to explain such a rapid rise.) This leaves open to question how many accidents (and LAIs) go unreported.
A 2006 literature review by Harding and Byers found a large number of LAIs, with updated statistics of 2033 LAIs and 37 deaths (with 13 deaths since 2005). These numbers are difficult to compare, as LAIs can occur without an identified accident leading to them.
A Google Scholar search of citations to Henkel et al. shows that it has been used to estimate accidental infection rates in a number of papers and reports, but reveals no more-recent followup summary based on the select agent reporting system.
Will a new publication based on select-agent reports reveal a per-year fatality rate of unity or greater?
To be definite, the question will resolve as positive if, by May 2017, a publication that cites Henkel at al. in a Google Scholar search, and is based on select agent reports, lists at least one LAI fatality that occurred in the most recent year -- or at least two fatalities between the most recent two years -- fully covered by the data used in the publication.
(Edited 4/25 to clarify that 1/year is a minimum for positive resolution.) | true | 2016-11-15 | Will a fatality of one or more per year due to accidental infections in "select agent" pathogen research labs be reported in the next year? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-04-08 | 2016-03-25 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-28", 0.48], ["2016-03-28", 0.475], ["2016-03-28", 0.547], ["2016-03-28", 0.597], ["2016-03-28", 0.54], ["2016-03-28", 0.54], ["2016-03-28", 0.549], ["2016-03-28", 0.542], ["2016-03-28", 0.538], ["2016-03-28", 0.556], ["2016-03-28", 0.545], ["2016-03-29", 0.536], ["2016-03-29", 0.533], ["2016-03-29", 0.546], ["2016-03-29", 0.544], ["2016-03-29", 0.567], ["2016-03-29", 0.579], ["2016-03-30", 0.576], ["2016-03-30", 0.58], ["2016-03-31", 0.586], ["2016-04-01", 0.59], ["2016-04-01", 0.593], ["2016-04-01", 0.59], ["2016-04-02", 0.591], ["2016-04-02", 0.581], ["2016-04-02", 0.579], ["2016-04-03", 0.58], ["2016-04-03", 0.581], ["2016-04-03", 0.58], ["2016-04-04", 0.579], ["2016-04-05", 0.58], ["2016-04-07", 0.574], ["2016-04-07", 0.575], ["2016-04-07", 0.579], ["2016-04-07", 0.581]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/194/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets are designed to be re-used after landing vertically on a floating barge-based landing site. SpaceX has successfully (and might we add awesomely) landed a rocket on land, but so far has not succeeded with a barge.
Will SpaceX's next attempt to land a Falcon 9 on a barge be a success?
Resolution is positive if the Falcon 9 rocket sustains little enough damage that it can be re-used, and negative if the rocket is in either small or large pieces on or near the landing site.
(Note: the closing and resolution time of this question will be retroactively changed to the launch time of the next SpaceX Falcon 9 launch that attempts a barge landing.) | true | 2016-04-08 | Will SpaceX's next attempt to land a Falcon 9 rocket on a barge be successful? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-07-31 | 2016-03-25 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-26", 0.41], ["2016-04-02", 0.519], ["2016-04-06", 0.511], ["2016-04-11", 0.504], ["2016-04-15", 0.498], ["2016-04-19", 0.513], ["2016-04-26", 0.514], ["2016-06-07", 0.504], ["2016-06-20", 0.515], ["2016-06-20", 0.518], ["2016-06-27", 0.53], ["2016-06-30", 0.534], ["2016-07-05", 0.526], ["2016-07-11", 0.515], ["2016-07-18", 0.522], ["2016-07-23", 0.513], ["2016-07-28", 0.546], ["2016-08-03", 0.552], ["2016-08-10", 0.546], ["2016-08-13", 0.547], ["2016-08-19", 0.552], ["2016-08-24", 0.552], ["2016-08-29", 0.545], ["2016-09-03", 0.537], ["2016-09-08", 0.539], ["2016-09-14", 0.534], ["2016-09-21", 0.561], ["2016-09-28", 0.565], ["2016-10-03", 0.565], ["2016-10-08", 0.574], ["2016-10-19", 0.574], ["2016-10-24", 0.578], ["2016-11-23", 0.579], ["2016-11-29", 0.58], ["2016-12-21", 0.58], ["2016-12-23", 0.584], ["2016-12-31", 0.581], ["2017-02-09", 0.581], ["2017-02-14", 0.581], ["2017-02-24", 0.581], ["2017-03-03", 0.577], ["2017-03-24", 0.578], ["2017-05-10", 0.575], ["2017-05-14", 0.58], ["2017-05-20", 0.58], ["2017-05-23", 0.584], ["2017-05-28", 0.58], ["2017-06-09", 0.58], ["2017-06-10", 0.582], ["2017-06-21", 0.581], ["2017-06-23", 0.578], ["2017-06-29", 0.582], ["2017-07-17", 0.582], ["2017-07-23", 0.595], ["2017-07-28", 0.595], ["2017-08-04", 0.598], ["2017-08-07", 0.603], ["2017-08-13", 0.605], ["2017-08-29", 0.608], ["2017-09-06", 0.608], ["2017-09-07", 0.605], ["2017-10-01", 0.607], ["2017-10-07", 0.608], ["2017-10-18", 0.608], ["2017-10-23", 0.61], ["2017-11-25", 0.61], ["2018-01-05", 0.612], ["2018-01-10", 0.614], ["2018-01-18", 0.615], ["2018-01-30", 0.615], ["2018-01-31", 0.619], ["2018-02-16", 0.619], ["2018-02-25", 0.621], ["2018-03-05", 0.621], ["2018-03-10", 0.621], ["2018-03-16", 0.623], ["2018-03-26", 0.624], ["2018-03-29", 0.623], ["2018-04-05", 0.624], ["2018-04-09", 0.623], ["2018-04-13", 0.623], ["2018-04-19", 0.623], ["2018-04-24", 0.619], ["2018-04-29", 0.619], ["2018-05-05", 0.621], ["2018-05-09", 0.62], ["2018-05-13", 0.622], ["2018-05-17", 0.624], ["2018-05-21", 0.624], ["2018-05-26", 0.629], ["2018-06-01", 0.631], ["2018-06-06", 0.632], ["2018-06-12", 0.633], ["2018-06-17", 0.635], ["2018-06-22", 0.637], ["2018-06-28", 0.64], ["2018-07-04", 0.645], ["2018-07-10", 0.643], ["2018-07-13", 0.642], ["2018-07-20", 0.646], ["2018-07-22", 0.645]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/195/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The 2014 Ebola outbreak was the largest in history, and revealed a disturbing lack of local and international preparedness in dealing with potential pandemics. As of March 20, 2016, according to CDC numbers, the outbreak caused 28608 cases and 11305 fatalities. The outbreak is now largely contained thanks to a belated but significant international effort, including ~$5.3B in funding allocated by the US.
As of writing, there is a standoff in congress between the Obama Administration and Congress over where funding to address the current Zika outbreak should come from. The administration has requested approx. $1.9B US; congress has so far left this request unfunded, requiring instead that the Administration spend money remaining from the emergency Ebola funding instead of appropriating additional money to address Zika.
Approx. $2.5B in Ebola funding remains unspent (out of $5.3B allocated during the epidemic). However, the current plan for that funding is to spend it on preparedness infrastructure in developing countries so that they can better prevent, detect, or respond to outbreaks in the future.
Future outbreaks of Ebola -- among other diseases -- are inevitable (the CDC site lists 13 Ebola outbreaks since 2000); the question is how large they will become, which depends largely on the infrastructure in-place and the ability for local and global fast response to the outbreak.
Will the next outbreak of Ebola be better contained than the last?
The question will resolve as positive if the next Ebola outbreak (whenever it occurs) that leads to at least 50 cases of the disease does not lead to more than 1000 deaths in the 6 months following the crossing of the 50-case threshold. | true | 2018-07-23 | Will the next Ebola outbreak kill less than 1,000 people? | metaculus | 1 |
2020-01-12 | 2016-03-25 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-26", 0.79], ["2016-04-09", 0.42], ["2016-04-19", 0.462], ["2016-04-30", 0.457], ["2016-06-05", 0.467], ["2016-06-20", 0.462], ["2016-06-30", 0.471], ["2016-07-16", 0.48], ["2016-07-31", 0.473], ["2016-08-10", 0.474], ["2016-08-23", 0.478], ["2016-09-05", 0.483], ["2016-09-18", 0.499], ["2016-09-29", 0.506], ["2016-10-08", 0.509], ["2016-10-20", 0.507], ["2016-11-01", 0.505], ["2016-11-14", 0.509], ["2016-11-25", 0.508], ["2016-12-07", 0.508], ["2016-12-21", 0.503], ["2017-01-04", 0.503], ["2017-01-24", 0.501], ["2017-01-31", 0.502], ["2017-02-23", 0.502], ["2017-02-24", 0.503], ["2017-04-15", 0.499], ["2017-05-14", 0.499], ["2017-05-28", 0.494], ["2017-06-09", 0.491], ["2017-06-29", 0.491], ["2017-06-30", 0.495], ["2017-07-26", 0.499], ["2017-08-04", 0.499], ["2017-08-14", 0.482], ["2017-08-27", 0.482], ["2017-09-01", 0.475], ["2017-09-19", 0.473], ["2017-10-03", 0.474], ["2017-10-15", 0.474], ["2017-10-25", 0.472], ["2017-11-07", 0.471], ["2017-11-25", 0.47], ["2017-11-26", 0.47], ["2017-12-29", 0.47], ["2018-01-15", 0.467], ["2018-01-18", 0.467], ["2018-02-11", 0.464], ["2018-02-12", 0.465], ["2018-03-10", 0.46], ["2018-03-26", 0.458], ["2018-04-05", 0.454], ["2018-04-17", 0.454], ["2018-04-30", 0.448], ["2018-05-10", 0.45], ["2018-05-17", 0.451], ["2018-05-28", 0.448], ["2018-06-06", 0.446], ["2018-07-01", 0.446], ["2018-07-12", 0.442], ["2018-07-20", 0.445], ["2018-08-05", 0.445], ["2018-08-19", 0.446], ["2018-08-29", 0.443], ["2018-09-06", 0.44], ["2018-09-22", 0.434], ["2018-09-30", 0.434], ["2018-10-09", 0.433], ["2018-10-23", 0.433], ["2018-11-14", 0.433], ["2018-11-29", 0.433], ["2018-12-08", 0.433], ["2018-12-21", 0.433], ["2019-01-01", 0.434], ["2019-01-07", 0.432], ["2019-01-17", 0.433], ["2019-02-01", 0.43], ["2019-02-15", 0.43], ["2019-03-17", 0.43], ["2019-04-07", 0.43], ["2019-04-13", 0.429], ["2019-05-03", 0.429], ["2019-05-15", 0.428], ["2019-05-26", 0.425], ["2019-06-20", 0.426], ["2019-07-05", 0.423], ["2019-07-17", 0.42], ["2019-07-31", 0.42], ["2019-08-13", 0.418], ["2019-08-26", 0.417], ["2019-09-05", 0.417], ["2019-09-22", 0.417], ["2019-10-03", 0.417], ["2019-10-09", 0.415], ["2019-10-20", 0.415], ["2019-11-01", 0.414], ["2019-11-14", 0.414], ["2019-11-28", 0.414], ["2019-12-13", 0.405], ["2019-12-29", 0.391], ["2019-12-31", 0.355]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/196/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The scientific community has--for over a decade--recognized that the voltage-gated sodium channel Nav1.7 protein, which is found in neurons among nearly every type of human tissue, is primarily responsible for pain sensing in mammals. Small-molecule inhibitors of this channel, however, fail to completely shut off the pain response in humans. Mysteriously, a non-functional mutant of this protein homologue in mice has been shown to achieve painlessness. Since then, a number of drugs with marginal success have been developed by multinational healthcare companies, including Roche and Biogen.
