Events: 0-9

The Question Of Separatism

July 08, 2022 · Original source

Reading this book, I kept imagining the alternate history in which Reagan succeeds in his 1976 primary challenge to Gerald Ford, which he lost narrowly in real life. Since Reagan is a much more talented politician than Ford, and isn’t tainted by Ford’s association with Nixon, he almost certainly picks up a couple points of the vote and beats Carter. Then he ends up presiding over stagflation and takes the blame for the poor economy. He loses in 1980 to Ted Kennedy, who ushers in a decade of liberal dominance until his presidency implodes in scandal amidst the revelation of his many drunken affairs.

May 19, 2023 · Original source

Meanwhile, Montreal never generated a conurbation or significant city region. This is Jacobs’s main hypothesis for why it was overtaken by Toronto, though she doesn’t give a lot of detail on why it happened. In any case, the result was that Montreal lost its status as the economic capital of the country. It became a regional city. The problem is that regional cities tend to do poorly. The nature of nations is to centralize everything in one place (we’ll come back to this). That’s why Paris has a large and rich city region, but Lyon and Marseille don’t. That’s why London looms so large in the UK’s economy while Glasgow or Manchester now contribute very little. There’s nothing wrong per se with being an economically stagnant regional city. Such cities can be fine places. When they’re the center of a supply region, like Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta, they can even be wealthy. The complication for Montreal, though, is that its previous status as the main Canadian metropolis made it grow too large for this purpose. Yet, at the same time, Montreal plays an outsized cultural role for French-speaking Canadians — one that Toronto doesn’t even come close to fulfilling. So, Jacobs sees only decline for Montreal. And she thinks this means decline for Quebecois culture generally. Without a strong import-replacing city, Quebec will become a patchwork of supply regions, regions that workers abandon, or transplant economies, like the poverty-stricken Atlantic provinces in eastern Canada already are. Either the Quebecois resign themselves to this fate, she says, or they fight it — and the only true way to fight it is to declare independence. As of the 1980 referendum, she thinks they should go for independence. Generalized Separatism Quebecers did not go for independence, neither then in 1980 nor in 1995 when they voted on the question again. If they had, it would probably have been an example of a peaceful secession. Jacobs points out that there haven’t been many of those, if you exclude the decolonization of overseas imperial possessions (like Canada from Britain). Non-peaceful secessions have been common, but in those cases the destructiveness of war tends to overshadow everything else, economically speaking. In fact that might be the main reason most of us intuitively dislike separatism: we associate it with conflict. But peaceful non-colonial secessions do happen. Since 1980 there have been several more cases, like Czechia and Slovakia. When Jacobs wrote her book, though, the only good example she could think of was the independence of Norway from Sweden in 1905. She tells a great account of the process, noting that the outcome wasn’t predetermined: Sweden didn’t want to lose its western province, and did what it could to contain Norwegian nationalist sentiment. But Norwegian nationalist sentiment won — and importantly, both Norway and Sweden seemingly benefitted. Neither of them was particularly rich in the 19th century, and Norway was in fact dirt poor, which is why so many Norwegians escaped by emigrating to North America. Yet after the dissolution of their union, the two countries developed quickly, and both are now among the wealthiest countries in the world. They certainly didn’t disintegrate. (Of course, in Norway the wealth is due in large part to the oil that they discovered in the late 1960s. But they were pretty advanced by that point already — advanced enough that they could use the oil to develop their own industry, rather than get rich quick by exporting it raw, which is what keeps many countries trapped as supply regions.) When people argue against separatism, they often tout the benefits of being large. A Canada that would be split in two would mean smaller markets, and a weaker political counterweight to the United States. (Not to be mean to Canadian readers, but this argument seems delusional to me — I don’t think Americans currently see Canada as a political counterweight of any significance.) It would certainly be less prestigious. Large size, Jacobs says, is associated with power, and we admire power. We love slogans like “unity makes strength.” But after the medium-sized country of Sweden-Norway became the two smaller countries of Sweden and Norway, they both did well. Small size is less powerful, but it has its own advantages, such as nimbleness and ability to fail non-catastrophically. Small size also allows more diversity in cultural and economic matters, and here Jacobs waxes philosophical, pointing out that favoring diversity over uniformity is a recent, post-Enlightenment idea that has not yet been fully embraced in politics. We can see analogs everywhere. Europe, split into numerous small countries from the Middle Ages onward, became far more advanced than China, which has been unified more often than not. The city-states of ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy are seen as golden ages of Western civilization, even if they weren’t part of larger political units and therefore constantly went to war with one another. In business, large companies are impressive and powerful, but people always complain that Google or Microsoft have become stagnant and that the best place to work is tiny startups of about 2 cofounders and 4 employees. In biology, humans are more successful than numerous larger animals, and in terms of raw numbers, small animals like rats or insects are the most successful of all. Jacobs’s point isn’t that smaller is always better. Her point is that the converse statement, “bigger is always better,” is false — despite how intuitive it feels for political entities. Just like we don’t view a small nation like Switzerland or Singapore as a failure of unity, we (and in particular, Canadians) shouldn’t see the secession of a place like Quebec, if it’s done peacefully and democratically, as a failure either. Still, some people in online reviews of the book complain that this argument is a bit thin, especially considering that it serves as the foundation for the later chapters (which are more directly about late 1970s Quebec politics). Sure, small is beautiful, but large states are great for stability, peace, markets, whatever. If the potential benefits of small national size are Jacobs’s strongest argument, then we can breathe a sigh of relief and go back to agreeing that separatism is bad. Pointing out the widespread bias in favor of unified political entities does seem valuable to me, but okay, fair enough. Does Jacobs have deeper reasons why separatism might be a good idea in general? Yes, and for this we go back to the second half of Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Why Nations and Empires Fail Our breathing rate is regulated through a feedback mechanism. Too much carbon dioxide in the blood, or too little oxygen, and the brain stem commands the diaphragm to accelerate breathing. Once the levels are back to normal, the brain stem receives this feedback and slows breathing down again. Now, Jacobs asks, imagine an impossible creature: ten people, all doing their own thing, but whose breathing is somehow regulated by a single brain stem. The feedback the brain stem receives is a consolidated average of everyone’s carbon dioxide and oxygen levels, and the breathing rate the stem decides on is applied to all ten people, regardless of whether they’re sleeping or playing tennis. This, to put it mildly, wouldn’t work. This creature is an analogy, representing a nation. The ten people are its individual cities, and the breathing rate is the cities’ economies. If it sounds like a stupid analogy, that’s because it is: “I have had to propose a preposterous situation,” writes Jacobs, “because systems as structurally flawed as this don’t exist in nature; they wouldn’t last.” Nor do they exist in machines we design; they wouldn’t work. But “nations, from this point of view, don’t work either, yet do exist.” The feedback mechanism that fails to work properly in a nation is currency. A currency always fluctuates according to the exports and imports of the area where it circulates. Let me use the Republic of Venice and its ducat as a toy example, because the coins look nice: Whenever Venice produces something (like salt) and sells it abroad, foreigners need ducats to buy the exports, so the demand for ducats increases. When Venice buys something from abroad, it needs to use foreign currencies, so the demand for ducats decreases. Add up everything that Venice exports and imports, and you get either a trade surplus (more exports than imports) or a trade deficit (more imports than exports), which determines the value of the ducat relative to other currencies. In both cases, a negative feedback loop restores balance over time, just like our brain stem does with carbon dioxide levels. A trade surplus, and therefore a strong ducat, means that when foreigners want Venetian salt, it’s expensive. So Venice’s exports decrease, while imports increase, since Venetians can use their valuable ducats to buy stuff cheaply from abroad. Conversely, a trade deficit makes exports a bargain for foreigners and imports expensive for Venetians. This feedback loop is great. It’s exactly what a city needs to trigger the crucial import replacement process. When exports decrease and a trade deficit begins (maybe because Constantinople found a cheaper source of salt somewhere else), the weak ducat means that Venice is less able to afford the resources and manufactured goods it used to import. The people of Venice don’t want to have less of those goods, though, so they figure out ways to produce some themselves — that is, they do import replacement. Later they will be able to export the output of the newly expanding industries too, strengthening the ducat and continuing the cycle. Currencies, Jacobs explains, function as automatic tariffs (to protect local industry from foreign imports) and automatic export subsidies (to encourage local industry to export). They are “automatic” because of the feedback mechanism. Just like an accelerated breathing rate, they take effect exactly when they are needed — and no longer. … Or so they should, except that import replacement, as we discussed, is a city process. Whereas most currencies are national or supranational. National currencies work well for city-states, like the Republic of Venice or today’s Singapore. But in large nations, which, remember, are not the fundamental unit of economic life, they mess everything up. Take a city like Detroit. When Detroit’s exports (primarily cars) decrease, Detroit gets no feedback about this, because its currency is the United States dollar, and the United States dollar’s value depends on much more than Detroit. It depends on other cities whose foreign exports might be increasing at the moment. And on rural regions that are selling resources like oil abroad. Also, trade between Detroit and other cities that use the United States dollar — i.e., American cities — is structurally unable to provide any feedback whatsoever. So Detroit doesn’t get the signal that it should buy less stuff from other cities and replace the missing imports with local production. Instead, it just declines. Jacobs hypothesizes that this issue of national currencies is at the root of every large country’s economic troubles. It is why nations and empires always centralize everything into one large city, whether that’s Paris, London, Tokyo, or Toronto, or ancient Rome: that city, being the largest, is simply the only one for which national-level currency feedback works fine. The rest of the nation or empire, then, declines. But of course, nations and empires don’t accept this. They care about the economic well-being of their peripheral regions, sometimes out of genuine concern for the people there, sometimes out of fear that they rebel or hold independence referendums. So nations and empires will embark on every possible solution to reverse the decline. All of their solutions will look like good ideas at first, and yet fail at helping the peripheral regions. Worse, these solutions will weaken the cities, thereby destroying the only real wealth of the country and bringing untold hardship for everyone. Eventually the nation or empire will disintegrate, as nations and empires always do, and always will. Jacobs calls these false solutions transactions of decline. She identifies three types, and, content warning, you might not like some of them depending on your political sensibilities. Sustained military production is a transaction of decline. Permanent military bases and garrison towns are a special kind of settlement: they import a lot and export nothing. Superficially, producing weapons and supplies for the military seems like a good deal for some cities — Jacobs gives the example of Seattle, which, before Microsoft and Amazon were a thing, depended mostly on making military aircraft. But because nobody in a military base ever tries to replace those weapons and supplies with their own production, the trade is sterile in terms of economic development. In a sense, the wealth is slowly “drained” from cities. Large empires are especially prone to this: eventually all of their wealth is destined to the military just to keep the empire together.