A recent study has revealed a novel function of Nav1.7 that may present a possible new target for drug therapies against chronic pain. According to scientists from the lab of Dr. John Wood at University College London, deletion or deleterious mutation of the Nav1.7 gene in mice caused the expression of opiate-simulating proteins ("opioids") to be up-regulated--a contribution to their painlessness not observed in humans. A Nav1.7-lacking, pain-insensitive human subject, after being given opioid blockers, was able to feel pain for the first time. A combined treatment with opioids in addition to Nav1.7 blockers in mice proved to have the expected opposite effect: a complete suppression of the pain response.
The newly-discovered treatment apparently works, but still remains somewhat impractical. While relatively small, biologics like opiods are fairly difficult (and therefore expensive) to produce, store, distribute, etc. Other options would be geneitc modification or, more commonly, a small-molecule substitute--specifically, one that will inhibit the opiod-regulating function of Nav1.7, either directly or indirectly. Regardless of treatment options, the discovery has the potential to significantly change the way we approach pain management.
By 2020, will a US clinical trial begin in which the goal is a temporary or permanent complete inhibition of the pain response in a human?
For a positive resolution, there must exist by Jan 1, 2020 a clinical trial in the US database with a start date prior to Jan 1, 2020, which aims to use the Nav1.7 channel to completely suppress the human pain response in part or all of the body. | true | 2020-01-01 | A medical pathway to complete painlessness? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-06-09 | 2016-03-28 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-28", 0.6], ["2016-03-28", 0.6], ["2016-03-28", 0.597], ["2016-03-28", 0.572], ["2016-03-28", 0.558], ["2016-03-28", 0.596], ["2016-03-28", 0.58], ["2016-03-28", 0.583], ["2016-03-29", 0.597], ["2016-03-29", 0.628], ["2016-03-29", 0.623], ["2016-03-29", 0.63], ["2016-03-29", 0.627], ["2016-03-29", 0.636], ["2016-03-29", 0.633], ["2016-03-29", 0.644], ["2016-03-29", 0.648], ["2016-03-29", 0.647], ["2016-03-30", 0.644], ["2016-03-31", 0.631], ["2016-04-01", 0.633], ["2016-04-01", 0.634], ["2016-04-01", 0.639], ["2016-04-02", 0.628], ["2016-04-02", 0.627], ["2016-04-04", 0.62], ["2016-04-04", 0.627], ["2016-04-04", 0.627], ["2016-04-07", 0.635], ["2016-04-07", 0.637], ["2016-04-07", 0.638], ["2016-04-08", 0.639]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/198/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Bigelow Aerospace has formed a partnership with SpaceX in which SpaceX launches habitats developed by Bigelow. Bigelow is currently developing a long-term inflatable space habitat called the B330.
The "Bigelow Expandable Activity Module" (BEAM) is an "experimental program developed under a NASA contract in an effort to test and validate expandable habitat technology." The habitat is built to fit in a small cargo volume, then inflate into a much larger (565 cubit foot) habitable structure.
It is slated to be carried on an upcoming SpaceX resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS). The BEAM model will be attached to the ISS and inflated, to constitute a test of the habitat's radiation shielding, structural integrity, durability, leak resistance, etc.
Will this test begin successfully?
The question resolves positively if both:
The BEAM launches with, and is deployed by, the Dragon spacecraft,
The BEAM is successfully attached to the ISS and inflated, so that a crew member may enter.
Resolution is negative if the BEAM unit is destroyed or rendered unrecoverable during launch or deployment, fails to inflate, etc. The question will resolve when either resolution criterion is reached, and will (retroactively) close 1 hour prior to launch. | true | 2016-04-08 | Will Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable habitation module inflate, attach to the ISS, and be inhabitable? | metaculus | 1 |
2018-01-03 | 2016-03-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-30", 0.5], ["2016-03-31", 0.401], ["2016-04-01", 0.415], ["2016-04-02", 0.391], ["2016-04-02", 0.386], ["2016-04-03", 0.388], ["2016-04-04", 0.388], ["2016-04-07", 0.385], ["2016-04-07", 0.418], ["2016-04-09", 0.419], ["2016-04-09", 0.415], ["2016-04-11", 0.409], ["2016-04-12", 0.406], ["2016-04-14", 0.403], ["2016-04-18", 0.396], ["2016-04-19", 0.408], ["2016-05-15", 0.405], ["2016-05-17", 0.393], ["2016-05-30", 0.392], ["2016-06-01", 0.393], ["2016-06-05", 0.401], ["2016-06-20", 0.396], ["2016-06-20", 0.387], ["2016-06-21", 0.391], ["2016-06-21", 0.385], ["2016-06-30", 0.385], ["2016-06-30", 0.377], ["2016-07-08", 0.37], ["2016-07-08", 0.37], ["2016-07-21", 0.367], ["2016-07-21", 0.35], ["2016-07-23", 0.359], ["2016-07-26", 0.352], ["2016-07-27", 0.341], ["2016-07-28", 0.334], ["2016-07-30", 0.327], ["2016-07-30", 0.325], ["2016-08-01", 0.325], ["2016-08-02", 0.321], ["2016-08-03", 0.321], ["2016-08-05", 0.319], ["2016-08-06", 0.314], ["2016-08-07", 0.31], ["2016-08-08", 0.305], ["2016-08-10", 0.303], ["2016-08-11", 0.3], ["2016-08-13", 0.298], ["2016-08-14", 0.302], ["2016-08-16", 0.3], ["2016-08-19", 0.298], ["2016-08-27", 0.295], ["2016-08-30", 0.293], ["2016-08-31", 0.291], ["2016-09-04", 0.289], ["2016-09-05", 0.288], ["2016-09-05", 0.287], ["2016-09-12", 0.287], ["2016-09-15", 0.286], ["2016-09-16", 0.282], ["2016-09-17", 0.285], ["2016-09-19", 0.284], ["2016-09-21", 0.294], ["2016-09-29", 0.291], ["2016-09-30", 0.294], ["2016-10-02", 0.297], ["2016-10-05", 0.295], ["2016-10-06", 0.294], ["2016-10-19", 0.291], ["2016-10-20", 0.284], ["2016-10-23", 0.282], ["2016-10-24", 0.282], ["2016-10-27", 0.268], ["2016-10-30", 0.266], ["2016-10-31", 0.262], ["2016-11-03", 0.262], ["2016-11-05", 0.261], ["2016-11-12", 0.261], ["2016-11-12", 0.252], ["2016-11-23", 0.252], ["2016-12-01", 0.25], ["2016-12-05", 0.248], ["2016-12-07", 0.248], ["2016-12-08", 0.245], ["2016-12-08", 0.243], ["2016-12-21", 0.243], ["2016-12-21", 0.242], ["2017-01-01", 0.245], ["2017-01-02", 0.241], ["2017-01-04", 0.24], ["2017-01-06", 0.24], ["2017-01-21", 0.24], ["2017-01-24", 0.241], ["2017-01-25", 0.246], ["2017-01-31", 0.246], ["2017-02-05", 0.245], ["2017-02-06", 0.245], ["2017-02-07", 0.244], ["2017-02-08", 0.245], ["2017-02-12", 0.244], ["2017-02-14", 0.245], ["2017-02-15", 0.245]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/199/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Making up 85% of the matter in the observable universe, dark matter is, per its name, invisible to us. Its presence is manifested gravitationally, however, as it is required to explain the dynamics of galaxies, clusters, and cosmic large-scale structures, affects the microwave background anisotropies, and can even be mapped using gravitational lensing.
Several candidate particles responsible for dark matter have been proposed, but the current front-runners are Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). This attractiveness stems largely from the fact that SUSY naturally predicts the existence of a supersymmetric WIMP with kinematic and cosmological constraints consistent with dark matter.
Since WIMPs interact with ordinary matter via the electroweak interaction, they can in principle be detected directly in [scattering events with atomic nuclei], among other methods. However, experiments to detect them have only given null results so far.
A major ongoing test for WIMP-nucleon scattering is Xenon1T in Italy, with a much higher sensitivity than preceding experiments; this dark matter detector is essentially a 3500 kilogram target of liquid Xenon sandwiched between two arrays of photomultiplier tubes. The arrays will detect signals from scintillation and electron drift generated from particles scattering off Xenon nuclei, at which point known backgrounds will be subtracted out to get the WIMP signal. Xenon1T is expected to start collecting data in spring 2016.
Failure to see supersymmetry at the LHC so far, with no sign of WIMPs in direct-detection so far has raised the question as to whether WIMPs deserve their dark matter frontrunner status. But perhaps they will be vindicated soon?
By January 1st, 2018, will a paper appear on the physics arXiv or in a refereed journal describing 5-sigma equivalent evidence for dark matter detection in th Xenon1T experiment?
[scattering events with atomic nuclei]: | true | 2017-02-15 | Will the Xenon1T experiment discover WIMP dark matter? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-02-22 | 2016-03-30 | [] | binary | [["2016-03-30", 0.5], ["2016-03-31", 0.546], ["2016-03-31", 0.546], ["2016-04-01", 0.536], ["2016-04-01", 0.485], ["2016-04-02", 0.482], ["2016-04-02", 0.488], ["2016-04-03", 0.493], ["2016-04-04", 0.506], ["2016-04-04", 0.504], ["2016-04-06", 0.503], ["2016-04-11", 0.511], ["2016-04-12", 0.507], ["2016-04-14", 0.508], ["2016-04-14", 0.507], ["2016-04-14", 0.507], ["2016-04-15", 0.502], ["2016-04-18", 0.497], ["2016-04-19", 0.502], ["2016-04-26", 0.502], ["2016-04-26", 0.491], ["2016-05-17", 0.488], ["2016-05-21", 0.489], ["2016-06-05", 0.486], ["2016-06-07", 0.489], ["2016-06-18", 0.487], ["2016-06-19", 0.487], ["2016-06-20", 0.478], ["2016-06-21", 0.477], ["2016-06-24", 0.473], ["2016-06-24", 0.467], ["2016-06-28", 0.457], ["2016-06-29", 0.472], ["2016-06-29", 0.471], ["2016-06-30", 0.47], ["2016-06-30", 0.471], ["2016-07-01", 0.474], ["2016-07-07", 0.471], ["2016-07-07", 0.477], ["2016-07-08", 0.477], ["2016-07-10", 0.484], ["2016-07-12", 0.483], ["2016-07-18", 0.484], ["2016-07-22", 0.481], ["2016-07-23", 0.476], ["2016-07-25", 0.475], ["2016-07-26", 0.477], ["2016-07-26", 0.453], ["2016-07-27", 0.45], ["2016-07-27", 0.453], ["2016-07-28", 0.451], ["2016-07-28", 0.449], ["2016-07-28", 0.447], ["2016-07-29", 0.447], ["2016-07-30", 0.442], ["2016-07-30", 0.442], ["2016-07-31", 0.436], ["2016-07-31", 0.441], ["2016-08-01", 0.439], ["2016-08-01", 0.434], ["2016-08-02", 0.436], ["2016-08-02", 0.428], ["2016-08-03", 0.424], ["2016-08-03", 0.423], ["2016-08-04", 0.427], ["2016-08-04", 0.428], ["2016-08-04", 0.433], ["2016-08-06", 0.432], ["2016-08-06", 0.431], ["2016-08-07", 0.429], ["2016-08-07", 0.426], ["2016-08-08", 0.421], ["2016-08-08", 0.418], ["2016-08-08", 0.415], ["2016-08-09", 0.412], ["2016-08-10", 0.417], ["2016-08-10", 0.417], ["2016-08-11", 0.418], ["2016-08-11", 0.418], ["2016-08-12", 0.417], ["2016-08-12", 0.414], ["2016-08-13", 0.415], ["2016-08-14", 0.416], ["2016-08-17", 0.414], ["2016-08-17", 0.415], ["2016-08-18", 0.415], ["2016-08-19", 0.414], ["2016-08-20", 0.415], ["2016-08-23", 0.415], ["2016-08-24", 0.411], ["2016-08-26", 0.412], ["2016-08-27", 0.411], ["2016-08-27", 0.412], ["2016-08-28", 0.41], ["2016-08-28", 0.4], ["2016-08-29", 0.397], ["2016-08-30", 0.396], ["2016-08-30", 0.391], ["2016-08-31", 0.391], ["2016-08-31", 0.388], ["2016-08-31", 0.386]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/200/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Environment & Energy | One way to measure how quickly the U.S. is striving towards clean energy is the percentage of added electricity generation capacity each year in the form of renewables. The sum total of electricity generation from solar and wind sat at 5.7% in July 2015, but the fraction of added capacity from renewables in 2015 was 69%, according to this Cleantechnica report.
To get the percentage of total U.S. electricicty production by solar and wind to the tens of percent necessary to significantly impact carbon emissions it doesn't just mean that more panels and turbines need to be built; wind and solar will have to proportionally overcome energy production from coal, nuclear power, hydroelectric, and natural gas, to dominate the new added capacity for years to come.
The sudden momentum boost for newly-added wind and solar energy recently is most likely because they're the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. Will this trend in renewable energy continue, such that 80% of the added U.S. electricity generation capacity in 2016 comes from solar and wind power?
This question will resolve positively if the 2016 Cleantechnica report (see the archive) shows renewables make up for 80% or more of added U.S. electricity generation capacity in 2016. | true | 2016-09-01 | Will more than 80% of the new US electricity Generation Capacity in 2016 come from solar and wind? | metaculus | 0 |
2017-11-16 | 2016-04-05 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-06", 0.5], ["2016-04-06", 0.791], ["2016-04-06", 0.757], ["2016-04-07", 0.749], ["2016-04-07", 0.709], ["2016-04-07", 0.705], ["2016-04-07", 0.691], ["2016-04-08", 0.686], ["2016-04-09", 0.686], ["2016-04-09", 0.687], ["2016-04-12", 0.688], ["2016-04-12", 0.706], ["2016-04-14", 0.703], ["2016-04-14", 0.703], ["2016-04-15", 0.705], ["2016-04-19", 0.717], ["2016-04-21", 0.72], ["2016-04-26", 0.718], ["2016-04-26", 0.715], ["2016-04-27", 0.716], ["2016-04-27", 0.723], ["2016-05-01", 0.717], ["2016-05-03", 0.714], ["2016-05-17", 0.712], ["2016-06-05", 0.717], ["2016-06-20", 0.702], ["2016-06-20", 0.709], ["2016-06-28", 0.698], ["2016-06-30", 0.697], ["2016-07-04", 0.695], ["2016-07-23", 0.688], ["2016-07-24", 0.685], ["2016-07-26", 0.684], ["2016-07-26", 0.688], ["2016-07-27", 0.681], ["2016-07-27", 0.679], ["2016-07-28", 0.675], ["2016-07-29", 0.682], ["2016-07-29", 0.676], ["2016-07-30", 0.668], ["2016-08-03", 0.674], ["2016-08-03", 0.669], ["2016-08-04", 0.675], ["2016-08-06", 0.664], ["2016-08-07", 0.669], ["2016-08-09", 0.662], ["2016-08-10", 0.665], ["2016-08-11", 0.665], ["2016-08-14", 0.663], ["2016-08-28", 0.661], ["2016-09-01", 0.656], ["2016-09-05", 0.655], ["2016-09-12", 0.655], ["2016-09-15", 0.654], ["2016-09-15", 0.66], ["2016-09-16", 0.665], ["2016-09-16", 0.656], ["2016-09-16", 0.648], ["2016-09-17", 0.65], ["2016-09-17", 0.652], ["2016-09-18", 0.652], ["2016-09-19", 0.647], ["2016-09-21", 0.651], ["2016-09-23", 0.643], ["2016-09-25", 0.647], ["2016-09-26", 0.647], ["2016-09-29", 0.643], ["2016-09-29", 0.643], ["2016-10-03", 0.644], ["2016-10-04", 0.645], ["2016-10-12", 0.645], ["2016-10-12", 0.646], ["2016-10-13", 0.645], ["2016-10-13", 0.646], ["2016-10-20", 0.646], ["2016-10-21", 0.643], ["2016-10-21", 0.644], ["2016-10-22", 0.648], ["2016-10-22", 0.648], ["2016-10-23", 0.648], ["2016-10-23", 0.656], ["2016-10-23", 0.658], ["2016-10-23", 0.655], ["2016-11-01", 0.655], ["2016-11-02", 0.654], ["2016-11-03", 0.652], ["2016-11-03", 0.652], ["2016-11-05", 0.649], ["2016-11-11", 0.649], ["2016-11-12", 0.65], ["2016-11-12", 0.65], ["2016-11-14", 0.65], ["2016-11-14", 0.65], ["2016-11-15", 0.651], ["2016-11-23", 0.651], ["2016-11-25", 0.649], ["2016-11-26", 0.649], ["2016-11-27", 0.649], ["2016-11-27", 0.645], ["2016-11-28", 0.645], ["2016-11-28", 0.644]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/204/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Arts & Recreation | As ever-more sophisticated expert systems, machine learning systems, and other "narrow AI" systems are developed and commercialized, the line between the "natural" and "artificial" is becoming blurred in more and more everyday interactions.
Automated call-processing systems leave (temporary) ambiguity as to whether one is addressing a person or machine. Autonomous vehicles drive relatively unnoticed on the roads. In an amusing twist, Facebook's "M" personal assistant led to an actual investigative report as to whether it was actually an AI or humans masquerading as AI.
In this series of questions we probe some fun, interesting, and disquieting possibilities that may come to pass over the next few years through the blurring of these lines.
We start with video. The ability of generate highly believable CGI has existed for some time, but has generally fallen short of of creating believable humans, with a dangerous "uncanny valley" discouraging many attempts. That is changing, however.
In the movie Terminator 5, a relatively convincing circa-1980's Arnold Schwarzenegger was digitally generated atop a live actor to create scenes in which "young Arnold" fought "old Arnold." (So this was a CGI simulating a human playing a robot pretending to be a human...)
Late last year, a new system was announced that can superimposed both words and facial movements upon a person who never said those words, simulating for example Obama giving Bush's speech or vice-versa.
While photographs have long been realized to be suspect due to photoshopping, the era of spoofed videos is just beginning and probably not widely known.
By late 2017, will there be a wide-scale hoax be created using video-alteration technology to put words in a famous figure's mouth?
For a positive resolution, a video must exist and satisfy the follow criteria by Oct 31, 2017:
It is originally posted without any indication of non-authenticity (i.e. it is at least tacitly suggested that the video is of actual events.)
It portrays a well-known person doing and/or saying something they did not in reality say or do.
The video has had more than 1 million views.
The video is referred to in at least one major news outlet as a "hoax."
Selective/misleading editing does not count here, as that is old news (though still can be quite effective!) | true | 2016-12-01 | A is in the I of the beholder #1: Wait, is this video for real? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-12-30 | 2016-04-06 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-06", 0.5], ["2016-04-06", 0.6], ["2016-04-06", 0.7], ["2016-04-06", 0.797], ["2016-04-06", 0.817], ["2016-04-06", 0.88], ["2016-04-06", 0.854], ["2016-04-06", 0.787], ["2016-04-06", 0.783], ["2016-04-06", 0.677], ["2016-04-06", 0.673], ["2016-04-06", 0.694], ["2016-04-06", 0.67], ["2016-04-06", 0.67], ["2016-04-06", 0.724], ["2016-04-06", 0.712], ["2016-04-06", 0.708], ["2016-04-06", 0.7], ["2016-04-06", 0.683], ["2016-04-06", 0.676], ["2016-04-07", 0.678], ["2016-04-07", 0.689], ["2016-04-07", 0.665], ["2016-04-07", 0.655], ["2016-04-07", 0.652], ["2016-04-07", 0.656], ["2016-04-08", 0.658], ["2016-04-08", 0.636], ["2016-04-08", 0.643], ["2016-04-09", 0.645], ["2016-04-09", 0.645], ["2016-04-09", 0.65], ["2016-04-09", 0.64], ["2016-04-10", 0.639], ["2016-04-12", 0.635], ["2016-04-12", 0.648], ["2016-04-13", 0.648], ["2016-04-14", 0.625], ["2016-04-14", 0.625], ["2016-04-15", 0.616], ["2016-04-15", 0.61], ["2016-04-15", 0.609], ["2016-04-18", 0.609], ["2016-04-18", 0.609], ["2016-04-18", 0.609], ["2016-04-19", 0.611], ["2016-04-24", 0.611], ["2016-04-25", 0.604], ["2016-04-26", 0.603], ["2016-05-01", 0.604], ["2016-05-06", 0.577], ["2016-05-06", 0.569], ["2016-05-08", 0.569], ["2016-05-09", 0.595], ["2016-05-09", 0.569], ["2016-05-12", 0.566], ["2016-05-12", 0.563], ["2016-05-12", 0.562], ["2016-05-12", 0.552], ["2016-05-12", 0.548], ["2016-05-16", 0.547], ["2016-05-19", 0.546], ["2016-05-21", 0.545], ["2016-05-31", 0.546], ["2016-06-01", 0.537], ["2016-06-02", 0.535], ["2016-06-02", 0.535], ["2016-06-07", 0.541], ["2016-06-09", 0.539], ["2016-06-09", 0.539], ["2016-06-11", 0.534], ["2016-06-11", 0.533], ["2016-06-11", 0.523], ["2016-06-12", 0.521], ["2016-06-12", 0.501], ["2016-06-13", 0.501], ["2016-06-15", 0.499], ["2016-06-16", 0.496], ["2016-06-16", 0.495], ["2016-06-16", 0.492], ["2016-06-16", 0.492], ["2016-06-17", 0.491], ["2016-06-18", 0.488], ["2016-06-19", 0.477], ["2016-06-20", 0.476], ["2016-06-20", 0.478], ["2016-06-20", 0.484]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/205/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | In August 2015 German Newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung received from an anonymous source 11.5 million documents (totaling 2.6 terabytes of data) from the Panamanian corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca. (Mossack Fonseca claims the data was taken in a hacking incident)
They subsequently shared the data with the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) which distributed the data to 400 journalists in 107 media organizations which whom it has contacts.