Inline links: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zETj!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3e99b106-d34e-4a49-93a8-553a8f57952a_1600x1130.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YeXj!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6fe681e6-b571-4f4c-aa90-313f77fc1dbb_750x359.png

This book is Jacobs’s least read. It was published in 1980, right after the first referendum where Quebecers voted to remain a part of Canada. It is based on lectures that Jacobs (who was an American but had moved to Canada in 1968) gave in Toronto right before the referendum. It’s not hard to guess why the book didn’t have a huge (read: any) impact. First, most people outside Quebec or Canada don’t have any reason to care. Second, the essay — which was written in English — argues in favor of the secession of Quebec, which virtually no one among the English-speaking population of Canada agreed with. The natural reaction from Canada’s intelligentsia was to ignore the book altogether. Meanwhile, few people in Quebec itself read it, since the referendum was over; it wasn’t even translated into French until decades later. As a result, The Question of Separatism sits awkwardly in Jane Jacobs’s bibliography, as if it were “a mistake in an otherwise brilliant career,” like I read somewhere. In a 2005 interview, one year before her death, Jacobs said that no journalist ever asked her about it. But the book was not a mistake. I don’t claim any special insight here: Jane Jacobs herself said so in that same interview. She said that she would have written the same book in 2005, “because that’s the way it is in the world, and it still holds.” Besides, The Question of Separatism is in fact not that much about the specifics of Quebec’s political situation, but rather about interesting generalities: what size means for countries and organizations, and why the fate of nations depends primarily on what happens in their cities. Taken together with Cities and the Wealth of Nations, which Jacobs wrote a few years later to expand on those ideas, we get a coherent and deeply interesting philosophy of economics: one that favors the local scale, cities and small countries, antifragility long before Nassim Taleb coined the term, and avoiding grandstanding theories that always fail to take into account the real complexity of the world. I. A Fake Mystery Cities and the Wealth of Nations opens on an economic mystery. “For a little while in the middle of this century,” writes Jacobs, “it seemed that the wild, intractable, dismal science of economics had yielded up something we all want: instructions for getting or keeping prosperity.” This was the 1940s to 1960s, and economists thought they had it all figured out. It was the golden age of high modernism and scientific technocracy. Everywhere from China to the Soviet Union to the United States and Britain and the nascent European Economic Community, leaders were coming up with elaborate plans, rooted in macroeconomic theories, that were supposed to guarantee future wealth and avoid economic crises. The theories had been developed by many thinkers over the previous two hundred years: Richard Cantillon, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes. Jacobs explains how they each had their own ideas of how the economy worked, disagreeing over things like whether supply or demand was the main driving mechanism, but they all agreed on a fundamental fact: inflation and unemployment have an inverse relationship to each other, like a seesaw. High inflation comes with low unemployment; high unemployment comes with low inflation, or even deflation when prices drop. The Great Depression, a time of deflation, had provided proof of the seesaw. Big government projects, as prescribed by Keynesians, were a way for states to reduce unemployment and bring the seesaw back in a balanced state. Economists developed fancy models, based on historical data, to predict the behavior of the economy. The Phillips curve in particular became popular. It was the golden age of technocracy; it was the triumph of high modernism. From now on wealth was assured, because we weren’t blind anymore: we had the curves. And yet — by the 1970s and 1980s, when Jane Jacobs was writing, the theories all stopped working. There was high inflation and high unemployment. People called it stagflation. Keynesian advisers in various governments were devastated: either their ideas were wrong, or they were applying them wrong. Economists such as Milton Friedman, from a rival school of economists called the monetarists or the Chicago school, came to the rescue — but their remedy, Jacobs believes, only made things worse. Whatever governments did to increase employment made inflation worse; whatever they did to attenuate inflation killed employment. The seesaw from the theories was working in application, even though it didn’t explain reality anymore. Stagflation was not supposed to exist, so stagflation could not be fought. At this point we’re near the end of Chapter 1, the densest part of the book. Jacobs has artfully guided us along economic history and laid out the mystery for us. What’s going on? we wonder. How are we supposed to deal with the two-headed monster of stagflation, if all economists are stumped? Then Jacobs, in a masterstroke, flips the whole thing over. I was impressed enough that I would have inserted a spoiler alert here, if it didn’t feel so silly putting a spoiler alert in an essay on economics. Stagflation is not a strange monster from legend. It is, Jacobs says, just the normal state of everything. Backward economies are in fact constantly in a state of stagflation. The prices in a poor country like Portugal or India (her two examples) feel low for an American or Canadian, but they’re high for most Portuguese or Indian people. At the same time, Portugal and India provide too few jobs to their residents. Inflation and unemployment are both perennially high, and none of that feels surprising whatsoever. Stagflation, in short, is just good ol’ poverty. All these fancy economists, from Cantillon in 1700s France to Keynes and Friedman in the 20th century Anglosphere, were thinking and writing about unusual places: rich countries that were undergoing fast economic development. They were making the classic mistake of treating poverty as a mystery and wealth as a given, when in fact poverty is the normal order of things and wealth, when it does occur, is what warrants an explanation. The result is that we don’t really know how to fix the economy of poor countries, nor do we know how to deal with decline in rich countries, whether we call it stagflation or something else. Jacobs derives from this a pretty damning view of macroeconomics. It is to her a science that has failed again and again, each time engulfing the equivalent of billions of dollars in wasted wealth. “We must,” she writes at the close of Chapter 1, “find more realistic and fruitful lines of observation and thought than we have tried to use so far. It is bootless to choose among existing schools of thought. We are on our own.” Fortunately, she has some ideas. II. Nations and the Wealth of Cities The original sin of macroeconomics, Jacobs believe, is to treat sovereign countries, or nations, as the main unit of economic analysis. This error, she claims, goes back to mercantilism, one of the first formal economic policies. Oversimplified, mercantilism states that wealth is synonymous with the amount of gold and silver in a nation’s treasury. This makes nations the main unit of economic analysis by definition. It’s a tautology — and one that was somehow embedded so deep in economic thinking that even the non-mercantilist Adam Smith would eventually choose, for his masterpiece of economic theory, the title An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Today, even though mercantilism has long been obsolete, we perpetuate the same tautology whenever we talk of the Gross Domestic Product or look at the very nice charts from Our World in Data, which for the most part allow only one level of resolution: sovereign countries. Of course, nations are an economically important concept because of that one property: they are sovereign, and therefore they write laws and implement policies that affect the economy. These policies can be productively compared. But that’s about it — for everything else, nations aren’t the right way to think about wealth. One reason is simply that they’re very different from one another: “it affronts common sense,” Jacobs writes, “to think of units as disparate as, say, Singapore and the United States, or Ecuador and the Soviet Union, or the Netherlands and Canada, as economic common denominators.” I would add that countries are arbitrary and changing: when the Soviet Union was replaced by 15 sovereign countries, the economic reality didn’t suddenly reshape itself to match the new borders. Lastly, nations contain, under the hood, many sub-economies that are also highly different from one another. None of that is secret or forbidden knowledge. Everyone has always been aware that New York City, or Milan, are economically very different from rural Mississippi or Sicily. But I find that it’s far easier to think in terms of “the United States” or “Italy,” especially when you’re not from there. Nations are an abstraction of real-life complexity, and are accordingly very tempting to use. Also, they’re often the entities that collect statistics, which is another difficult-to-resist temptation for anyone who likes quantitative data. Cities as Radiators of Economic Forces If nations aren’t the best unit to analyze the economy, what is? This is a Jane Jacobs book, so the answer is obviously going to be cities. Jacobs doesn’t actually give a clear argument why. Maybe that was in her previous book, The Economy of Cities. So far as I can see, her reasoning is, ironically, a bit tautological: “all developing economic life depends on city economies; it depends on them by definition because, wherever economic life is developing, the very process itself creates cities and has probably always done so.” But so far as I can see, this reasoning is correct. Cities concentrate people, and therefore economic life, and therefore economic power. The driving force for all this is a phenomenon that, from what I gather, was discovered by Jacobs when she wrote The Economy of Cities: import replacement. Consider, say, Boston back when it was a tiny settlement, not yet a city, in colonial times. At first, Boston didn’t produce much, especially not much that would be of interest to its main trading partner, London. It exported some natural resources: timber, fish. Whatever else the Bostonians needed, they needed to import it from other cities, again mostly London. (Remember to think of imports and exports in terms of cities, not nations.) For instance, at first, all metal tools in Boston came from European cities, and were paid for by the revenue from selling the timber and fish. Then, one day, some Bostonians decided to build an ironworks and make metal tools themselves. (Pictured: a reconstruction of the Saugus Iron Works, established 1646.) This wasn’t of any interest to London or other European cities. The Bostonians weren’t nearly as good or efficient at making metal tools as Londonians were. So Boston couldn’t export the metal tools back to Europe — but it could use them internally, and also export them to other American cities that were about as poor as Boston was, or poorer. Internally, this meant the spark of a manufacturing economy in Boston, as easily obtained metal parts made it easier for other Bostonians to replace other imports from European cities, and eventually develop a symbiotic network of industries. It also meant that the revenue from fish and timber could be used to import new things, including new innovations from European cities (which would later become opportunities for more import replacement). And because there were customers for Boston-made metal goods in New York and Philadelphia, and eventually Cincinnati and Chicago and Pittsburgh as these cities came into existence, it meant additional revenue for Boston that it could reinvest into developing its production further. For Jacobs, virtually all city development can be seen through the lens of import replacement (which, to be clear, has approximately nothing to do with policies of import substitution industrialization; import replacement is not a policy, but a naturally arising free market phenomenon). Her book contains many other examples than Boston, such as Venice, which started off in the early Middle Ages as a small town that sold salt to Constantinople, but then diversified its production to become one of the wealthiest cities of its time; or Taipei and Kaohsiung, two cities in Taiwan that kickstarted their development not long before the 1980s, by forcing expropriated landlords to invest into local import-replacing businesses. One is reminded of Scott’s review of How Asia Works. Import replacement, then, is what makes cities economically powerful. And this power is so great that it causes ripples in distant places. In fact it is the main reason that anything happens at all in non-city areas. Jacobs gives the example of Bardou, a small village in southern France. Bardou looks like this: To the extent that Bardou ever had an economic life, that life was almost entirely driven by distant cities. In ancient times, the area was populated because of iron mines nearby. The mines were exploited to serve the needs of people in the distant cities of Lugdunum (Lyon), Nemausus (Nîmes), or even Rome. As Jacobs notes, we could say that the mines served “the Roman Empire,” but that would be another example of using the abstraction of sovereign countries when we should instead be specific. It was Lugdunum, Nemausus and Rome that wanted the iron — not some random rural area of the empire, and certainly not the part of the empire in which Bardou was located. Eventually the mines and the region were abandoned. More than 1,000 years later, peasants moved into the area and built the modern village. For centuries they lived a wretchedly poor life of subsistence farming. No cities exerted any influence on it, and indeed nothing happened. Then, in the 19th century, the people of Bardou learned that they could improve their situation by moving to distant cities such as Paris, and most of them did. Again, the force wasn’t being exerted by “France”; Bardou was already part of France. The force was specifically being exerted by Paris and other cities with jobs for poor peasants. By the 1960s, only one old man was left. That’s when two foreign visitors, a German and an American, happened upon the village, decided to buy most of it, revitalized it, and turned it into a tourist spot (and even, for a brief time, into a set for a movie company). Today Bardou is a popular place for travelers — who are mostly city people, and spend money that was mostly earned in cities. The Bardou story contains examples of several of the forces that import-replacing cities radiate, according to Jacobs. These forces are central to her thinking. There are five of them: Markets. Cities house a lot of people who need a lot of goods and services, and are therefore strong markets to sell goods and services to. This was the force that acted on the Bardou area when it was a Roman mining region, and again today when it functions as a tourist spot for city vacationers.

Inline links: Phillips curve, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!9wEn!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F850ce64a-4367-4a7a-a9ec-e8eb1af3ed08_399x292.png, Our World in Data, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zS15!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d533e64-f407-4b05-aea5-5b5a9dbdc7bc_1600x1130.png, import replacement, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!5j2T!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7f2675d9-ce56-4ac5-9b78-a16720269dea_1600x1159.png, import substitution industrialization, Scott’s review of, Bardou, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!RfMs!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc119b085-f7b3-4e09-a586-9f4fc4c2ea21_1200x1600.png

It was the golden age of technocracy; it was the triumph of high modernism. From now on wealth was assured, because we weren’t blind anymore: we had the curves. And yet — by the 1970s and 1980s, when Jane Jacobs was writing, the theories all stopped working. There was high inflation and high unemployment. People called it stagflation. Keynesian advisers in various governments were devastated: either their ideas were wrong, or they were applying them wrong. Economists such as Milton Friedman, from a rival school of economists called the monetarists or the Chicago school, came to the rescue — but their remedy, Jacobs believes, only made things worse. Whatever governments did to increase employment made inflation worse; whatever they did to attenuate inflation killed employment. The seesaw from the theories was working in application, even though it didn’t explain reality anymore. Stagflation was not supposed to exist, so stagflation could not be fought. At this point we’re near the end of Chapter 1, the densest part of the book. Jacobs has artfully guided us along economic history and laid out the mystery for us. What’s going on? we wonder. How are we supposed to deal with the two-headed monster of stagflation, if all economists are stumped? Then Jacobs, in a masterstroke, flips the whole thing over. I was impressed enough that I would have inserted a spoiler alert here, if it didn’t feel so silly putting a spoiler alert in an essay on economics. Stagflation is not a strange monster from legend. It is, Jacobs says, just the normal state of everything. Backward economies are in fact constantly in a state of stagflation. The prices in a poor country like Portugal or India (her two examples) feel low for an American or Canadian, but they’re high for most Portuguese or Indian people. At the same time, Portugal and India provide too few jobs to their residents. Inflation and unemployment are both perennially high, and none of that feels surprising whatsoever. Stagflation, in short, is just good ol’ poverty. All these fancy economists, from Cantillon in 1700s France to Keynes and Friedman in the 20th century Anglosphere, were thinking and writing about unusual places: rich countries that were undergoing fast economic development. They were making the classic mistake of treating poverty as a mystery and wealth as a given, when in fact poverty is the normal order of things and wealth, when it does occur, is what warrants an explanation. The result is that we don’t really know how to fix the economy of poor countries, nor do we know how to deal with decline in rich countries, whether we call it stagflation or something else. Jacobs derives from this a pretty damning view of macroeconomics. It is to her a science that has failed again and again, each time engulfing the equivalent of billions of dollars in wasted wealth. “We must,” she writes at the close of Chapter 1, “find more realistic and fruitful lines of observation and thought than we have tried to use so far. It is bootless to choose among existing schools of thought. We are on our own.” Fortunately, she has some ideas. II. Nations and the Wealth of Cities The original sin of macroeconomics, Jacobs believe, is to treat sovereign countries, or nations, as the main unit of economic analysis. This error, she claims, goes back to mercantilism, one of the first formal economic policies. Oversimplified, mercantilism states that wealth is synonymous with the amount of gold and silver in a nation’s treasury. This makes nations the main unit of economic analysis by definition. It’s a tautology — and one that was somehow embedded so deep in economic thinking that even the non-mercantilist Adam Smith would eventually choose, for his masterpiece of economic theory, the title An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Today, even though mercantilism has long been obsolete, we perpetuate the same tautology whenever we talk of the Gross Domestic Product or look at the very nice charts from Our World in Data, which for the most part allow only one level of resolution: sovereign countries. Of course, nations are an economically important concept because of that one property: they are sovereign, and therefore they write laws and implement policies that affect the economy. These policies can be productively compared. But that’s about it — for everything else, nations aren’t the right way to think about wealth. One reason is simply that they’re very different from one another: “it affronts common sense,” Jacobs writes, “to think of units as disparate as, say, Singapore and the United States, or Ecuador and the Soviet Union, or the Netherlands and Canada, as economic common denominators.” I would add that countries are arbitrary and changing: when the Soviet Union was replaced by 15 sovereign countries, the economic reality didn’t suddenly reshape itself to match the new borders. Lastly, nations contain, under the hood, many sub-economies that are also highly different from one another. None of that is secret or forbidden knowledge. Everyone has always been aware that New York City, or Milan, are economically very different from rural Mississippi or Sicily. But I find that it’s far easier to think in terms of “the United States” or “Italy,” especially when you’re not from there. Nations are an abstraction of real-life complexity, and are accordingly very tempting to use. Also, they’re often the entities that collect statistics, which is another difficult-to-resist temptation for anyone who likes quantitative data. Cities as Radiators of Economic Forces If nations aren’t the best unit to analyze the economy, what is? This is a Jane Jacobs book, so the answer is obviously going to be cities. Jacobs doesn’t actually give a clear argument why. Maybe that was in her previous book, The Economy of Cities. So far as I can see, her reasoning is, ironically, a bit tautological: “all developing economic life depends on city economies; it depends on them by definition because, wherever economic life is developing, the very process itself creates cities and has probably always done so.” But so far as I can see, this reasoning is correct. Cities concentrate people, and therefore economic life, and therefore economic power. The driving force for all this is a phenomenon that, from what I gather, was discovered by Jacobs when she wrote The Economy of Cities: import replacement. Consider, say, Boston back when it was a tiny settlement, not yet a city, in colonial times. At first, Boston didn’t produce much, especially not much that would be of interest to its main trading partner, London. It exported some natural resources: timber, fish. Whatever else the Bostonians needed, they needed to import it from other cities, again mostly London. (Remember to think of imports and exports in terms of cities, not nations.) For instance, at first, all metal tools in Boston came from European cities, and were paid for by the revenue from selling the timber and fish. Then, one day, some Bostonians decided to build an ironworks and make metal tools themselves. (Pictured: a reconstruction of the Saugus Iron Works, established 1646.) This wasn’t of any interest to London or other European cities. The Bostonians weren’t nearly as good or efficient at making metal tools as Londonians were. So Boston couldn’t export the metal tools back to Europe — but it could use them internally, and also export them to other American cities that were about as poor as Boston was, or poorer. Internally, this meant the spark of a manufacturing economy in Boston, as easily obtained metal parts made it easier for other Bostonians to replace other imports from European cities, and eventually develop a symbiotic network of industries. It also meant that the revenue from fish and timber could be used to import new things, including new innovations from European cities (which would later become opportunities for more import replacement). And because there were customers for Boston-made metal goods in New York and Philadelphia, and eventually Cincinnati and Chicago and Pittsburgh as these cities came into existence, it meant additional revenue for Boston that it could reinvest into developing its production further. For Jacobs, virtually all city development can be seen through the lens of import replacement (which, to be clear, has approximately nothing to do with policies of import substitution industrialization; import replacement is not a policy, but a naturally arising free market phenomenon). Her book contains many other examples than Boston, such as Venice, which started off in the early Middle Ages as a small town that sold salt to Constantinople, but then diversified its production to become one of the wealthiest cities of its time; or Taipei and Kaohsiung, two cities in Taiwan that kickstarted their development not long before the 1980s, by forcing expropriated landlords to invest into local import-replacing businesses. One is reminded of Scott’s review of How Asia Works. Import replacement, then, is what makes cities economically powerful. And this power is so great that it causes ripples in distant places. In fact it is the main reason that anything happens at all in non-city areas. Jacobs gives the example of Bardou, a small village in southern France. Bardou looks like this: To the extent that Bardou ever had an economic life, that life was almost entirely driven by distant cities. In ancient times, the area was populated because of iron mines nearby. The mines were exploited to serve the needs of people in the distant cities of Lugdunum (Lyon), Nemausus (Nîmes), or even Rome. As Jacobs notes, we could say that the mines served “the Roman Empire,” but that would be another example of using the abstraction of sovereign countries when we should instead be specific. It was Lugdunum, Nemausus and Rome that wanted the iron — not some random rural area of the empire, and certainly not the part of the empire in which Bardou was located. Eventually the mines and the region were abandoned. More than 1,000 years later, peasants moved into the area and built the modern village. For centuries they lived a wretchedly poor life of subsistence farming. No cities exerted any influence on it, and indeed nothing happened. Then, in the 19th century, the people of Bardou learned that they could improve their situation by moving to distant cities such as Paris, and most of them did. Again, the force wasn’t being exerted by “France”; Bardou was already part of France. The force was specifically being exerted by Paris and other cities with jobs for poor peasants. By the 1960s, only one old man was left. That’s when two foreign visitors, a German and an American, happened upon the village, decided to buy most of it, revitalized it, and turned it into a tourist spot (and even, for a brief time, into a set for a movie company). Today Bardou is a popular place for travelers — who are mostly city people, and spend money that was mostly earned in cities. The Bardou story contains examples of several of the forces that import-replacing cities radiate, according to Jacobs. These forces are central to her thinking. There are five of them: Markets. Cities house a lot of people who need a lot of goods and services, and are therefore strong markets to sell goods and services to. This was the force that acted on the Bardou area when it was a Roman mining region, and again today when it functions as a tourist spot for city vacationers.

Inline links: Our World in Data, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zS15!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d533e64-f407-4b05-aea5-5b5a9dbdc7bc_1600x1130.png, import replacement, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!5j2T!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7f2675d9-ce56-4ac5-9b78-a16720269dea_1600x1159.png, import substitution industrialization, Scott’s review of, Bardou, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!RfMs!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc119b085-f7b3-4e09-a586-9f4fc4c2ea21_1200x1600.png

2022 ACX survey2 mentions across 2 issues

2022 ACX survey is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between June 14, 2024 and May 22, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "So I asked about this on the 2022 and 2024 ACX surveys"; "I actually asked about this on the 2022 ACX survey". It most often appears alongside 2024 ACX survey, ACX, ACX Survey.

Article page: 2022 ACX survey
Mention count: 2
Issue count: 2
First seen: June 14, 2024
Last seen: May 22, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

Failure To Replicate Anti-Vaccine Poll June 14, 2024
The Evidence That A Million Americans Died Of COVID May 22, 2025

2024 ACX survey 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
ACX Survey 1 shared issues
ACX Survey Results 1 shared issues
CDC 1 shared issues

Source context

Failure To Replicate Anti-Vaccine Poll

June 14, 2024 · Original source

So I asked about this on the 2022 and 2024 ACX surveys. Both gave similar results, but I’m going to focus on the 2024 survey, since I did the most followup on it. Here “family” was defined on the question page as including “brother, sister, mother, father, child, aunt, uncle, grandparent, grandchild, niece, or nephew”. This is broader than Pollfish’s “member of your household” but narrower than Rasmussen’s “person you know”. Kirsch and I got similar results for knowing someone who died of COVID - 6.5% vs. 7.5%. But we got very different results for knowing someone who died from the vaccine: Kirsch’s 8.5% vs. my 0.6%. Why? As people love to point out, my survey is a nonrepresentative sample. But as I point out, it’s important to keep track of when that should vs. shouldn’t matter. No matter how weird my readers are, they’re not biologically invincible - they should have side effects at similar rates to anyone else. One possibility is that my readers are very pro-vaccine compared to the general population, so they interpret ambiguous cases in a more pro-vaccine way. I didn’t have a question about vaccine-related views, but it’s no secret that vaccine opponents are more often right-wing, so I looked at questions about politics. Conservatives in general were only slightly more likely (1%) to report vaccine deaths compared to liberals (0.4%). But I had a question where people ranked their support for Donald Trump. Trump supporters had much higher vaccine injury rates (7.5%) than moderates (1.3%) or opponents (0.3%). I couldn’t find much of an effect by gender, education level, or any of the other traditional demographic categories. This doesn’t quite explain the difference between my survey and the others, since my moderates had 1.3% side effect rate, and the Rasmussen moderates had 22%. But it does suggest that there’s room for political beliefs to alter perception of relatives’ vaccine deaths. II. All of this would be much clearer if we could get in there and ask the people who said their relatives died from vaccines what they meant. Most ACX Survey respondents gave me permission to email them. So I emailed the people who answered “yes” to that question and asked for their story. Some details: 5,981 people took the survey

Inline links: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Emtd!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbe05b487-80af-4c93-af22-8abf99fa2f13_799x682.png, as

The Evidence That A Million Americans Died Of COVID

May 22, 2025 · Original source

I actually asked about this on the 2022 ACX survey (as part of the research for this post). 6.5% of respondents said a family member had died of COVID (with “family member” described as “first and second degree relatives - ie self, brother, sister, mother, father, child, aunt, uncle, grandparent, grandchild, niece, or nephew”). I think this number is compatible with both “it killed a million people” and “it’s not surprising that most people don’t know anyone who it killed”.

Inline links: the 2022 ACX survey, this post

2022 book review contest2 mentions across 2 issues

2022 book review contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between July 22, 2022 and December 30, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "This is one of the finalists in the 2022 book review contest"; "One of the 2022 Book Review contest finalists was a Carter biography". It most often appears alongside Astralcodexten Com, 2020 election, 2122.

Article page: 2022 book review contest
Mention count: 2
Issue count: 2
First seen: July 22, 2022
Last seen: December 30, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Society Of The Spectacle July 22, 2022
Open Thread 362 December 30, 2024

Astralcodexten Com 2 shared issues
2020 election 1 shared issues
2122 1 shared issues
Afghanistan 1 shared issues
Africa 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: The Society Of The Spectacle

July 22, 2022 · Original source

[This is one of the finalists in the 2022 book review contest. It’s not by me - it’s by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done, to prevent their identity from influencing your decisions. I’ll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you’ve read them all, I’ll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked - SA]

Open Thread 362

December 30, 2024 · Original source

1: RIP Jimmy Carter. One of the 2022 Book Review contest finalists was a Carter biography, which I reread today in his honor.

Inline links: a Carter biography

2023 Prediction Contest2 mentions across 2 issues

2023 Prediction Contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between January 01, 2023 and January 08, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "You have about one more week to get your first-round answers in for the 2023 Prediction Contest"; "your last chance to submit guesses to the 2023 Prediction Contest in Blind Mode". It most often appears alongside ACX, @dropbella, ACX Survey.