The data reveals widespread use of tax havens and other tax avoidance schemes.
At the moment most of the data isn't acccesible by the public. By the end of 2016 will Wikileaks get hold of the data and publish it directly to the public in a searchable format, as Wikileaks published "Cablegate" and the Hillary Clinton Email Archive?
Resolution is positive if at least 95% of the documents by number are posted by Wikileaks and searchable by end of 2016. | true | 2016-06-20 | Will Wikileaks publish the full "Panama Papers" in a publicly-accessible and searchable format? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-01-19 | 2016-04-06 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-07", 0.01], ["2016-04-07", 0.768], ["2016-04-07", 0.6], ["2016-04-08", 0.535], ["2016-04-08", 0.536], ["2016-04-08", 0.534], ["2016-04-08", 0.523], ["2016-04-09", 0.527], ["2016-04-09", 0.52], ["2016-04-09", 0.527], ["2016-04-11", 0.52], ["2016-04-12", 0.521], ["2016-04-12", 0.52], ["2016-04-15", 0.5], ["2016-04-15", 0.503], ["2016-04-19", 0.49], ["2016-04-21", 0.485], ["2016-04-26", 0.485], ["2016-04-26", 0.487], ["2016-04-26", 0.484], ["2016-04-27", 0.494], ["2016-04-27", 0.489], ["2016-04-28", 0.489], ["2016-04-28", 0.486], ["2016-05-15", 0.498], ["2016-06-07", 0.501], ["2016-06-20", 0.504], ["2016-06-20", 0.494], ["2016-06-20", 0.488], ["2016-06-26", 0.487], ["2016-06-29", 0.484], ["2016-06-30", 0.484], ["2016-07-18", 0.481], ["2016-07-18", 0.48], ["2016-07-23", 0.478], ["2016-07-24", 0.473], ["2016-07-26", 0.481], ["2016-07-27", 0.48], ["2016-07-27", 0.482], ["2016-07-28", 0.477], ["2016-08-01", 0.478], ["2016-08-02", 0.487], ["2016-08-02", 0.484], ["2016-08-02", 0.487], ["2016-08-03", 0.496], ["2016-08-03", 0.494], ["2016-08-06", 0.493], ["2016-08-06", 0.486], ["2016-08-07", 0.487], ["2016-08-07", 0.492], ["2016-08-08", 0.487], ["2016-08-08", 0.488], ["2016-08-10", 0.492], ["2016-08-10", 0.493], ["2016-08-12", 0.493], ["2016-08-13", 0.493], ["2016-08-24", 0.49], ["2016-08-28", 0.491], ["2016-08-30", 0.495], ["2016-09-01", 0.495], ["2016-09-02", 0.488], ["2016-09-02", 0.485], ["2016-09-05", 0.484], ["2016-09-07", 0.487], ["2016-09-12", 0.488], ["2016-09-12", 0.479], ["2016-09-13", 0.479], ["2016-09-13", 0.48], ["2016-09-14", 0.478], ["2016-09-14", 0.485], ["2016-09-15", 0.486], ["2016-09-15", 0.483], ["2016-09-16", 0.477], ["2016-09-16", 0.478], ["2016-09-16", 0.476], ["2016-09-17", 0.475], ["2016-09-17", 0.47], ["2016-09-18", 0.47], ["2016-09-18", 0.469], ["2016-09-18", 0.467], ["2016-09-19", 0.464], ["2016-09-20", 0.462], ["2016-09-21", 0.468], ["2016-09-21", 0.468], ["2016-09-23", 0.467], ["2016-09-26", 0.47], ["2016-09-26", 0.47], ["2016-09-26", 0.47], ["2016-09-27", 0.47], ["2016-09-28", 0.466], ["2016-09-28", 0.463], ["2016-09-28", 0.462], ["2016-09-28", 0.461], ["2016-09-29", 0.46], ["2016-09-29", 0.46], ["2016-09-29", 0.451], ["2016-09-30", 0.45], ["2016-09-30", 0.45], ["2016-09-30", 0.45], ["2016-09-30", 0.45], ["2016-09-30", 0.45]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/206/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | This is second in a series of the blurring lines between AI and "natural" systems.
The AI and machine learning space is currently booming, with dramatically increasing investment by both large companies such as Google/Deepmind, IBM, Facebook, etc., as well as a major rise in AI startups.
Among its many projects, Facebook's "M" personal assistant service is in active testing and development. According to a piece written by an early adopter, it is rather unclear to what extent this service is an AI and to what extent it is human, and at least some queries appear to be human-fulfilled. This may be a temporary phase in which the system learns how humans fulfill a variety of requests, or may harbinger a future model of hybrid human-AI system.
As the startup space -- with its intense competition and often exaggerated claims -- heats up in AI, this sort of ambiguity opens the possibility that an over-enterprising developer might have a human or group of humans masquerading as a new AI system, in an overdue product launch, pitch, etc.
By end of 2018, will a complaint be filed by an investor or potential investor in a tech company alleging that a (partially or fully) human-powered system was fraudulently portrayed as being a fully-autonomous computing system?
Resolution can be satisfied by any of the following:
An actual lawsuit filing
A credible media report in a major news outlet describing such an event and naming a particular investor or firm complainant and particular company accused
A publicly-accessible or reported complaint to a federal agency | true | 2016-10-01 | A is in the I of the beholder #2: Wow this AI is very realistic | metaculus | 0 |
2017-06-03 | 2016-04-06 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-09", 0.5], ["2016-04-09", 0.99], ["2016-04-09", 0.54], ["2016-04-09", 0.527], ["2016-04-09", 0.568], ["2016-04-09", 0.562], ["2016-04-09", 0.598], ["2016-04-09", 0.584], ["2016-04-09", 0.592], ["2016-04-09", 0.588], ["2016-04-09", 0.583], ["2016-04-09", 0.57], ["2016-04-09", 0.553], ["2016-04-09", 0.544], ["2016-04-10", 0.541], ["2016-04-10", 0.524], ["2016-04-10", 0.516], ["2016-04-10", 0.498], ["2016-04-10", 0.492], ["2016-04-12", 0.485], ["2016-04-12", 0.486], ["2016-04-12", 0.48], ["2016-04-12", 0.504], ["2016-04-13", 0.503], ["2016-04-14", 0.507], ["2016-04-14", 0.513], ["2016-04-14", 0.513], ["2016-04-15", 0.5], ["2016-04-15", 0.503], ["2016-04-19", 0.508], ["2016-04-21", 0.514], ["2016-04-26", 0.514], ["2016-04-26", 0.515], ["2016-04-26", 0.511], ["2016-04-27", 0.503], ["2016-04-28", 0.507], ["2016-04-29", 0.51], ["2016-05-01", 0.515], ["2016-05-01", 0.499], ["2016-05-03", 0.498], ["2016-05-04", 0.492], ["2016-05-08", 0.493], ["2016-05-10", 0.493], ["2016-05-16", 0.487], ["2016-05-21", 0.488], ["2016-05-30", 0.489], ["2016-06-01", 0.508], ["2016-06-04", 0.495], ["2016-06-04", 0.495], ["2016-06-14", 0.495], ["2016-06-20", 0.505], ["2016-06-21", 0.505], ["2016-06-22", 0.51], ["2016-06-29", 0.51], ["2016-06-30", 0.512], ["2016-06-30", 0.511], ["2016-06-30", 0.515], ["2016-07-11", 0.52], ["2016-07-18", 0.522], ["2016-07-18", 0.522], ["2016-07-23", 0.526], ["2016-07-24", 0.525], ["2016-07-26", 0.514], ["2016-07-26", 0.519], ["2016-07-26", 0.514], ["2016-07-26", 0.514], ["2016-07-27", 0.519], ["2016-07-27", 0.518], ["2016-07-28", 0.518], ["2016-07-30", 0.527], ["2016-07-31", 0.527], ["2016-07-31", 0.518], ["2016-08-01", 0.518], ["2016-08-06", 0.512], ["2016-08-07", 0.519], ["2016-08-08", 0.519], ["2016-08-10", 0.523], ["2016-08-13", 0.522], ["2016-08-15", 0.516], ["2016-08-15", 0.522], ["2016-08-17", 0.521], ["2016-08-18", 0.522], ["2016-08-20", 0.52], ["2016-08-22", 0.51], ["2016-08-22", 0.509], ["2016-08-24", 0.504], ["2016-08-25", 0.504], ["2016-08-26", 0.506], ["2016-08-27", 0.503], ["2016-08-28", 0.503], ["2016-08-30", 0.497], ["2016-08-31", 0.486], ["2016-08-31", 0.479]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/207/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Arts & Recreation | Along with rather "left brain" endeavors such as trading stocks and playing Go, machine learning systems have also been developed for more aesthetic pursuits.
In recent news, a computer system (using lots of human input) has been developed to create realistic Rembrandt paintings.
In April 2016, a program (again with lots of human support) assembled a novel that passed the first round in a Japanese literary competition.
And computer-generated music has been with us for a while, with systems capable of generating novel pieces in the style of existing composers.
As these systems improve, we are likely to see more attempts, like the Japanese novel, to enter AI systems into human competitions -- it's great press.
Will one succeed by mid-2017?
This resolves as positive if a computer system enters a competition and wins a prize of monetary value >$500 USD in art, literature or music. The computer system must be capable -- after training -- of generating the entire piece on its own as well as generating qualitatively different pieces. (That is, a human-computer hybrid system does not count, as there are many of these already.) If the computer system wins, but is then not awarded a prize due to rules/outrage, that still fulfills the criteria. The competition should be one targeted explicitly or implicitly at humans rather than programs.
To mix things up, this will also resolve positive if (as in our startup fraud question) a sneaky human masquerading as an AI enters and wins a competition in art, literature or music created for computer systems.