Article page: 2023 Prediction Contest
Mention count: 2
Issue count: 2
First seen: January 01, 2023
Last seen: January 08, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 257 January 01, 2023
Open Thread 258 January 08, 2023

ACX 2 shared issues
@dropbella 1 shared issues
ACX Survey 1 shared issues
Adam Strandberg 1 shared issues
Albion’s Seed 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 257

January 01, 2023 · Original source

5: You have about one more week to get your first-round answers in for the 2023 Prediction Contest. Also, I think it would be fun (not necessarily scientific, but fun) to highlight and compare the answers of various famous people. If you’re a “famous” person (I’m thinking eg Zvi or Richard Hanania, not Joe Biden) who has already entered or is interested in entering, please send me an email so we can discuss whether it’s okay for me to do that (by default I won’t).

Inline links: 2023 Prediction Contest

Open Thread 258

January 08, 2023 · Original source

2: This is your last chance to submit guesses to the 2023 Prediction Contest in Blind Mode, or to resubmit more up-to-date predictions if you submitted earlier and really want to do that (I will try to remove predictions about things that changed too much over the past few weeks, so don’t feel obligated).

Inline links: the 2023 Prediction Contest

2024 election2 mentions across 2 issues

2024 election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between March 21, 2024 and May 13, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "What is the probability that Joe Biden will win the 2024 election?"; "Polymarket on 2024 election results". It most often appears alongside Manifold, 17 CFR Part 40, 2050.

Article page: 2024 election
Mention count: 2
Issue count: 2
First seen: March 21, 2024
Last seen: May 13, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

In Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities March 21, 2024
24 May 13, 2024

Manifold 2 shared issues
17 CFR Part 40 1 shared issues
2050 1 shared issues
AI 1 shared issues
Austin 1 shared issues

Source context

In Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities

March 21, 2024 · Original source

What is the probability that Joe Biden will win the 2024 election?

May 13, 2024 · Original source

Nate Silver, Josh Barro, and others have been banging this drum recently: the most important thing Democrats can do this year is get Sonia Sotomayor to retire. Sotomayor is an older liberal-leaning Supreme Court justice. She might get sick or die in the next four years, and if Republicans win the 2024 election, then they get to choose her replacement and the Court shifts even further right. If she retired today, Biden and the Democratic Senate would choose her replacement and the Court wouldn’t shift. She doesn’t want to resign, but Silver (remembering the similar case of RBG) thinks Democrats should pressure her as best they can. The markets have been shifting between 20% and 40%, but don’t seem to expect this to happen.

Inline links: Nate Silver, Josh Barro

Polymarket on 2024 election results. In the past they’ve had a Republican bias, but now their Presidential markets are in tune with everyone else in the polls, so maybe this is accurate.

2024 US election2 mentions across 2 issues

2024 US election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between June 27, 2024 and March 03, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as "historical simulation of the 2024 US election"; "OSCE described the 2024 US election as". It most often appears alongside America, Las Vegas, Trump.

Article page: 2024 US election
Mention count: 2
Issue count: 2
First seen: June 27, 2024
Last seen: March 03, 2026

Outbound links

Issue trail

My 2024 Presidential Debate June 27, 2024
Mantic Monday: Groundhog Day March 03, 2026

America 2 shared issues
Las Vegas 2 shared issues
Trump 2 shared issues
2016 1 shared issues
2020 1 shared issues

Source context

Mantic Monday: Groundhog Day

June 27, 2024 · Original source

Biden: My fellow Americans, I am humbled to standing here before you today as your President. No, more than humbled. Flabbergasted. Do you realize how bizarre it is, that, out of eight billion humans, I’m the leader of the most powerful country in the world? It doesn’t make sense. It makes sense to you, because someone has to be President. But it doesn’t make sense to me, because the sheer coincidence that the person I happen to be is also the person who is President - that has one in eight billion odds. I don’t know exactly what’s going on here. Sometimes I think it’s some sort of weird dream I’m having, and I’ll wake up and be a sanitation engineer in Pittsburgh or something. But this seems more vivid and more continuous than a dream. I think the more likely explanation is that some future posthuman is running a historical simulation of the 2024 US election, and that only I and maybe my opponent are fully-conscious humans with real internal experiences. For years I’ve tried to escape this conclusion, but it looms before me, as compelling as it’s ever been.

March 03, 2026 · Original source

A Manifold market with 25 forecasters gives a 41% chance that the elections aren’t considered “free and fair”. The resolution criteria is the opinion of international election observers and the mainstream media, who lean liberal. In the past, these observers have sometimes given the US a less-than-perfect verdict - for example, OSCE described the 2024 US election as:

2019 government shut down1 mentions across 1 issues

1/2019 government shut down is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 19, 2021 and April 19, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "Predicting that the 1/2019 government shut down would last a long time". It most often appears alongside #Resistance, 538, 538.

Reference entry: 2019 government shut down
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 19, 2021
Last seen: April 19, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Mantic Monday: Grading My Trump Predictions April 19, 2021

#Resistance 1 shared issues
538 1 shared issues
538 1 shared issues
alt-right 1 shared issues
Ann Arbor 1 shared issues

Source context

Mantic Monday: Grading My Trump Predictions

April 19, 2021 · Original source

- Predicting that the 1/2019 government shut down would last a long time. I figured there was more partisanship than ever before, neither Trump nor Congressional Democrats seemed like the sort of people who would back down, and so it was fair to take an Inside View and assume this shutdown would last longer than previous ones. I made another $150.

221 mentions across 1 issues

1/28/22 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 21, 2022 and January 21, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "Please submit by 1/28/22 if you want to be included". It most often appears alongside ACX Grants, Aries, Bitcoin.

Reference entry: 22
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 21, 2022
Last seen: January 21, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Resubmit And Summarize Your Proposals For Grants ++ January 21, 2022

ACX Grants 1 shared issues
Aries 1 shared issues
Bitcoin 1 shared issues
Elizabeth I 1 shared issues
Galactic Emperor 1 shared issues

Source context

Resubmit And Summarize Your Proposals For Grants ++

January 21, 2022 · Original source

Please submit by 1/28/22 if you want to be included.

10001 mentions across 1 issues

1000 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2022 and May 04, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "1000, the first Turks start moving west". It most often appears alongside 1200, 1400, 1650.

Reference entry: 1000
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2022
Last seen: May 04, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Every Bay Area House Party May 04, 2022

1200 1 shared issues
1400 1 shared issues
1650 1 shared issues
400 AD 1 shared issues
700 1 shared issues

Source context

May 04, 2022 · Original source

“Oh yeah. You look at history, and once every two hundred, three hundred years they get their act together, form a big confederation, and invade either China, the West, or both. It’s like clockwork. 400 AD, you get the Huns. 700, the Magyars. 1000, the first Turks start moving west. 1200, Genghis Khan, killed 10% of the world population. 1400, Tamerlane, killed another 5%. 1650, the Ming-Qing transition in China, also killed 5%. We’re more than 50 years overdue at this point.”

12001 mentions across 1 issues

1200 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2022 and May 04, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "1200, Genghis Khan, killed 10% of the world population". It most often appears alongside 1000, 1400, 1650.

Reference entry: 1200
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2022
Last seen: May 04, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Every Bay Area House Party May 04, 2022

1000 1 shared issues
1400 1 shared issues
1650 1 shared issues
400 AD 1 shared issues
700 1 shared issues

Source context

May 04, 2022 · Original source

“Oh yeah. You look at history, and once every two hundred, three hundred years they get their act together, form a big confederation, and invade either China, the West, or both. It’s like clockwork. 400 AD, you get the Huns. 700, the Magyars. 1000, the first Turks start moving west. 1200, Genghis Khan, killed 10% of the world population. 1400, Tamerlane, killed another 5%. 1650, the Ming-Qing transition in China, also killed 5%. We’re more than 50 years overdue at this point.”

14001 mentions across 1 issues

1400 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2022 and May 04, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "1400, Tamerlane, killed another 5%". It most often appears alongside 1000, 1200, 1650.

Reference entry: 1400
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2022
Last seen: May 04, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Every Bay Area House Party May 04, 2022

1000 1 shared issues
1200 1 shared issues
1650 1 shared issues
400 AD 1 shared issues
700 1 shared issues

Source context

Book Review: The Rise Of Christianity

May 04, 2022 · Original source

“Oh yeah. You look at history, and once every two hundred, three hundred years they get their act together, form a big confederation, and invade either China, the West, or both. It’s like clockwork. 400 AD, you get the Huns. 700, the Magyars. 1000, the first Turks start moving west. 1200, Genghis Khan, killed 10% of the world population. 1400, Tamerlane, killed another 5%. 1650, the Ming-Qing transition in China, also killed 5%. We’re more than 50 years overdue at this point.”

165 AD1 mentions across 1 issues

165 AD is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between November 12, 2024 and November 12, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "the Antonine Plague - the one that killed 33% of Romans in 165 AD". It most often appears alongside 1 Peter 3, 1990s, Adolf von Harnack.

Reference entry: 165 AD
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: November 12, 2024
Last seen: November 12, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Book Review: The Rise Of Christianity November 12, 2024

1 Peter 3 1 shared issues
1990s 1 shared issues
Adolf von Harnack 1 shared issues
Alexandria 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues

Source context

November 12, 2024 · Original source

…and 5 “really serious” famines …for an average of one catastrophe per fifteen years. The Romans rebuilt the city each time because it was strategically important. Stark focuses on one of these disasters: plague. The Roman Empire suffered two major plagues during this era: the Antonine Plague of 165 AD and the Cyprian Plague of 251 AD . He theorizes that Christians made it through these plagues much better than pagans, gaining an additional population boost. Time for some game theory: when a plague comes, you can either defect (flee / self-isolate / hide) or cooperate (altruistically try to help nurse other victims). An individual does better by defecting, but a community does better if all its members cooperate. Stark thinks the pagans defected and the Christians cooperated. Here is Thucydides’ description of a plague in pagan Athens (admittedly ~500 years before the time we’re studying). People quickly got an instinctive proto-knowledge of how contagion worked, after which: [People] died with no one to look after them; indeed there were many houses in which all the inhabitants perished through lack of any attention…the bodies of the dying were heaped one on top of the other, and half-dead creatures could be seen staggering about in the streets or flocking around the fountains in their desire for water. The temples in which they took up their quarters were full of the dead bodies of people who had died inside them. For the catastrophe was so overwhelming that men, not knowing what would happen next to them, became indifferent to every rule of religion or law. Compare the Christian writer Dionysius’s description of a plague afflicting his own community: Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy, for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains. Many, in nursing and curing others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead. The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters, deacons, and laymen winning high commendation so that death in this form, the result of great piety and strong faith, seems in every way the equal of martyrdom […] The heathen behaved in the very opposite way. At the first onset of the disease, they pushed the sufferers away and fled from their dearest, throwing them in the roads before they were dead and treated unburied corpses as dirt, hoping thereby to avert the spread and contagion of the fatal disease. Could Dionysius be embellishing matters to make his friends look good and his enemies bad? Maybe, but: There was compelling evidence from pagan sources that this was characteristic Christian behavior. Thus, a century later, the emperor Julian launched a campaign to institute pagan charities in an effort to match the Christians. Julian complained in a letter to the high priest of Galatia in 362 that the pagans needed to equal the virtues of Christians, for recent Christian growth was caused by their “moral character, even if pretended,” and by their “benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead”. In a letter to another priest, Julian wrote, “I think that when the poor happened to be neglected and overlooked by the priests, the impious Galileans observed this and devoted themselves to benevolence.” And he also wrote, “The impious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well, everyone can see that our people lack aid from us.” Did this matter? It might have! “Modern medical experts believe that conscientious nursing without any medications could cut the mortality rate by 2/3 or even more.” (if this sounds implausible, keep in mind that “nursing” here includes things like “bringing water from the public well to bedridden people who are too weak to go out and get it themselves”.) Stark believes that plagues helped the Christians in multiple ways: The obvious way: 30% of pagans died during the plague, but only 10% of Christians, making Christians proportionally more of the population.

The book speculated that the Antonine Plague - the one that killed 33% of Romans in 165 AD - was probably smallpox. A population’s first encounter with smallpox is inevitably horrible - just ask the Native Americans. 165 AD might have been when the disease first evolved, which explains why the Europeans suffered Native American level death rates.

16501 mentions across 1 issues

1650 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2022 and May 04, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "1650, the Ming-Qing transition in China". It most often appears alongside 1000, 1200, 1400.