In either case, we anticipate sufficient media coverage to bring the event to light, but some potential but hard-to-avoid ambiguity in a clean resolution. | true | 2016-09-01 | A is in the I of the beholder #3: it's beAIutiful! | metaculus | 0 |
2022-03-17 | 2016-04-06 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-12", 0.24], ["2016-04-15", 0.583], ["2016-04-18", 0.59], ["2016-04-20", 0.572], ["2016-04-23", 0.572], ["2016-04-25", 0.569], ["2016-04-28", 0.573], ["2016-05-03", 0.582], ["2016-05-08", 0.582], ["2016-05-10", 0.582], ["2016-05-13", 0.581], ["2016-05-15", 0.582], ["2016-05-17", 0.581], ["2016-05-28", 0.578], ["2016-05-31", 0.576], ["2016-06-06", 0.576], ["2016-06-07", 0.578], ["2016-06-18", 0.575], ["2016-06-29", 0.575], ["2016-06-30", 0.575], ["2016-07-11", 0.577], ["2016-07-23", 0.581], ["2016-07-26", 0.578], ["2016-07-28", 0.573], ["2016-07-30", 0.563], ["2016-08-02", 0.565], ["2016-08-04", 0.566], ["2016-08-06", 0.559], ["2016-08-10", 0.55], ["2016-08-13", 0.551], ["2016-08-17", 0.545], ["2016-08-24", 0.541], ["2016-08-28", 0.537], ["2016-09-01", 0.528], ["2016-09-03", 0.528], ["2016-09-06", 0.526], ["2016-09-08", 0.526], ["2016-09-12", 0.523], ["2016-09-14", 0.524], ["2016-09-16", 0.517], ["2016-09-19", 0.523], ["2016-09-21", 0.523], ["2016-09-26", 0.521], ["2016-09-29", 0.517], ["2016-10-03", 0.518], ["2016-10-08", 0.517], ["2016-10-13", 0.519], ["2016-10-23", 0.519], ["2016-10-24", 0.521], ["2016-11-02", 0.515], ["2016-11-04", 0.515], ["2016-11-12", 0.515], ["2016-11-16", 0.516], ["2016-12-11", 0.516], ["2016-12-21", 0.513], ["2017-01-01", 0.513], ["2017-02-02", 0.512], ["2017-02-05", 0.511], ["2017-02-23", 0.51], ["2017-02-23", 0.509], ["2017-04-15", 0.509], ["2017-05-01", 0.51], ["2017-05-01", 0.51], ["2017-05-14", 0.51], ["2017-05-21", 0.511], ["2017-06-09", 0.511], ["2017-06-19", 0.51], ["2017-07-28", 0.51], ["2017-08-04", 0.51], ["2017-08-07", 0.503], ["2017-08-12", 0.501], ["2017-08-18", 0.5], ["2017-08-22", 0.498], ["2017-08-28", 0.499], ["2017-09-06", 0.5], ["2017-09-13", 0.5], ["2017-09-21", 0.5], ["2017-09-24", 0.498], ["2017-09-27", 0.496], ["2017-10-01", 0.496], ["2017-10-02", 0.495], ["2017-10-08", 0.495], ["2017-11-14", 0.492], ["2017-11-17", 0.488], ["2017-11-25", 0.486], ["2017-11-26", 0.486], ["2017-12-15", 0.485], ["2017-12-15", 0.484], ["2017-12-29", 0.485], ["2017-12-30", 0.482], ["2018-01-03", 0.482], ["2018-01-05", 0.482], ["2018-01-08", 0.482], ["2018-01-14", 0.48], ["2018-01-16", 0.479], ["2018-01-20", 0.478], ["2018-01-20", 0.478], ["2018-01-25", 0.478], ["2018-01-26", 0.475], ["2018-01-29", 0.473], ["2018-01-31", 0.472]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/208/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | Chemical rockets, while great for many purposes, will never get us far outside of the solar system. With the nearest stars parsecs away, reaching them in a human lifetime requires speeds of at least 10% the speed of light. As can be seen from the rocket equation, chemical rockets with exhaust speeds of a few km/s would require exponentially large mass to attain relativistic speeds of ~100,000 km/s. It's hopeless.
Unless relativistic exhaust speeds can be obtained (difficult!), leaving the solar system will require external acceleration. A variety of schemes along these lines have been proposed over the years.
For example, the "starwisp" is a small nanowire mesh "sail" driven by the radiation pressure of reflected microwaves; the microwaves would be produced by a phased array of terrestrial or orbital dishes.
Recently, a detailed study of laser-driven sails was posted proposing use of newly-developed ultra-high-reflectivity materials, and (now technically feasible) phased arrays of optical/IR lasers. High reflectivity allows acceleration without incineration; phased arrays allow a highly collimated beam without a laser of enormous diameter.
While technically plausible, such systems would require large-scale investment in both R&D and deployment on the scale of at least a major NASA mission or large-scale particle physics project.
The possibility of this occurring just received a major boost with the announcement that entrepreneur and Philanthropist Yuri Milner has committed $100 Million to a "research and engineering program [that] will seek proof of concept for using light beam to propel gram-scale ‘nanocraft’ to 20% light speed."
In subsequent questions we will look at the probability of developing some of the necessary technologies to make a project like this a reality. Here gauge the overall prediction of success, as quantified by further investment joining Milner's, either before or after some of the results of the research it funds.
By April of 2021, will additional private or governmental sources provide a total commitment of funding to light-beam propulsion at least matching Milner's $100M?
Private funding commitment would come in the form of a publicly-announced commitment like Milner's April 12 commitment; public commitment should come in the form of one or more allocated grants to institutions, or approved budget line-items at NASA or other government agencies. | true | 2018-02-01 | To the stars! #1: Will the private investment in laser-sail extra-solar travel be matched by a comparable amount within 5 years? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-01-09 | 2016-04-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-12", 0.8], ["2016-04-12", 0.696], ["2016-04-12", 0.692], ["2016-04-13", 0.672], ["2016-04-13", 0.662], ["2016-04-13", 0.675], ["2016-04-13", 0.675], ["2016-04-13", 0.649], ["2016-04-13", 0.64], ["2016-04-13", 0.64], ["2016-04-14", 0.64], ["2016-04-14", 0.64], ["2016-04-14", 0.625], ["2016-04-14", 0.616], ["2016-04-14", 0.612], ["2016-04-15", 0.608], ["2016-04-15", 0.606], ["2016-04-15", 0.602], ["2016-04-15", 0.616], ["2016-04-15", 0.616], ["2016-04-18", 0.614], ["2016-04-19", 0.606], ["2016-04-19", 0.572], ["2016-04-19", 0.567], ["2016-04-24", 0.566], ["2016-04-24", 0.566], ["2016-04-24", 0.566], ["2016-04-26", 0.562], ["2016-04-26", 0.561], ["2016-04-28", 0.568], ["2016-04-28", 0.565], ["2016-04-29", 0.569], ["2016-05-01", 0.571], ["2016-05-06", 0.572], ["2016-05-15", 0.563], ["2016-05-17", 0.562], ["2016-05-17", 0.564], ["2016-06-05", 0.567], ["2016-06-06", 0.567], ["2016-06-06", 0.576], ["2016-06-07", 0.565], ["2016-06-18", 0.561], ["2016-06-19", 0.56], ["2016-06-27", 0.551], ["2016-06-29", 0.551], ["2016-06-30", 0.541], ["2016-06-30", 0.541], ["2016-06-30", 0.541], ["2016-07-03", 0.538], ["2016-07-06", 0.539], ["2016-07-22", 0.538], ["2016-07-22", 0.539], ["2016-07-23", 0.538], ["2016-07-23", 0.545], ["2016-07-26", 0.541], ["2016-07-26", 0.541], ["2016-07-26", 0.537], ["2016-07-27", 0.54], ["2016-07-27", 0.535], ["2016-07-27", 0.534], ["2016-07-27", 0.534], ["2016-07-27", 0.534], ["2016-07-27", 0.532], ["2016-07-28", 0.527], ["2016-07-29", 0.524], ["2016-07-30", 0.518], ["2016-07-30", 0.511], ["2016-08-01", 0.504], ["2016-08-02", 0.499], ["2016-08-02", 0.505], ["2016-08-02", 0.503], ["2016-08-04", 0.503], ["2016-08-04", 0.498], ["2016-08-06", 0.491], ["2016-08-07", 0.485], ["2016-08-07", 0.489], ["2016-08-08", 0.49], ["2016-08-08", 0.484], ["2016-08-08", 0.491], ["2016-08-09", 0.495], ["2016-08-10", 0.496], ["2016-08-13", 0.49], ["2016-08-13", 0.489], ["2016-08-13", 0.489], ["2016-08-15", 0.487], ["2016-08-15", 0.489], ["2016-08-17", 0.489], ["2016-08-17", 0.491], ["2016-08-17", 0.489], ["2016-08-19", 0.49], ["2016-08-19", 0.49], ["2016-08-22", 0.483], ["2016-08-23", 0.48], ["2016-08-24", 0.475], ["2016-08-28", 0.475], ["2016-08-29", 0.479], ["2016-08-30", 0.481], ["2016-08-31", 0.481], ["2016-08-31", 0.475], ["2016-08-31", 0.472], ["2016-08-31", 0.474]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/209/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The idea of using an array of lasers to focus a beam and propel a spacecraft, "beamed propulsion," recently received a major boost with the announcement that entrepreneur and Philanthropist Yuri Milner has committed $100 Million to a "research and engineering program [that] will seek proof of concept for using light beam to propel gram-scale ‘nanocraft’ to 20% light speed." (See this previous question for background.)
A key part of the plan (see initiative description and earlier detailed summary paper) is to used a phased array of many relatively small (but still quite powerful!) lasers to form a tight beam to bounce off of the accelerated craft. A reasonable first step in this plan is to test a 10 kW phased laser array to test beam targeting and stability.
Given the cash infusion into this field, will such a test occur by the end of 2017?
To resolve positively, such a test must just be performed (as described by any credible information source), not meet any particular design objectives, but the data and results of the test must be either publicly available or at least available to the starshot initiative.