Reference entry: 1650
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2022
Last seen: May 04, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Every Bay Area House Party May 04, 2022

1000 1 shared issues
1200 1 shared issues
1400 1 shared issues
400 AD 1 shared issues
700 1 shared issues

Source context

Triple Tragedy And Thankful Theory

May 04, 2022 · Original source

“Oh yeah. You look at history, and once every two hundred, three hundred years they get their act together, form a big confederation, and invade either China, the West, or both. It’s like clockwork. 400 AD, you get the Huns. 700, the Magyars. 1000, the first Turks start moving west. 1200, Genghis Khan, killed 10% of the world population. 1400, Tamerlane, killed another 5%. 1650, the Ming-Qing transition in China, also killed 5%. We’re more than 50 years overdue at this point.”

“That’s what the Ming Dynasty thought in 1650. You know, they had guns, they had cannons, they figured that horse archers wouldn’t be able to take them on anymore. Turned out they were wrong. The nomads got them too.”

16th of August1 mentions across 1 issues

16th of August is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between October 09, 2024 and October 09, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "Neurosurgery is scheduled for the 16th of August". It most often appears alongside Bodhicaryāvatāra, CAT scan, Consciousness As Recursive Reflections.

Reference entry: 16th of August
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: October 09, 2024
Last seen: October 09, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Triple Tragedy And Thankful Theory October 09, 2024

Bodhicaryāvatāra 1 shared issues
CAT scan 1 shared issues
Consciousness As Recursive Reflections 1 shared issues
Daniel Böttger 1 shared issues
Divina Comedia 1 shared issues

Source context

October 09, 2024 · Original source

Neurosurgery is scheduled for the 16th of August. Survival is doubtful, because the thing had so much time to grow huge. Lasting neurological damage is likely. Although each of the first Sermons took months or years to write because of their highly constrained form, in a mad dash of activity the final Sermon (half-finished at the time of the car crash) and the video are complete in just a few weeks, so my life's work is done before I might die. With our joint task complete, the tumor should more easily depart. The idea is utterly implausible, that is not how causality works. How very right it feels is strong evidence of insanity.

Inline links: final Sermon, the video

17901 mentions across 1 issues

1790 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between March 16, 2026 and March 16, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as "amendment might have been passed by an extra state in 1790". It most often appears alongside Astralcodexten Com, Caral, I_Eat_Pork.

Reference entry: 1790
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: March 16, 2026
Last seen: March 16, 2026

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 425 March 16, 2026

Astralcodexten Com 1 shared issues
Caral 1 shared issues
I_Eat_Pork 1 shared issues
Italian referendum 1 shared issues
Lines Composed In A Fake Sequoia Forest 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 425

March 16, 2026 · Original source

2: Some good responses to the post on the constitutional amendment about Giant Congress. In case you were wondering whether the reversed meaning in the amendment was really a typo, commenter i_eat_pork tracked down the history, and yeah, definitely a typo. And commenter Caral found that the amendment might have been passed by an extra state in 1790, and therefore should be considered ratified - but DC was never informed, and there’s no clear way to tell the legal system “hey, there’s a amendment you don’t know about which should legally be in effect”. A job for an enterprising constitutional lawyer?

Inline links: the post on the constitutional amendment about Giant Congress, yeah, definitely a typo, the amendment might have been passed by an extra state in 1790

19021 mentions across 1 issues

1902 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 15, 2021 and July 15, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "in 1902 an article reported that fully one-third of patients visiting hospitals for consultations were suffering". It most often appears alongside 1903, 1906 Japanese neurology journal, 1970s feminists.

Reference entry: 1902
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 15, 2021
Last seen: July 15, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Book Review: Crazy Like Us July 15, 2021

1903 1 shared issues
1906 Japanese neurology journal 1 shared issues
1970s feminists 1 shared issues
Abkhazia 1 shared issues
Afghan War 1 shared issues

Source context

Book Review: Crazy Like Us

July 15, 2021 · Original source

Much more fun was the history of Japanese mental illness, which focused on neurasthensia. This was another one of those fully-generic late-1800s diagnoses like hysteria (I assume late-1800s psychiatrists just sort of flipped a coin: heads you were neurasthenic, tails you were hysteric). Around the Meiji Restoration, when everyone was obsessed with how great foreign stuff was, Japanese medical students went to Germany, learned psychiatry, came back to Japan, and told everyone they were neurasthenic. Being neurasthenic became first a fashion, then a class marker. The idea was that neurasthenics were people who were working too hard (good, admirable), and who were so smart and doing so much furious intellectual activity that it was straining their nerves (impressive). Also, they were probably sensitive souls too pure for this world. The most embarrassing extreme of this happened in 1903, when some photogenic Japanese youth carved a poem in a tree, went to a beautiful waterfall, and leapt to his death. Everyone praised him for how sensitive and artistic and neurasthenic this was, and turned him into a posthumous national hero. Meanwhile, “in 1902 an article reported that fully one-third of patients visiting hospitals for consultations were suffering from the new disease.”

19031 mentions across 1 issues

1903 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 15, 2021 and July 15, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "The most embarrassing extreme of this happened in 1903, when some photogenic Japanese youth carved a poem in a tree". It most often appears alongside 1902, 1906 Japanese neurology journal, 1970s feminists.

Reference entry: 1903
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 15, 2021
Last seen: July 15, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Book Review: Crazy Like Us July 15, 2021

1902 1 shared issues
1906 Japanese neurology journal 1 shared issues
1970s feminists 1 shared issues
Abkhazia 1 shared issues
Afghan War 1 shared issues

Source context

Book Review: Crazy Like Us

July 15, 2021 · Original source

Much more fun was the history of Japanese mental illness, which focused on neurasthensia. This was another one of those fully-generic late-1800s diagnoses like hysteria (I assume late-1800s psychiatrists just sort of flipped a coin: heads you were neurasthenic, tails you were hysteric). Around the Meiji Restoration, when everyone was obsessed with how great foreign stuff was, Japanese medical students went to Germany, learned psychiatry, came back to Japan, and told everyone they were neurasthenic. Being neurasthenic became first a fashion, then a class marker. The idea was that neurasthenics were people who were working too hard (good, admirable), and who were so smart and doing so much furious intellectual activity that it was straining their nerves (impressive). Also, they were probably sensitive souls too pure for this world. The most embarrassing extreme of this happened in 1903, when some photogenic Japanese youth carved a poem in a tree, went to a beautiful waterfall, and leapt to his death. Everyone praised him for how sensitive and artistic and neurasthenic this was, and turned him into a posthumous national hero. Meanwhile, “in 1902 an article reported that fully one-third of patients visiting hospitals for consultations were suffering from the new disease.”

1906 SF earthquake1 mentions across 1 issues

1906 SF earthquake is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 29, 2024 and July 29, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "Linch with a funny story on how the 1906 SF earthquake affected the Chinese-American community". It most often appears alongside ACX, Argentine economy, Bad Therapy.

Reference entry: 1906 SF earthquake
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 29, 2024
Last seen: July 29, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 340 July 29, 2024

ACX 1 shared issues
Argentine economy 1 shared issues
Bad Therapy 1 shared issues
Ban The Box 1 shared issues
Center for Addiction Science Policy & Research 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 340

July 29, 2024 · Original source

Linch with a funny story on how the 1906 SF earthquake affected the Chinese-American community.

Inline links: a funny story

1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine1 mentions across 1 issues

1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 09, 2021 and April 09, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine". It most often appears alongside Alexandria, Aristotelian, Aristotle.

Reference entry: 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 09, 2021
Last seen: April 09, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: On The Natural Faculties April 09, 2021

Alexandria 1 shared issues
Aristotelian 1 shared issues
Aristotle 1 shared issues
Aristotle’s physics 1 shared issues
Arthur John Brock 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: On The Natural Faculties

April 09, 2021 · Original source

Centuries went by, but not much changed. Charles Richet, winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, said that Galen and “all the physicians who followed [him] during sixteen centuries, describe humours which they had never seen, and which no one will ever see, for they do not exist.” Some of the ‘humors’ exist, he says, like blood and bile. But of the “extraordinary phlegm or pituitary accretion” he says, “where is it? Who will ever see it? Who has ever seen it? What can we say of this fanciful classification of humours into four groups, of which two are absolutely imaginary?”

19181 mentions across 1 issues

1918 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 01, 2025 and January 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "1918: An H1N1 flu (“Spanish flu”) jumped from birds to humans in America and killed 50 million people worldwide". It most often appears alongside 1940s, 1968, 1977.

Reference entry: 1918
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 01, 2025
Last seen: January 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

H5N1: Much More Than You Wanted To Know January 01, 2025

1940s 1 shared issues
1968 1 shared issues
1977 1 shared issues
2009 1 shared issues
Asian flu 1 shared issues

Source context

Inline links: was found in pigs, Jeremiah Johnson’s, mine, a CDC-sponsored respiratory disease forecasting tournament, dimaklenchin, Sergio, reported human-to-human transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 globally before 2026, human cases, past events, vaccine for cattle is licensed soon, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!fL7J!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd6a70fa6-b356-422d-ba9a-5db431e5a056_751x471.png, The Institute For Progress estimated, news, sources, scientists, Sentinel discusses