(Edit 4/18 so that military tests with classified data do not count.) | true | 2016-09-01 | To the stars! #3: Will a first test of a high-power phased array laser system occur by 2018? | metaculus | 0 |
2018-06-05 | 2016-04-09 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-12", 0.6], ["2016-04-14", 0.627], ["2016-04-15", 0.611], ["2016-04-18", 0.611], ["2016-04-19", 0.618], ["2016-04-23", 0.614], ["2016-04-26", 0.612], ["2016-04-28", 0.61], ["2016-04-28", 0.611], ["2016-05-01", 0.61], ["2016-05-06", 0.605], ["2016-06-05", 0.607], ["2016-06-06", 0.607], ["2016-06-06", 0.617], ["2016-06-18", 0.617], ["2016-06-25", 0.611], ["2016-06-27", 0.613], ["2016-06-29", 0.598], ["2016-06-29", 0.598], ["2016-06-30", 0.597], ["2016-07-03", 0.594], ["2016-07-06", 0.581], ["2016-07-08", 0.582], ["2016-07-19", 0.581], ["2016-07-23", 0.575], ["2016-07-26", 0.577], ["2016-07-27", 0.571], ["2016-07-28", 0.571], ["2016-07-30", 0.577], ["2016-07-31", 0.572], ["2016-08-01", 0.574], ["2016-08-02", 0.573], ["2016-08-03", 0.573], ["2016-08-04", 0.562], ["2016-08-06", 0.554], ["2016-08-07", 0.546], ["2016-08-08", 0.547], ["2016-08-10", 0.546], ["2016-08-13", 0.539], ["2016-08-14", 0.539], ["2016-08-17", 0.535], ["2016-08-19", 0.534], ["2016-08-23", 0.538], ["2016-08-24", 0.533], ["2016-08-31", 0.532], ["2016-09-01", 0.525], ["2016-09-03", 0.526], ["2016-09-05", 0.527], ["2016-09-05", 0.525], ["2016-09-06", 0.524], ["2016-09-12", 0.524], ["2016-09-13", 0.52], ["2016-09-15", 0.522], ["2016-09-16", 0.522], ["2016-09-17", 0.515], ["2016-09-18", 0.516], ["2016-09-19", 0.517], ["2016-09-20", 0.517], ["2016-09-21", 0.512], ["2016-09-21", 0.516], ["2016-09-26", 0.516], ["2016-09-28", 0.516], ["2016-09-29", 0.509], ["2016-10-01", 0.509], ["2016-10-01", 0.509], ["2016-10-10", 0.51], ["2016-10-10", 0.51], ["2016-10-19", 0.507], ["2016-10-20", 0.512], ["2016-10-22", 0.51], ["2016-10-24", 0.511], ["2016-10-27", 0.511], ["2016-11-03", 0.511], ["2016-11-05", 0.511], ["2016-11-05", 0.511], ["2016-11-23", 0.512], ["2016-12-07", 0.512], ["2016-12-21", 0.512], ["2017-03-02", 0.512], ["2017-03-04", 0.509], ["2017-03-05", 0.514], ["2017-03-06", 0.511], ["2017-03-20", 0.511], ["2017-03-28", 0.511], ["2017-03-29", 0.511], ["2017-04-01", 0.511], ["2017-04-05", 0.51], ["2017-04-08", 0.51], ["2017-04-08", 0.51], ["2017-04-15", 0.51], ["2017-04-16", 0.51], ["2017-05-01", 0.509], ["2017-05-02", 0.508], ["2017-05-14", 0.508], ["2017-05-19", 0.505], ["2017-05-20", 0.504], ["2017-05-21", 0.509], ["2017-05-28", 0.509], ["2017-05-28", 0.509], ["2017-05-30", 0.508], ["2017-05-31", 0.503]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/210/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The idea of using an array of lasers to focus a beam and propel a spacecraft, "beamed propulsion," recently received a major boost with the announcement that entrepreneur and Philanthropist Yuri Milner has committed $100 Million to a "research and engineering program [that] will seek proof of concept for using light beam to propel gram-scale ‘nanocraft’ to 20% light speed." (See this previous question for background.)
The plan outlined in the funding announcement closely mirrors the roadmap laid out in a paper by Philip Lubin at UC Santa Barbara that was posted last year. It calls for:
1) An accelerating system comprised of:
A kilometer-scale Earthbound phased array of lasers
Facility to store and discharge Gigawatts of energy to drive the beam
A conventional rocket system that would deliver many "nanocrafts" to high-altitude orbit
Using adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric distortions in the beam array
2) A design for ultra-light miniaturized probes with:
Super-reflective coating and high surface/mass ratio.
Ability to withstand collisions with interplanetary and interstellar dust grains
Ability to capture and store images and other scientific data
Ability to transmit data back to Earth from great distances using an onboard laser
While this plan has a lot of thinking behind it, many plans change when confronted with experimental reality. Here we ask for an assessment of the probability that a major component of this plan will change. Such changes could include, for example,
Using a space-based laser (or other) system
Using a millimeter wave or microwave system rather than optical/IR system
Relatively larger spacecraft (e.g. meter-scale or above)
This question resolves positively if, on June 1, 2018, a description of the initiative found on the website of (a) a for-profit or nonprofit organization created to house this project, or (b) an institution or center receiving more that $10M in funding from the project, describes the project in a way that qualitatively differs from its initial announcement, at the level of the above potential changes.
(Note: this question may be updated soon after launch to make sure that the listing accurately reflects the initial plan of the project.) | true | 2017-06-01 | To the stars! #2: Mountaintop lasers, rockets, optics and wafers? Or something else? | metaculus | 0 |
2021-01-01 | 2016-04-10 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-10", 0.64], ["2016-04-12", 0.536], ["2016-04-14", 0.524], ["2016-04-16", 0.526], ["2016-04-18", 0.525], ["2016-04-19", 0.533], ["2016-04-26", 0.533], ["2016-05-01", 0.529], ["2016-05-16", 0.531], ["2016-06-06", 0.534], ["2016-06-07", 0.528], ["2016-06-18", 0.518], ["2016-06-21", 0.523], ["2016-06-29", 0.524], ["2016-06-30", 0.524], ["2016-07-11", 0.519], ["2016-07-21", 0.528], ["2016-07-23", 0.522], ["2016-07-26", 0.522], ["2016-07-27", 0.539], ["2016-07-29", 0.549], ["2016-07-31", 0.558], ["2016-08-04", 0.547], ["2016-08-06", 0.547], ["2016-08-08", 0.532], ["2016-08-10", 0.529], ["2016-08-13", 0.531], ["2016-08-14", 0.53], ["2016-08-17", 0.532], ["2016-08-19", 0.525], ["2016-08-21", 0.512], ["2016-08-24", 0.509], ["2016-09-02", 0.506], ["2016-09-05", 0.519], ["2016-09-07", 0.524], ["2016-09-12", 0.524], ["2016-09-14", 0.535], ["2016-09-16", 0.526], ["2016-09-19", 0.533], ["2016-09-21", 0.534], ["2016-09-26", 0.532], ["2016-09-29", 0.534], ["2016-10-03", 0.533], ["2016-10-06", 0.533], ["2016-10-08", 0.536], ["2016-10-13", 0.538], ["2016-10-19", 0.539], ["2016-10-20", 0.543], ["2016-10-23", 0.543], ["2016-10-24", 0.536], ["2016-10-27", 0.53], ["2016-11-05", 0.53], ["2016-11-30", 0.53], ["2016-12-03", 0.532], ["2016-12-04", 0.543], ["2016-12-21", 0.543], ["2017-01-06", 0.543], ["2017-01-11", 0.54], ["2017-01-11", 0.542], ["2017-01-31", 0.539], ["2017-02-24", 0.539], ["2017-05-02", 0.54], ["2017-05-03", 0.544], ["2017-05-12", 0.544], ["2017-05-14", 0.54], ["2017-05-20", 0.54], ["2017-05-31", 0.546], ["2017-06-09", 0.545], ["2017-06-15", 0.545], ["2017-06-21", 0.546], ["2017-06-30", 0.543], ["2017-07-08", 0.544], ["2017-07-10", 0.545], ["2017-07-21", 0.546], ["2017-07-28", 0.546], ["2017-08-04", 0.545], ["2017-08-06", 0.548], ["2017-08-07", 0.547], ["2017-08-12", 0.549], ["2017-08-14", 0.548], ["2017-08-25", 0.544], ["2017-08-27", 0.545], ["2017-09-01", 0.545], ["2017-09-24", 0.545], ["2017-10-02", 0.545], ["2017-10-17", 0.546], ["2017-10-21", 0.545], ["2017-10-25", 0.545], ["2017-11-09", 0.545], ["2017-11-15", 0.543], ["2017-11-17", 0.543], ["2017-11-25", 0.546], ["2017-11-27", 0.549], ["2017-11-29", 0.549], ["2017-12-03", 0.551], ["2017-12-08", 0.553], ["2017-12-08", 0.553], ["2017-12-17", 0.552], ["2017-12-27", 0.552], ["2017-12-29", 0.553], ["2017-12-31", 0.553]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/211/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine is MDMA - commonly called ecstasy, molly, or X. MDMA has a storied history beginning from its synthesis in 1912, to its use in psychotherapy in the '60s and its advent into recreational use in popular culture. While being a Schedule I substance in the U.S., and in general a legally controlled substance around the world, it's argued the classification is based on outdated science and that the drug is over-criminalized.
MDMA chiefly acts as a releasing agent for serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine; here's how it works. It's taken recreationally to induce euphoria, sociability, relaxation, heightened sensation and sexuality, but also brings on short-term effects like dehydration and nausea, and potential long-term effects like paranoia and addiction. However, evidence for the true extent of harm from MDMA isn't rock-solid and it appears that side-effects can be mitigated through moderate usage and dosing. There is a body of evidence for the efficacy of MDMA-assisted psychiatric treatment, and many advocate that more research to evaluate MDMA's usefulness in this regard.
Non-profit MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, is the only organization with funding in MDMA clinical trials to assist in the treatment of PTSD and social anxiety in autistic adults. MAPS is pushing for FDA approval of a medically available MDMA, and they are poised to enter phase 3 clinical trials in 2017. This is the last stage of research which will address the safety and effectiveness of the drug, and they are looking at trials in 200-400 people over the next 4-5 years. Their findings, if successful, are expected for submission to the FDA for approval in 2021. However, the organization says it needs about $20 million to complete the trials. At that point, the results can go to the FDA to assess MDMA as a legal medical drug. Will this happen?
This question will resolve positively if by Jan 1st, 2021, the MDMA stage 3 trial is complete, with the results and an official application submitted to the FDA toward medical approval. | true | 2018-01-01 | Will stage-3 trials of MDMA as a medical treatment be completed, with results submitted to the FDA, by 2021? | metaculus | 0 |
2020-09-27 | 2016-04-12 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-12", 0.2], ["2016-04-14", 0.362], ["2016-04-15", 0.359], ["2016-04-17", 0.37], ["2016-04-19", 0.37], ["2016-04-21", 0.353], ["2016-04-23", 0.351], ["2016-04-26", 0.351], ["2016-04-27", 0.37], ["2016-04-28", 0.372], ["2016-04-30", 0.369], ["2016-05-01", 0.364], ["2016-05-05", 0.363], ["2016-05-05", 0.363], ["2016-05-12", 0.37], ["2016-05-15", 0.37], ["2016-05-17", 0.372], ["2016-05-19", 0.37], ["2016-05-27", 0.37], ["2016-06-05", 0.373], ["2016-06-06", 0.373], ["2016-06-08", 0.38], ["2016-06-18", 0.377], ["2016-06-20", 0.378], ["2016-06-21", 0.376], ["2016-06-25", 0.374], ["2016-06-28", 0.374], ["2016-06-30", 0.359], ["2016-07-03", 0.358], ["2016-07-03", 0.356], ["2016-07-23", 0.361], ["2016-07-26", 0.358], ["2016-07-27", 0.363], ["2016-07-28", 0.358], ["2016-07-30", 0.346], ["2016-08-01", 0.341], ["2016-08-03", 0.355], ["2016-08-05", 0.349], ["2016-08-06", 0.345], ["2016-08-08", 0.346], ["2016-08-10", 0.344], ["2016-08-11", 0.343], ["2016-08-13", 0.341], ["2016-08-14", 0.345], ["2016-08-15", 0.345], ["2016-08-17", 0.345], ["2016-08-18", 0.349], ["2016-08-20", 0.346], ["2016-08-21", 0.343], ["2016-08-23", 0.346], ["2016-08-24", 0.35], ["2016-08-25", 0.356], ["2016-08-27", 0.355], ["2016-08-30", 0.358], ["2016-09-01", 0.358], ["2016-09-02", 0.359], ["2016-09-04", 0.355], ["2016-09-06", 0.358], ["2016-09-08", 0.358], ["2016-09-09", 0.36], ["2016-09-12", 0.359], ["2016-09-13", 0.356], ["2016-09-15", 0.358], ["2016-09-17", 0.383], ["2016-09-18", 0.389], ["2016-09-20", 0.396], ["2016-09-21", 0.403], ["2016-09-23", 0.406], ["2016-09-25", 0.408], ["2016-09-26", 0.41], ["2016-09-28", 0.414], ["2016-09-30", 0.418], ["2016-10-01", 0.419], ["2016-10-03", 0.418], ["2016-10-07", 0.42], ["2016-10-14", 0.42], ["2016-10-15", 0.42], ["2016-10-18", 0.421], ["2016-10-20", 0.423], ["2016-10-21", 0.424], ["2016-10-23", 0.424], ["2016-10-24", 0.423], ["2016-11-01", 0.423], ["2016-11-03", 0.424], ["2016-11-05", 0.424], ["2016-11-10", 0.425], ["2016-11-12", 0.423], ["2016-11-14", 0.424], ["2016-11-15", 0.426], ["2016-11-28", 0.426], ["2016-11-29", 0.426], ["2016-12-03", 0.427], ["2016-12-07", 0.427], ["2016-12-07", 0.426], ["2016-12-12", 0.425], ["2016-12-21", 0.425], ["2016-12-23", 0.431], ["2016-12-26", 0.433], ["2016-12-26", 0.433], ["2016-12-28", 0.434], ["2016-12-31", 0.434]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/212/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | The philanthropist Yuri Milner recently announced a $100 Million commitment to start the development of gram-scale "nanocraft" that can travel at 20% of the speed of light. The prospect of building interstellar probes places a suddenly renewed emphasis on discovering the planetary companions to the closest stars. Exhibits A, B, and C in this effort are the members of the Alpha-Proxima Centauri triple system.
The Alpha Centauri A-B binary, which lies a mere 4.37 light years distant, harbors two sun-like stars of 1.1 and 0.9 solar masses on a moderately eccentric (e=0.52) 79-year orbit. The red dwarf Proxima Centauri is likely bound to the A-B pair on a roughly million year orbit, and will be the subject of future questions in this series.
Orbital integrations show that potentially habitable planets can exist in stable orbits around either Alpha Cen A or Alpha Cen B. Various methods have been proposed to detect such planets, with the Doppler Velocity technique providing the most likely route to success. Indeed, in 2012, tentative (but now largely discredited) evidence of a very short period Earth-mass planet orbiting Alpha Cen B was published in Nature.
By January 1, 2020, will there be an announcement in the peer-reviewed astronomical literature of the detection of a planet with period P > 200d orbiting either (but not both) Alpha Cen A or Alpha Cen B? | true | 2016-12-31 | To the Stars! #4: Do Potentially Habitable Planets exist in orbit around Alpha Centauri A or B? | metaculus | 0 |
2016-07-27 | 2016-04-13 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-15", 0.37], ["2016-04-15", 0.36], ["2016-04-15", 0.332], ["2016-04-15", 0.339], ["2016-04-16", 0.322], ["2016-04-16", 0.322], ["2016-04-16", 0.305], ["2016-04-16", 0.317], ["2016-04-16", 0.317], ["2016-04-16", 0.313], ["2016-04-16", 0.305], ["2016-04-16", 0.305], ["2016-04-16", 0.305], ["2016-04-16", 0.305], ["2016-04-16", 0.305], ["2016-04-17", 0.305], ["2016-04-17", 0.289], ["2016-04-17", 0.285], ["2016-04-18", 0.29], ["2016-04-18", 0.286], ["2016-04-18", 0.286], ["2016-04-18", 0.278], ["2016-04-18", 0.273], ["2016-04-18", 0.27], ["2016-04-19", 0.26], ["2016-04-19", 0.278], ["2016-04-19", 0.276], ["2016-04-19", 0.27], ["2016-04-20", 0.265], ["2016-04-20", 0.266], ["2016-04-20", 0.235], ["2016-04-21", 0.233], ["2016-04-21", 0.228], ["2016-04-22", 0.225], ["2016-04-23", 0.222], ["2016-04-23", 0.221], ["2016-04-24", 0.218], ["2016-04-24", 0.215], ["2016-04-26", 0.209], ["2016-04-26", 0.205], ["2016-04-26", 0.205], ["2016-04-26", 0.196], ["2016-04-27", 0.196], ["2016-04-27", 0.192], ["2016-04-27", 0.188], ["2016-04-27", 0.19], ["2016-04-27", 0.203], ["2016-04-27", 0.189], ["2016-04-27", 0.183], ["2016-04-27", 0.183], ["2016-04-27", 0.183], ["2016-04-27", 0.18], ["2016-04-27", 0.179], ["2016-04-27", 0.176], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-28", 0.173], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-28", 0.172], ["2016-04-29", 0.172], ["2016-04-29", 0.172], ["2016-04-29", 0.172], ["2016-04-30", 0.171], ["2016-04-30", 0.171], ["2016-04-30", 0.177], ["2016-05-01", 0.174], ["2016-05-01", 0.173], ["2016-05-02", 0.172], ["2016-05-03", 0.172], ["2016-05-04", 0.171], ["2016-05-05", 0.169], ["2016-05-05", 0.168], ["2016-05-06", 0.167], ["2016-05-08", 0.164], ["2016-05-09", 0.151], ["2016-05-09", 0.153], ["2016-05-10", 0.156], ["2016-05-11", 0.153], ["2016-05-13", 0.153], ["2016-05-17", 0.152], ["2016-05-17", 0.154], ["2016-05-18", 0.153], ["2016-05-19", 0.156], ["2016-05-21", 0.154], ["2016-05-21", 0.156], ["2016-05-27", 0.155], ["2016-05-27", 0.155], ["2016-05-28", 0.155], ["2016-05-31", 0.154], ["2016-06-01", 0.15], ["2016-06-01", 0.151], ["2016-06-01", 0.15], ["2016-06-01", 0.149], ["2016-06-01", 0.146], ["2016-06-01", 0.146], ["2016-06-02", 0.147], ["2016-06-04", 0.147], ["2016-06-05", 0.147]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/213/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Politics & Governance | As of April 15, the delegate counts in the US Democratic Primary Race (excluding superdelegates) are 1307 for Clinton and 1097 for Sanders, per fivethirtyeight; this page also outlines the route to nomination for both candidates.
Clinton is in a solid lead, though Sanders arguably has the momentum, having won the last 7 primaries, per the records of the NY times. (This streak is likely to end with New York.)
The proportional nature of the Democratic primaries creates a difficult path for Sanders; on the other hand low favorability ratings and persistent questions about the email scandal continue to dog Clinton.
Everyone's got an opinion on this race, and here we ask:
Will Sanders be the Democratic Nominee?
This is the first part of a two-part experiment in "metaknowledge." In the second one, we ask what you think the Metaculus community prediction on this question will be (this is the reason the community prediction is hidden from view until question closing.) While of course not obligatory, it will aid in this experiment if you answer both questions. (CLICK HERE for second one.) | true | 2016-06-06 | Metaknowledge Experiment Part A: Will Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Nominee? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-04-01 | 2016-04-15 | [] | binary | [["2016-11-07", 0.71], ["2016-11-08", 0.716], ["2016-11-09", 0.716], ["2016-11-10", 0.643], ["2016-11-10", 0.617], ["2016-11-11", 0.584], ["2016-11-12", 0.562], ["2016-11-13", 0.575], ["2016-11-14", 0.591], ["2016-11-15", 0.58], ["2016-11-15", 0.571], ["2016-11-16", 0.575], ["2016-11-19", 0.574], ["2016-11-24", 0.574], ["2016-11-24", 0.574], ["2016-11-27", 0.579], ["2016-12-18", 0.579], ["2016-12-19", 0.579], ["2016-12-21", 0.584], ["2016-12-21", 0.592], ["2017-01-01", 0.6], ["2017-01-01", 0.603], ["2017-01-24", 0.592], ["2017-01-24", 0.598], ["2017-02-03", 0.598], ["2017-02-09", 0.598], ["2017-02-18", 0.592], ["2017-02-23", 0.592], ["2017-02-24", 0.591], ["2017-02-25", 0.6], ["2017-02-25", 0.6], ["2017-03-15", 0.597], ["2017-05-14", 0.597], ["2017-05-25", 0.59], ["2017-06-20", 0.587], ["2017-06-28", 0.588], ["2017-07-18", 0.591], ["2017-08-04", 0.591], ["2017-08-05", 0.595], ["2017-08-06", 0.586], ["2017-08-07", 0.577], ["2017-08-07", 0.578], ["2017-08-12", 0.577], ["2017-08-16", 0.576], ["2017-08-16", 0.577], ["2017-08-18", 0.577], ["2017-09-03", 0.576], ["2017-09-04", 0.58], ["2017-09-07", 0.582], ["2017-09-13", 0.582], ["2017-09-14", 0.58], ["2017-09-16", 0.583], ["2017-09-18", 0.58], ["2017-09-19", 0.58], ["2017-09-19", 0.58], ["2017-09-20", 0.581], ["2017-09-25", 0.581], ["2017-09-25", 0.574], ["2017-10-07", 0.573], ["2017-10-07", 0.573], ["2017-10-17", 0.57], ["2017-10-17", 0.57], ["2017-12-17", 0.57], ["2017-12-23", 0.57], ["2018-01-03", 0.57], ["2018-01-09", 0.57], ["2018-01-10", 0.57], ["2018-01-16", 0.565], ["2018-01-18", 0.565], ["2018-02-16", 0.565], ["2018-02-16", 0.573], ["2018-02-17", 0.572], ["2018-02-18", 0.572], ["2018-03-01", 0.575], ["2018-03-02", 0.575], ["2018-03-08", 0.577], ["2018-03-11", 0.576], ["2018-03-14", 0.576], ["2018-03-16", 0.576], ["2018-03-21", 0.571], ["2018-03-22", 0.571], ["2018-03-23", 0.571], ["2018-03-28", 0.569], ["2018-03-29", 0.567], ["2018-03-30", 0.567], ["2018-04-02", 0.567], ["2018-04-03", 0.557], ["2018-04-04", 0.555], ["2018-04-05", 0.548], ["2018-04-06", 0.547], ["2018-04-06", 0.547], ["2018-04-07", 0.545], ["2018-04-08", 0.545], ["2018-04-08", 0.545], ["2018-04-10", 0.545], ["2018-04-10", 0.54], ["2018-04-11", 0.54], ["2018-04-12", 0.536], ["2018-04-13", 0.536], ["2018-04-14", 0.533], ["2018-04-14", 0.533]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/216/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Science & Tech | In April 2016, the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute announced that its Allen Telescope Array would focus on surveying more than 20,000 red dwarf stars for signs of intelligent life over the next two years.