January 01, 2025 · Original source

From “Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus”, linked above. You may recognize the lead author - Michael Worobey has also been a leading voice on the zoonotic side of the COVID origins debate. The recent history of the flu, as far as I can tell, is: 1918: An H1N1 flu (“Spanish flu”) jumped from birds to humans in America and killed 50 million people worldwide. This replaced all older strains, so most seasonal flus during this era were H1N1. 1957: An H2N2 flu (“Asian flu”) crossed from birds to humans in China, and killed about 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H1N1 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H2N2. 1968: An H3N2 flu (“Hong Kong flu”) crossed from pigs (?) to humans in Hong Kong, and killed another 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H2N2 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H3N2. 1977: An H1N1 flu (“Russian flu”) leaked from a biology lab (?) in Russia (it might have been a strain from the 1940s, which the Russians were trying to make a vaccine for). It didn’t kill that many people, but it stuck around, and from then on, seasonal flus could be either H3N2 or H1N1. 2009: An H1N1 flu (“Mexican flu” until the PC police stepped in; afterwards “swine flu”) took some horrible circuitous route between birds and pigs and back again, crossed over into humans in Mexico, and killed 200,000 people. It outcompeted older strains of H1N1, but couldn’t crowd out H3N2, so seasonal flus are still either H3N2 or H1N1. …which brings us to the present, hopefully illuminating why “new flu strain crosses over from animals into humans” is such an “uh oh” moment. The Bird Flu Technically, all pandemic flus start as bird flus. Influenza A evolved in birds. Sometimes it spreads to other animals, including pigs, cattle, and humans. The most common way for a bird flu to spread to humans is to “reassort” (not exactly virus sex, but close enough, and the real version is less memorable) with a human flu virus (ie one that has already crossed over to humans). The resulting virus has all of the human flu virus’ human adaptations, but borrows enough new antigens from the bird virus to evade the immune system. Pigs can be infected by both human and bird viruses, so they are a common place for this reassortment to take place. If reassortment is sort of like viral sex, pigs are sort of like Tinder. When a bird flu and human flu reassort in pigs, the resulting disease is called a swine flu. At least the 2009 flu pandemic was a swine flu, and a minority opinion thinks the 1918 pandemic was too. There aren’t major epidemiological differences between direct-from-bird flus and swine flus. H5N1 was first noticed in birds - specifically, a flock of chickens in Scotland in 1959 - after which it disappeared for forty years. In 1996, it showed up in geese in China, then gradually increased its market share among birds worldwide. In 2022, it was found in minks; apparently it had learned to infect mammals. By early 2024, it was seen in cows. Now it’s in cow herds in 16 states, and one of them (California) has declared a state of emergency. And in October, H5N1 was found in pigs for the first time. It’s not uncommon for humans to catch an animal disease. This doesn’t mean the disease has “crossed over” to humans. If the virus isn’t suited to human-to-human transmission, it simply dies off (either before or after killing its human host). Thus, chicken farmers have been reporting scattered H5N1 cases since 1997; now that the virus has spread to cattle, cow farmers have started reporting the same. A Metaculus comment on this topic introduced me to the phrase “biocomputational surface”. Every viral replication that takes place in a human gives the virus one more chance to develop the set of mutations that makes it human-transmissible and start the next pandemic. Or, more likely, every viral replication that takes place in a human who has both the H5N1 bird flu and a normal human flu - or in a pig which has both viruses - gives the virus one extra chance to reassort in a way that produces a bird-antigen-fortified human-adapted flu virus. This doesn’t mean H5N1 will definitely become human-transmissible soon. Many viruses hang out on the borders of transmissibility for decades. Some, for unclear reasons, never cross over at all. But all of this is compatible with the virus becoming transmissible soon. So: What Is The Chance Of A Pandemic? The prediction markets on this topic ask a question about “10,000 cases in the United States”. Does this necessarily mean “pandemic”? Might it be possible to get to 10,000 cases just from the scattered chicken and cow farmers, with no human-to-human transmission? Despite many chicken and cow infections this year, there have only been 60 - 70 recorded human cases. Unless there is a phase change in screening methods, it seems hard for this number to increase to 10,000 off farmers alone. I think it’s fair to treat this question as operationalizing “what is the chance of a pandemic”? By this definition, Manifold estimates a 40% chance of an H5N1 pandemic in 2025. Metaculus estimates a 5% chance. You can see below whether that’s changed since I wrote this essay: 5% versus 40% is a big difference! Who do we trust? I trust Metaculus. Metaculus has beaten Manifold in both of the two head-to-head comparisons that I know of (Jeremiah Johnson’s and mine). Manifold’s number swings by a factor of two from week to week; Metaculus has been steady. But also, Metaculus hosts a CDC-sponsored respiratory disease forecasting tournament which has enriched them in epidemiological expertise. And if you look at the quality of comments on both sites, it’s pretty obvious where the people with more intellectual chops are hanging out. The Manifold comments are mostly single sentences, or occasionally just links to an article about new cases. The Metaculus comments look more like this one by dimaklenchin: Despite the panic propaganda, H5N1 is unlikely to be "just a single mutation away from switching host preference": 1) It normally takes a lot more than a single mutation to switch hosts. E.g., there are at least five different reasons why SIV (monkey equivalent of HIV) is not infectious to humans. Heck, a variant of SIV that bears HIV's receptor-recognizing surface protein (SHIV) is still not infectious to humans. HIV most certainly evolved from SIV but, almost as certainly, it took a very long time to get there. Not that all viruses are the same and things can't turn out differently with flu, but I don't subscribe to the idea that a mere change of receptor specificity (something that can take 1-2 mutations) will be sufficient. 2) We have data. Lots of human infections with other varieties of bird flu in the past - all those viruses ultimately went nowhere. Why would H5N1 be radically different? E.g., the "Canadian teen", despite what sounds like a prolonged exposure, failed to infect anyone around him. Since I am at 18% for the h-2-h H5N1 detection in 2025, I am arbitrarily going ~ an order of magnitude lower than that for something as unprecedented as 10K human infections. Maybe should be much lower but hedging for the time being and will allow another couple months of observations. And Sergio: I'm currently at 20% on the question of reported human-to-human transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 globally before 2026. However, this question is only about the US, and is more general about all subtypes of H5. But H5N1 very strongly appears to be the most important subtype to consider in this time period. And, given the current situation in the US with H5N1 human cases derived from exposure to poultry or cattle (with cattle(mammals) being more worrisome), h2h transmission seems quite more likely to arise in North America than elsewhere before 2026. Conditioning on h2h transmission in the US (and also trying to consider, with lower probability, a start in Canada), I want to estimate the chances that it becomes sustained and out of control (in which case, if it starts in Canada, I largely expect it to spread to the US). The (6) past events of probable h2h transmission of avian H5(N1), none of which were sustained, could serve as a base rate, although I'm a bit wary of giving much weight to this precedent, since the last event was quite a while ago (2007), and also because reporting and testing standards may have improved considerably since then (so perhaps they might not have been classified as h2h transmission events if they had occurred more recently). The current situation in the US, and events such as the Canadian teen who got sick with H5N1, do suggest a higher background level of risk than normal (which would be reduced if a vaccine for cattle is licensed soon), but I'm wary of overupdating. Conditioned on sustained h2h transmission, reaching over 10k cases in a few months seems likely, although perhaps very strong monitoring and surveillance could contain the situation in time (at the very least to moderate the growth rate). Trying to combine all these factors somewhat haphazardly, I'm currently at 3.5% for this question. That’s before 2026. What about longer-term? Manifold gives a ~50% chance before 2030; Metaculus uses a more complicated method but it says about 25% chance before 2030. H5N1 may cross to humans, but it could take a while. Superforecaster Juan Cambeiro at The Institute For Progress estimated a 4% chance of a “worse than COVID” H5N1 pandemic in “the next year”, but their estimate was made in 2023, without the benefit of the Metaculus estimates or most of our current knowledge. This feels high now - Metaculus says 5% total for H5N1 pandemic, and most pandemic flus are not worse than COVID. IFP also seem to be expecting a case fatality rate greater than 10%, which I find unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. I trust their estimate less than Metaculus’ current ones. I conclude that the most plausible estimate for the chance of an H5N1 pandemic in the next year is 5%. Interestingly, 5% is about the base rate for pandemic flus per year: five in the past century = one per twenty years = 5% chance per year. Isn’t it surprising that we’re still at the base rate when we can see a dangerous-looking flu virus spreading through the types of animals that have caused pandemic flus in the past? Part of the answer is that we’re not - in addition to the 5% chance of H5N1, we have to add the chance of some other pandemic flu. This probably isn’t 5% on its own; scientists monitor flu strains closely, and they haven’t found any others which are giving off as many red flags as H5N1. Still, something could always come out of left field. Maybe we should add a 2.5% chance of some other strain, for a total of 7.5% chance of a flu pandemic (ie beyond normal seasonal flu) next year. But still, isn’t it surprising that we’re so close to the base rate? One way to think about this: the base rate represents how concerned we should be if there was no epidemiological monitoring at all. In that case, we would estimate a probability distribution across different epidemiological landscapes, most of which contain some concerning-looking flu strains. Since we are doing the epidemiological monitoring, we can collapse that distribution into a single picture: one flu strain, H5N1, is in fact pretty concerning, and other strains mostly aren’t. This is enough to move our prior from 5% to 7.5%, but no more. The forecasters I talked to raised one other point of uncertainty: does the flu work more like a dice roll, or like a bus? Dice rolls are uncorrelated with their predecessors; even if it’s been a hundred rolls since you last rolled a 6, your chance this time is still 1/6. But buses come at fixed intervals; if the buses are hourly, and you haven’t seen a bus in the past 59 minutes, then your chance of seeing a bus in the next minute is very high. It’s been 16 years since the last flu pandemic; these pandemics come (on average) every 20 years. I don’t think anyone has a good sense of how to think about this. But it was 40 years between the Spanish and Hong Kong flus, so the twenty year number is at best a rule of thumb. The 5% number feels very low to me (and, apparently, to the average Manifold forecaster). Isn’t H5N1 spreading to cows and pigs and all sorts of other mammals? Isn’t it in the news all the time? I trust Metaculus a lot, but I agree that this is a surprising update, and I’m taking it on faith rather than feeling it in my bones. What Would The Fatality Rate Be For An H5N1 Pandemic? There are four basic stories you could tell about likely H5N1 mortality. First, maybe mortality would be 50%. The argument here is that official statistics report this mortality rate in the chicken farmers who have been infected with H5N1 so far. Several news sources and even some scientists have raised the specter of a pandemic version of H5N1 pandemic with this same death rate, which could kill a quarter to a third of the world population. THIS IS EXTREMELY FAKE. The official statistics only report fatality rate in the infections we know about. Bird flu is rare, there’s no mass testing, and we only learn that somebody had it if they’re in a hospital and the doctors are worried enough to test for rare conditions. Of Americans who got bird flu in the past year, 0 out of 61 have died. Probably this is mostly because America upped its detection game and is now finding milder cases; we also can’t rule out the virus mutating to become less virulent. Metaculus estimates the current true mortality rate as 1.25%. …but leaves a wide 90% confidence interval, from 0.5% to 7%. Second, maybe mortality would be somewhere around 1.25%. The argument here is that Metaculus uses this as its central estimate of US mortality. But Sentinel discusses some reasons to be skeptical of broad inferences from the US numbers: Scientists have been puzzled by the apparently low H5N1 case fatality rate in humans in the US. They offer a number of hypotheses: “The way in which the virus is being transmitted — along with the amount of virus exposure — is limiting the severity of disease.”

So for example, the Spanish Flu of 1918 was an H1N1 strain that killed about 2% of the world population. But the exact mortality pattern was surprising; people between 18 and 28 were especially likely to die, and people older than 88 especially likely to survive. Why? Because an H1N1 flu went pandemic in 1830; anyone who first encountered the flu around then had an immune system synced to H1N1. But an H3N8 flu went pandemic between 1890 and 1900; anyone who first encountered the flu then had an immune system synced to that strain and was unprepared for H1N1. See here for the details.

Inline links: here

“Public health officials were previously unaware of a significant number of mild H5N1 cases in humans, leading to a dramatic overestimation of H5’s feared case fatality rate. Only now are we getting a true picture of the spectrum of infection.” In further discussions about why forecasters’ estimates of the H5N1 infection fatality rate (IFR) were so high last week (0.07% to 9%, conditional on a descendant of an H5N1 strain becoming pandemic), forecasters brought up several factors. First, if a descendant of an H5N1 strain does become pandemic, it’s unclear which genetic group of strains that descendant strain might emerge from; for example, it might not be descended from relatively milder North American strains. Second, a descendant of a currently circulating H5N1 virus might become pandemic after reassortment with other flu viruses and would need to undergo additional adaptations to humans to be able to circulate widely in humans. It’s not completely clear what the characteristics of such a virus would end up being; for instance, in addition to adapting to bind more efficiently to “human receptors” in the respiratory tract, the virus would need to adapt to grow at temperatures present in the human respiratory tract, and the resulting adaptations could be expected to change the exact mix of symptoms the virus can cause. Third, the disease does have high case fatality rates in cattle, on the order of 5 to 10%, and we have seen higher case fatality rates in sea mammals. Fourth, the farm-worker populations in which we are observing initial cases are likely relatively healthier than the US population as a whole. Moreover, in general, there are lots of things we don’t know yet, and thus, our confidence intervals for a potential IFR should be wide. Third, maybe mortality would be between 0.01% and 0.2%. The argument here is looking at normal (ie not 1918) flu pandemics of the past century. The least bad among these, the 2009 swine flu, had CFR of 0.01%. The worst, Hong Kong flu, was somewhere around 0.2%. If H5N1 is a normal pandemic flu - and right now there’s not much that differentiates it - it will probably be somewhere in that range. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Comparison_with_other_pandemics Fourth, maybe mortality will be 2-10%. This was the mortality rate of the 1918 Spanish Flu. It seems to be an outlier: as far as we know, no other flu in the past 500 years was nearly as bad (I’m using 500 years as a somewhat arbitrary cutoff since the 1510 flu is one of the better attested historical flus; before that they all sort of dissolve into general plagues) . If there have been ~25 major flu pandemics during that time, that gives us a base rate of only 4% for any given flu pandemic reaching that level of severity. But some people argue that H5N1 is unusually similar to the Spanish Flu, in that both diseases cause “cytokine storm” - a dangerous immune over-reaction which caused a majority of the deaths in 1918. On the other hand, this might be because H5N1 isn’t adapted to humans yet - less adapted viruses usually cause more immune reaction than better-adapted ones. It’s not clear whether this feature would stick around in a pandemic version of H5N1. At least improved medical technology (and lack of a World War screwing things up) probably mean that a virus which was just as severe as 1918 will cause fewer deaths than the 1918 virus did. Much of this discussion hinges on whether we should expect flus to generally become less virulent when adapting to humans and going pandemic. There’s a hand-wavey evolutionary argument that they should: pathogens don’t “want” to kill (or incapacitate) their host before they can spread. But the biologists I talked to said people tend to overupdate on this, that evolution can do lots of weird things, and that the 1918 flu forgot to read the Evolutionary Virology textbook and actually mutated to get worse. There may be a slight tendency for things vaguely like this to happen, but we shouldn’t count on them. After reading the arguments from each camp and talking them over with superforecasters, I think, regarding the infection fatality rate of a future H5N1 pandemic: 30% chance it’s about as bad as a normal seasonal flu

Inline links: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!rMXB!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe36b50a3-5807-4efe-9940-bb27906687c2_967x748.png, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Comparison_with_other_pandemics

1923 Hyperinflation1 mentions across 1 issues

1923 Hyperinflation is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 28, 2023 and July 28, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "Hyperinflation caused a huge crisis in 1923". It most often appears alongside Adolf Hitler, All hope abandon, ye who enter here, Alta Plana.