SETI's Allen Telescope Array (ATA), in the mountains of Northern California, is an array of 42 antennas that, together, can achieve the astronomical observing power of much larger antenna dishes. Since its completion in 2007, the ATA has been listening to the skies for clear, repeating radio signals at frequencies that might indicate broadcasts by an intelligent civilization. From 2009-2015, the ATA focused on known extrasolar planets, but found no signals that met the criteria for alien life.
Red dwarf stars had previously been dismissed as SETI targets because their chances for hosting habitable planets were thought to be dim. But red dwarves are abundant in the galaxy, and some are closer to the earth than more sun-like stars, meaning that signals from close red dwarves (such as Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to our Sun) would be stronger and clearer. As many as one-half of red dwarves may hold planets in the so-called "habitable zone." Research into such possible planets (which would likely be locked with one side facing the star at all times and the other side in eternal night) suggest that oceans and atmospheres could move enough heat around to allow life to develop and thrive. Another plus: red dwarves are old stars, allowing life more time to develop intelligence and technology.
By focusing on a certain star type, astronomers will gather a large dataset on red dwarves, possibly uncovering new insights about the star type that will be useful to astronomers, even if a signal of alien life is not found.
Will the Allen Telescope Array's survey of red dwarf stars yield valuable scientific information, whether regarding ET life or just the physics of red dwarf stars (or even some other radio sources serendipidously observed)?
For this question to resolve as positive, three papers must appear on arXiv.org reporting Allen Telescope Array discoveries regarding red dwarf stars on or before April 1, 2019. More specifically they must have both "Allen Telescope" and "Red dwarf/ves" or "K/M dwarf/ves" in the abstract. At least one of these must arguably report some type of scientific advance, not just null results. (The date is one year after the survey has concluded, to allow time for data analysis and manuscript preparation.) | true | 2018-04-15 | Will the Allen Telescope Array discover anything in its SETI search of red dwarf stars over the next two years? | metaculus | 0 |
2019-12-21 | 2016-04-15 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-15", 0.9], ["2016-04-15", 0.455], ["2016-04-15", 0.42], ["2016-04-15", 0.562], ["2016-04-15", 0.54], ["2016-04-15", 0.517], ["2016-04-15", 0.471], ["2016-04-15", 0.47], ["2016-04-16", 0.473], ["2016-04-16", 0.466], ["2016-04-16", 0.45], ["2016-04-16", 0.438], ["2016-04-16", 0.427], ["2016-04-16", 0.437], ["2016-04-17", 0.444], ["2016-04-18", 0.436], ["2016-04-18", 0.435], ["2016-04-18", 0.42], ["2016-04-18", 0.411], ["2016-04-18", 0.411], ["2016-04-18", 0.411], ["2016-04-18", 0.389], ["2016-04-18", 0.379], ["2016-04-18", 0.379], ["2016-04-19", 0.388], ["2016-04-19", 0.396], ["2016-04-19", 0.408], ["2016-04-20", 0.412], ["2016-04-21", 0.412], ["2016-04-23", 0.415], ["2016-04-24", 0.412], ["2016-04-24", 0.422], ["2016-04-26", 0.423], ["2016-04-26", 0.424], ["2016-04-26", 0.429], ["2016-04-27", 0.438], ["2016-05-01", 0.441], ["2016-05-06", 0.446], ["2016-05-10", 0.45], ["2016-06-20", 0.451], ["2016-06-28", 0.456], ["2016-06-29", 0.472], ["2016-06-30", 0.474], ["2016-07-11", 0.474], ["2016-07-12", 0.473], ["2016-07-23", 0.486], ["2016-07-24", 0.488], ["2016-07-24", 0.493], ["2016-07-26", 0.491], ["2016-07-26", 0.49], ["2016-07-26", 0.492], ["2016-07-28", 0.483], ["2016-07-30", 0.472], ["2016-08-03", 0.484], ["2016-08-06", 0.473], ["2016-08-10", 0.479], ["2016-08-13", 0.479], ["2016-08-19", 0.474], ["2016-08-27", 0.474], ["2016-08-30", 0.478], ["2016-09-02", 0.463], ["2016-09-05", 0.461], ["2016-09-12", 0.461], ["2016-09-14", 0.464], ["2016-09-15", 0.46], ["2016-09-16", 0.47], ["2016-09-16", 0.472], ["2016-09-16", 0.474], ["2016-09-17", 0.478], ["2016-09-17", 0.475], ["2016-09-17", 0.476], ["2016-09-18", 0.481], ["2016-09-19", 0.485], ["2016-09-19", 0.482], ["2016-09-19", 0.482], ["2016-09-21", 0.49], ["2016-09-22", 0.491], ["2016-09-26", 0.493], ["2016-09-29", 0.491], ["2016-10-04", 0.491], ["2016-10-19", 0.495], ["2016-10-19", 0.494], ["2016-10-20", 0.502], ["2016-10-20", 0.497], ["2016-10-21", 0.497], ["2016-10-21", 0.493], ["2016-10-23", 0.499], ["2016-10-25", 0.497], ["2016-11-10", 0.497], ["2016-11-10", 0.496], ["2016-11-11", 0.496], ["2016-11-11", 0.496], ["2016-11-12", 0.496], ["2016-11-13", 0.496], ["2016-11-13", 0.497], ["2016-11-14", 0.497], ["2016-11-14", 0.497], ["2016-11-14", 0.5]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/217/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Arts & Recreation | The US patent system is an issue of great current controversy, with the rise of companies that purchase large numbers of broadly-interpretable patents then request (at threat of lawsuit) licensing fees from companies using technologies that arguably fall under those patents.
While described as "patent trolls" by some, such companies argue that they are fostering the generation of intellectual property and then protecting the owners (including themselves) of that IP.
An interesting effort was recently launched to -- it would seem -- throw a wrench in various gears grinding in the patent (and patent litigation) industries. All Prior Art generates and publishes online an immense number of "known inventions" that are algorithmically generated using the text from the US patent database. (A sister entity All Prior Claims does something similar.)
The stated claim is:
The intent is not to prevent actual creative and innovative patents from being filed, it is to take the obvious and easily automated ideas out-of-play. If an idea is truly creative and innovative, a computer should have difficulty coming up with it.
It is unclear whether this database has actually been used in patent evaluation at this time.
Although most of the published inventions are (readable) nonsense, it is quite possible that some of them describe (perhaps with some interpretation) actual workable inventions, and that with better algorithms some of those inventions might even become interesting or make up a higher proportion of the total. As the site says:
It is not unforeseeable with current technology (along with sufficient cash for fees) to flood the actual patent application process itself with sufficiently advanced patent applications based on this concept.
It is also easy to imagine (though possibly challenging to implement) a system that ensures novelty by comparing against both the US patent database and the Prior Art database. One can also envisage a "competitor" system that generates patents more effectively than Prior Art, runs them against the Prior Art database to ensure that they are novel, and files them for patenting. This would be an interesting algorithmic war in which course and the overall winners would be unclear.
For a specific predictable, we ask:
By April 15, 2019, will a patent be issued for an invention that was generated entirely algorithmically using a machine learning (or similar) system applied to the U.S. patent database?
(Note: updated timeline to 3 years on 4/16/16) | true | 2016-11-15 | A is in the I of the beholder #4: Patently Obvious | metaculus | 0 |
2016-09-02 | 2016-04-16 | [] | binary | [["2016-04-23", 0.4], ["2016-04-23", 0.45], ["2016-04-23", 0.695], ["2016-04-23", 0.677], ["2016-04-23", 0.663], ["2016-04-23", 0.738], ["2016-04-23", 0.704], ["2016-04-23", 0.682], ["2016-04-23", 0.713], ["2016-04-23", 0.669], ["2016-04-24", 0.646], ["2016-04-24", 0.641], ["2016-04-24", 0.633], ["2016-04-24", 0.63], ["2016-04-24", 0.62], ["2016-04-25", 0.597], ["2016-04-25", 0.618], ["2016-04-25", 0.623], ["2016-04-26", 0.618], ["2016-04-26", 0.623], ["2016-04-26", 0.62], ["2016-04-29", 0.609], ["2016-04-30", 0.609], ["2016-04-30", 0.607], ["2016-05-01", 0.608], ["2016-05-05", 0.614], ["2016-05-07", 0.607], ["2016-05-15", 0.603], ["2016-05-18", 0.595], ["2016-05-21", 0.593], ["2016-06-05", 0.6], ["2016-06-07", 0.604], ["2016-06-08", 0.608], ["2016-06-20", 0.6], ["2016-06-28", 0.602], ["2016-06-28", 0.615], ["2016-06-29", 0.616], ["2016-06-29", 0.606], ["2016-06-30", 0.604], ["2016-06-30", 0.602], ["2016-07-22", 0.615], ["2016-07-22", 0.616], ["2016-07-22", 0.613], ["2016-07-23", 0.614], ["2016-07-23", 0.622], ["2016-07-26", 0.626], ["2016-07-26", 0.624], ["2016-07-26", 0.63], ["2016-07-26", 0.62], ["2016-07-26", 0.616], ["2016-07-26", 0.617], ["2016-07-26", 0.618], ["2016-07-27", 0.618], ["2016-07-29", 0.613], ["2016-07-29", 0.609], ["2016-07-29", 0.602], ["2016-07-30", 0.59], ["2016-07-31", 0.59], ["2016-07-31", 0.586], ["2016-08-01", 0.589], ["2016-08-01", 0.59], ["2016-08-02", 0.578], ["2016-08-02", 0.584], ["2016-08-02", 0.584], ["2016-08-02", 0.589], ["2016-08-03", 0.588], ["2016-08-04", 0.591]] | https://www.metaculus.com/api2/questions/218/ | Not applicable/available for this question. | Healthcare & Biology | The Zika Virus has grown into a major health threat with the realization that this virus, previously considered fairly innocuous, can cause birth defects including microencephaly, as well as many other issues.
Spread primarily by the Aedes Mosquito, Zika is currently being trasmitted person-to-person in 44 countries and territories.
This has motivated a major vaccine development effort, with a reported 18 agencies and companies working on a vaccine.
Probably earliest on the horizon is an effort by the NIH:
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), for instance, is developing a DNA-based vaccine in which genetic material from the Zika virus would be used to induce an immune response.
This could begin testing as early as December; "inactivated" and "live attenuated" vaccines are also in the works by other agencies, but on a longer timescale. Taking account of some potential delays:
By the end of January 2017, will the NIH begin tests of a Zika vaccine on healthy volunteers?
Resolution is by reliable media report or source. | true | 2016-08-04 | Zapping Zika #1: First vaccine trials by January 2017? | metaculus | 1 |