Reference entry: 1923 Hyperinflation
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 28, 2023
Last seen: July 28, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: On the Marble Cliffs July 28, 2023

Adolf Hitler 1 shared issues
All hope abandon, ye who enter here 1 shared issues
Alta Plana 1 shared issues
Astral Codex Ten 1 shared issues
Auf den Marmor-Klippen 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: On the Marble Cliffs

July 28, 2023 · Original source

To expose what in my opinion is the actual point of this book, but which (no doubt due to its many other attractions) all reviews of it I have read have missed entirely. The German Catastrophe The obvious frame for this book is what has been fittingly termed the German Catastrophe: the fate of Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century, as viewed from the perspective of German nationalists who were not Nazis — the perspective of people like Ernst Jünger. Germany had entered modernity without democracy. The Kaiserreich (German Empire) had united the many small German states, aggressively worked to catch up with industrialization, built a state to rival France and Great Britain, and remained authoritarian throughout. Commoners had negligible political influence. They did get social insurance, but not through their own political power but granted top-down, as an appeasement to undermine socialist movements. Civil marriage, secularized state education, prospering state universities and a long series of modernizing laws kept increasing state power. And that meant executive power. There were parties, a parliament and a newly homogenized judiciary, but they had little power to check the executive. And this entire development was accompanied by a lot of theorizing about this new German nation. Much of this theorizing ended up justifying authoritarianism, by making quickly-spreading myths about how obedience to authority, respect for aristocracy and love for tradition were uniquely German traits that set Germans apart from the French and the Jews and other dubious foreigners. Such myths, and opposition to them, colored the German population’s hard work to get accustomed to industrialization, urbanization, education, rapid population growth, militarization, national media and various culture wars. This had seemed to work okay-ish while Bismarck, wielding both enormous ruthlessness and enormous political acumen, had navigated Germany through the trials and tribulations of the late 19th century, largely at the expense of France. But in 1890, Emperor Wilhelm II had taken over authority with less ruthlessness and much less political acumen. While his populace remained nearly unable to influence politics, Wilhelm II made critical political mistakes, especially in dealing with other European powers. These mistakes culminated in the first World War. You know how that one went. Germany’s defeat led into Germany’s first real democracy. Everyone was very obviously new to this. The right attacked the new state, falsely claiming it had needlessly capitulated. The left also attacked the new state, because it wasn’t Soviet-Union-like enough. There was a lot of political violence. The massive damage incurred in the war, and the restrictions and reparations Germany had accepted in the peace settlement, put massive strains on an already fragile political system. Elections were tumultuous and frequent. Hyperinflation caused a huge crisis in 1923, and the Great Depression of 1929 was another huge disaster for Germany. Overall, the abolition of authoritarianism was widely felt to be a mistake. This seeming mistake was fixed when Hitler stepped in. And you know how that one went. The author in his time One remarkable witness to this entire catastrophe was Ernst Jünger. In 1938, when he picked up the pen to write Auf den Marmor-Klippen (On the Marble Cliffs), he was 43 years old and a complicated man in a complicated situation. He was first and foremost a highly renowned soldier. He had the Pour le Mérite, the equivalent of the Medal of Honor in the Kaiserreich, which would entitle him to a decent stipend if the Kaiserreich hadn't been gone for twenty years. He was clearly brilliant, especially as a writer, very well connected and exchanged many letters with important men on the political right. He made a living as an author, mostly because his first book, the World War I memoir “Storm of Steel”, was a great success and continually got reprinted. He had followed it up with a string of books, all nonfiction — almost all memoirs, about the war, or both. And he had written a flurry of political articles, mostly in ultraconservative and nationalist magazines. On the Marble Cliffs is his very first fiction novel. Or he claimed it was fiction — but he was fooling nobody. Jünger wrote for an audience that was very familiar with Storm of Steel and, because of the autobiographical nature of all of his preceding work, with him as a person. His books revealed him to be a highly perceptive, highly but coldly intelligent, very erudite, sensation seeking… sociopath. He has masterful eloquence and a keen interest in nature. Even in the trenches of the World War, where he enjoyed “hunting down” enemy soldiers with sniper shots, he seemed more interested in the dealings between the insects that bumbled through this hellscape than in how his fellow soldiers inwardly felt about what was going on. And his protagonist in the Marble Cliffs is both the first-person narrator and almost exactly the same guy! All of the following points are true both for the protagonist of this novel, and the author at the time of writing. He lives with his brother on the edge of a small town in a fairly rural area with an old Christian culture and strong traditional crafts of wine making and fishing, overlooking a large body of water, across which is a mountainous foreign country: Alta Plana in the book, Switzerland in reality.

1940s1 mentions across 1 issues

1940s is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 01, 2025 and January 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "it might have been a strain from the 1940s, which the Russians were trying to make a vaccine for". It most often appears alongside 1918, 1968, 1977.

Reference entry: 1940s
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 01, 2025
Last seen: January 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

H5N1: Much More Than You Wanted To Know January 01, 2025

1918 1 shared issues
1968 1 shared issues
1977 1 shared issues
2009 1 shared issues
Asian flu 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Safe Enough?

January 01, 2025 · Original source

From “Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus”, linked above. You may recognize the lead author - Michael Worobey has also been a leading voice on the zoonotic side of the COVID origins debate. The recent history of the flu, as far as I can tell, is: 1918: An H1N1 flu (“Spanish flu”) jumped from birds to humans in America and killed 50 million people worldwide. This replaced all older strains, so most seasonal flus during this era were H1N1. 1957: An H2N2 flu (“Asian flu”) crossed from birds to humans in China, and killed about 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H1N1 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H2N2. 1968: An H3N2 flu (“Hong Kong flu”) crossed from pigs (?) to humans in Hong Kong, and killed another 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H2N2 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H3N2. 1977: An H1N1 flu (“Russian flu”) leaked from a biology lab (?) in Russia (it might have been a strain from the 1940s, which the Russians were trying to make a vaccine for). It didn’t kill that many people, but it stuck around, and from then on, seasonal flus could be either H3N2 or H1N1. 2009: An H1N1 flu (“Mexican flu” until the PC police stepped in; afterwards “swine flu”) took some horrible circuitous route between birds and pigs and back again, crossed over into humans in Mexico, and killed 200,000 people. It outcompeted older strains of H1N1, but couldn’t crowd out H3N2, so seasonal flus are still either H3N2 or H1N1. …which brings us to the present, hopefully illuminating why “new flu strain crosses over from animals into humans” is such an “uh oh” moment. The Bird Flu Technically, all pandemic flus start as bird flus. Influenza A evolved in birds. Sometimes it spreads to other animals, including pigs, cattle, and humans. The most common way for a bird flu to spread to humans is to “reassort” (not exactly virus sex, but close enough, and the real version is less memorable) with a human flu virus (ie one that has already crossed over to humans). The resulting virus has all of the human flu virus’ human adaptations, but borrows enough new antigens from the bird virus to evade the immune system. Pigs can be infected by both human and bird viruses, so they are a common place for this reassortment to take place. If reassortment is sort of like viral sex, pigs are sort of like Tinder. When a bird flu and human flu reassort in pigs, the resulting disease is called a swine flu. At least the 2009 flu pandemic was a swine flu, and a minority opinion thinks the 1918 pandemic was too. There aren’t major epidemiological differences between direct-from-bird flus and swine flus. H5N1 was first noticed in birds - specifically, a flock of chickens in Scotland in 1959 - after which it disappeared for forty years. In 1996, it showed up in geese in China, then gradually increased its market share among birds worldwide. In 2022, it was found in minks; apparently it had learned to infect mammals. By early 2024, it was seen in cows. Now it’s in cow herds in 16 states, and one of them (California) has declared a state of emergency. And in October, H5N1 was found in pigs for the first time. It’s not uncommon for humans to catch an animal disease. This doesn’t mean the disease has “crossed over” to humans. If the virus isn’t suited to human-to-human transmission, it simply dies off (either before or after killing its human host). Thus, chicken farmers have been reporting scattered H5N1 cases since 1997; now that the virus has spread to cattle, cow farmers have started reporting the same. A Metaculus comment on this topic introduced me to the phrase “biocomputational surface”. Every viral replication that takes place in a human gives the virus one more chance to develop the set of mutations that makes it human-transmissible and start the next pandemic. Or, more likely, every viral replication that takes place in a human who has both the H5N1 bird flu and a normal human flu - or in a pig which has both viruses - gives the virus one extra chance to reassort in a way that produces a bird-antigen-fortified human-adapted flu virus. This doesn’t mean H5N1 will definitely become human-transmissible soon. Many viruses hang out on the borders of transmissibility for decades. Some, for unclear reasons, never cross over at all. But all of this is compatible with the virus becoming transmissible soon. So: What Is The Chance Of A Pandemic? The prediction markets on this topic ask a question about “10,000 cases in the United States”. Does this necessarily mean “pandemic”? Might it be possible to get to 10,000 cases just from the scattered chicken and cow farmers, with no human-to-human transmission? Despite many chicken and cow infections this year, there have only been 60 - 70 recorded human cases. Unless there is a phase change in screening methods, it seems hard for this number to increase to 10,000 off farmers alone. I think it’s fair to treat this question as operationalizing “what is the chance of a pandemic”? By this definition, Manifold estimates a 40% chance of an H5N1 pandemic in 2025. Metaculus estimates a 5% chance. You can see below whether that’s changed since I wrote this essay: 5% versus 40% is a big difference! Who do we trust? I trust Metaculus. Metaculus has beaten Manifold in both of the two head-to-head comparisons that I know of (Jeremiah Johnson’s and mine). Manifold’s number swings by a factor of two from week to week; Metaculus has been steady. But also, Metaculus hosts a CDC-sponsored respiratory disease forecasting tournament which has enriched them in epidemiological expertise. And if you look at the quality of comments on both sites, it’s pretty obvious where the people with more intellectual chops are hanging out. The Manifold comments are mostly single sentences, or occasionally just links to an article about new cases. The Metaculus comments look more like this one by dimaklenchin: Despite the panic propaganda, H5N1 is unlikely to be "just a single mutation away from switching host preference": 1) It normally takes a lot more than a single mutation to switch hosts. E.g., there are at least five different reasons why SIV (monkey equivalent of HIV) is not infectious to humans. Heck, a variant of SIV that bears HIV's receptor-recognizing surface protein (SHIV) is still not infectious to humans. HIV most certainly evolved from SIV but, almost as certainly, it took a very long time to get there. Not that all viruses are the same and things can't turn out differently with flu, but I don't subscribe to the idea that a mere change of receptor specificity (something that can take 1-2 mutations) will be sufficient. 2) We have data. Lots of human infections with other varieties of bird flu in the past - all those viruses ultimately went nowhere. Why would H5N1 be radically different? E.g., the "Canadian teen", despite what sounds like a prolonged exposure, failed to infect anyone around him. Since I am at 18% for the h-2-h H5N1 detection in 2025, I am arbitrarily going ~ an order of magnitude lower than that for something as unprecedented as 10K human infections. Maybe should be much lower but hedging for the time being and will allow another couple months of observations. And Sergio: I'm currently at 20% on the question of reported human-to-human transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 globally before 2026. However, this question is only about the US, and is more general about all subtypes of H5. But H5N1 very strongly appears to be the most important subtype to consider in this time period. And, given the current situation in the US with H5N1 human cases derived from exposure to poultry or cattle (with cattle(mammals) being more worrisome), h2h transmission seems quite more likely to arise in North America than elsewhere before 2026. Conditioning on h2h transmission in the US (and also trying to consider, with lower probability, a start in Canada), I want to estimate the chances that it becomes sustained and out of control (in which case, if it starts in Canada, I largely expect it to spread to the US). The (6) past events of probable h2h transmission of avian H5(N1), none of which were sustained, could serve as a base rate, although I'm a bit wary of giving much weight to this precedent, since the last event was quite a while ago (2007), and also because reporting and testing standards may have improved considerably since then (so perhaps they might not have been classified as h2h transmission events if they had occurred more recently). The current situation in the US, and events such as the Canadian teen who got sick with H5N1, do suggest a higher background level of risk than normal (which would be reduced if a vaccine for cattle is licensed soon), but I'm wary of overupdating. Conditioned on sustained h2h transmission, reaching over 10k cases in a few months seems likely, although perhaps very strong monitoring and surveillance could contain the situation in time (at the very least to moderate the growth rate). Trying to combine all these factors somewhat haphazardly, I'm currently at 3.5% for this question. That’s before 2026. What about longer-term? Manifold gives a ~50% chance before 2030; Metaculus uses a more complicated method but it says about 25% chance before 2030. H5N1 may cross to humans, but it could take a while. Superforecaster Juan Cambeiro at The Institute For Progress estimated a 4% chance of a “worse than COVID” H5N1 pandemic in “the next year”, but their estimate was made in 2023, without the benefit of the Metaculus estimates or most of our current knowledge. This feels high now - Metaculus says 5% total for H5N1 pandemic, and most pandemic flus are not worse than COVID. IFP also seem to be expecting a case fatality rate greater than 10%, which I find unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. I trust their estimate less than Metaculus’ current ones. I conclude that the most plausible estimate for the chance of an H5N1 pandemic in the next year is 5%. Interestingly, 5% is about the base rate for pandemic flus per year: five in the past century = one per twenty years = 5% chance per year. Isn’t it surprising that we’re still at the base rate when we can see a dangerous-looking flu virus spreading through the types of animals that have caused pandemic flus in the past? Part of the answer is that we’re not - in addition to the 5% chance of H5N1, we have to add the chance of some other pandemic flu. This probably isn’t 5% on its own; scientists monitor flu strains closely, and they haven’t found any others which are giving off as many red flags as H5N1. Still, something could always come out of left field. Maybe we should add a 2.5% chance of some other strain, for a total of 7.5% chance of a flu pandemic (ie beyond normal seasonal flu) next year. But still, isn’t it surprising that we’re so close to the base rate? One way to think about this: the base rate represents how concerned we should be if there was no epidemiological monitoring at all. In that case, we would estimate a probability distribution across different epidemiological landscapes, most of which contain some concerning-looking flu strains. Since we are doing the epidemiological monitoring, we can collapse that distribution into a single picture: one flu strain, H5N1, is in fact pretty concerning, and other strains mostly aren’t. This is enough to move our prior from 5% to 7.5%, but no more. The forecasters I talked to raised one other point of uncertainty: does the flu work more like a dice roll, or like a bus? Dice rolls are uncorrelated with their predecessors; even if it’s been a hundred rolls since you last rolled a 6, your chance this time is still 1/6. But buses come at fixed intervals; if the buses are hourly, and you haven’t seen a bus in the past 59 minutes, then your chance of seeing a bus in the next minute is very high. It’s been 16 years since the last flu pandemic; these pandemics come (on average) every 20 years. I don’t think anyone has a good sense of how to think about this. But it was 40 years between the Spanish and Hong Kong flus, so the twenty year number is at best a rule of thumb. The 5% number feels very low to me (and, apparently, to the average Manifold forecaster). Isn’t H5N1 spreading to cows and pigs and all sorts of other mammals? Isn’t it in the news all the time? I trust Metaculus a lot, but I agree that this is a surprising update, and I’m taking it on faith rather than feeling it in my bones. What Would The Fatality Rate Be For An H5N1 Pandemic? There are four basic stories you could tell about likely H5N1 mortality. First, maybe mortality would be 50%. The argument here is that official statistics report this mortality rate in the chicken farmers who have been infected with H5N1 so far. Several news sources and even some scientists have raised the specter of a pandemic version of H5N1 pandemic with this same death rate, which could kill a quarter to a third of the world population. THIS IS EXTREMELY FAKE. The official statistics only report fatality rate in the infections we know about. Bird flu is rare, there’s no mass testing, and we only learn that somebody had it if they’re in a hospital and the doctors are worried enough to test for rare conditions. Of Americans who got bird flu in the past year, 0 out of 61 have died. Probably this is mostly because America upped its detection game and is now finding milder cases; we also can’t rule out the virus mutating to become less virulent. Metaculus estimates the current true mortality rate as 1.25%. …but leaves a wide 90% confidence interval, from 0.5% to 7%. Second, maybe mortality would be somewhere around 1.25%. The argument here is that Metaculus uses this as its central estimate of US mortality. But Sentinel discusses some reasons to be skeptical of broad inferences from the US numbers: Scientists have been puzzled by the apparently low H5N1 case fatality rate in humans in the US. They offer a number of hypotheses: “The way in which the virus is being transmitted — along with the amount of virus exposure — is limiting the severity of disease.”

1960 Valdivia earthquake1 mentions across 1 issues

1960 Valdivia earthquake is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 01, 2023 and July 01, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "The 1960 Valdivia earthquake off the coast of Chile"; "1960 Valdivia earthquake off the coast of Chile was not simply big". It most often appears alongside AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, Bayesian priors.

Reference entry: 1960 Valdivia earthquake
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 01, 2023
Last seen: July 01, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Safe Enough? July 01, 2023

AEC 1 shared issues
Atomic Energy Commission 1 shared issues
Bayesian priors 1 shared issues
Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant 1 shared issues
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1 shared issues

Source context

July 01, 2023 · Original source

Earthquakes are cascades: The 1960 Valdivia earthquake off the coast of Chile was not simply big, it released a quarter of the combined energy of every earthquake ever recorded. Forest fires are cascades: The Camp Fire in California in 2018 destroyed as many structures as the next seven largest California fires combined.

Inline links: 1960 Valdivia earthquake, Camp Fire in California in 2018

1964 Civil Rights Act1 mentions across 1 issues

1964 Civil Rights Act is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 09, 2021 and February 09, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "the 1964 Civil Rights Act". It most often appears alongside 1960s America, Amazon, America.

Reference entry: 1964 Civil Rights Act
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 09, 2021
Last seen: February 09, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Book Review: Why We're Polarized February 09, 2021

1960s America 1 shared issues
Amazon 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues
American Political Science Association 1 shared issues
Andrew Johnson 1 shared issues

Source context

Book Review: Why We're Polarized

February 09, 2021 · Original source

Does the time course of polarization match an origin around the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

19681 mentions across 1 issues

1968 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 01, 2025 and January 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "1968: An H3N2 flu (“Hong Kong flu”) crossed from pigs (?) to humans in Hong Kong". It most often appears alongside 1918, 1940s, 1977.

Reference entry: 1968
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 01, 2025
Last seen: January 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

H5N1: Much More Than You Wanted To Know January 01, 2025

1918 1 shared issues
1940s 1 shared issues
1977 1 shared issues
2009 1 shared issues
Asian flu 1 shared issues

Source context

January 01, 2025 · Original source

From “Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus”, linked above. You may recognize the lead author - Michael Worobey has also been a leading voice on the zoonotic side of the COVID origins debate. The recent history of the flu, as far as I can tell, is: 1918: An H1N1 flu (“Spanish flu”) jumped from birds to humans in America and killed 50 million people worldwide. This replaced all older strains, so most seasonal flus during this era were H1N1. 1957: An H2N2 flu (“Asian flu”) crossed from birds to humans in China, and killed about 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H1N1 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H2N2. 1968: An H3N2 flu (“Hong Kong flu”) crossed from pigs (?) to humans in Hong Kong, and killed another 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H2N2 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H3N2. 1977: An H1N1 flu (“Russian flu”) leaked from a biology lab (?) in Russia (it might have been a strain from the 1940s, which the Russians were trying to make a vaccine for). It didn’t kill that many people, but it stuck around, and from then on, seasonal flus could be either H3N2 or H1N1. 2009: An H1N1 flu (“Mexican flu” until the PC police stepped in; afterwards “swine flu”) took some horrible circuitous route between birds and pigs and back again, crossed over into humans in Mexico, and killed 200,000 people. It outcompeted older strains of H1N1, but couldn’t crowd out H3N2, so seasonal flus are still either H3N2 or H1N1. …which brings us to the present, hopefully illuminating why “new flu strain crosses over from animals into humans” is such an “uh oh” moment. The Bird Flu Technically, all pandemic flus start as bird flus. Influenza A evolved in birds. Sometimes it spreads to other animals, including pigs, cattle, and humans. The most common way for a bird flu to spread to humans is to “reassort” (not exactly virus sex, but close enough, and the real version is less memorable) with a human flu virus (ie one that has already crossed over to humans). The resulting virus has all of the human flu virus’ human adaptations, but borrows enough new antigens from the bird virus to evade the immune system. Pigs can be infected by both human and bird viruses, so they are a common place for this reassortment to take place. If reassortment is sort of like viral sex, pigs are sort of like Tinder. When a bird flu and human flu reassort in pigs, the resulting disease is called a swine flu. At least the 2009 flu pandemic was a swine flu, and a minority opinion thinks the 1918 pandemic was too. There aren’t major epidemiological differences between direct-from-bird flus and swine flus. H5N1 was first noticed in birds - specifically, a flock of chickens in Scotland in 1959 - after which it disappeared for forty years. In 1996, it showed up in geese in China, then gradually increased its market share among birds worldwide. In 2022, it was found in minks; apparently it had learned to infect mammals. By early 2024, it was seen in cows. Now it’s in cow herds in 16 states, and one of them (California) has declared a state of emergency. And in October, H5N1 was found in pigs for the first time. It’s not uncommon for humans to catch an animal disease. This doesn’t mean the disease has “crossed over” to humans. If the virus isn’t suited to human-to-human transmission, it simply dies off (either before or after killing its human host). Thus, chicken farmers have been reporting scattered H5N1 cases since 1997; now that the virus has spread to cattle, cow farmers have started reporting the same. A Metaculus comment on this topic introduced me to the phrase “biocomputational surface”. Every viral replication that takes place in a human gives the virus one more chance to develop the set of mutations that makes it human-transmissible and start the next pandemic. Or, more likely, every viral replication that takes place in a human who has both the H5N1 bird flu and a normal human flu - or in a pig which has both viruses - gives the virus one extra chance to reassort in a way that produces a bird-antigen-fortified human-adapted flu virus. This doesn’t mean H5N1 will definitely become human-transmissible soon. Many viruses hang out on the borders of transmissibility for decades. Some, for unclear reasons, never cross over at all. But all of this is compatible with the virus becoming transmissible soon. So: What Is The Chance Of A Pandemic? The prediction markets on this topic ask a question about “10,000 cases in the United States”. Does this necessarily mean “pandemic”? Might it be possible to get to 10,000 cases just from the scattered chicken and cow farmers, with no human-to-human transmission? Despite many chicken and cow infections this year, there have only been 60 - 70 recorded human cases. Unless there is a phase change in screening methods, it seems hard for this number to increase to 10,000 off farmers alone. I think it’s fair to treat this question as operationalizing “what is the chance of a pandemic”? By this definition, Manifold estimates a 40% chance of an H5N1 pandemic in 2025. Metaculus estimates a 5% chance. You can see below whether that’s changed since I wrote this essay: 5% versus 40% is a big difference! Who do we trust? I trust Metaculus. Metaculus has beaten Manifold in both of the two head-to-head comparisons that I know of (Jeremiah Johnson’s and mine). Manifold’s number swings by a factor of two from week to week; Metaculus has been steady. But also, Metaculus hosts a CDC-sponsored respiratory disease forecasting tournament which has enriched them in epidemiological expertise. And if you look at the quality of comments on both sites, it’s pretty obvious where the people with more intellectual chops are hanging out. The Manifold comments are mostly single sentences, or occasionally just links to an article about new cases. The Metaculus comments look more like this one by dimaklenchin: Despite the panic propaganda, H5N1 is unlikely to be "just a single mutation away from switching host preference": 1) It normally takes a lot more than a single mutation to switch hosts. E.g., there are at least five different reasons why SIV (monkey equivalent of HIV) is not infectious to humans. Heck, a variant of SIV that bears HIV's receptor-recognizing surface protein (SHIV) is still not infectious to humans. HIV most certainly evolved from SIV but, almost as certainly, it took a very long time to get there. Not that all viruses are the same and things can't turn out differently with flu, but I don't subscribe to the idea that a mere change of receptor specificity (something that can take 1-2 mutations) will be sufficient. 2) We have data. Lots of human infections with other varieties of bird flu in the past - all those viruses ultimately went nowhere. Why would H5N1 be radically different? E.g., the "Canadian teen", despite what sounds like a prolonged exposure, failed to infect anyone around him. Since I am at 18% for the h-2-h H5N1 detection in 2025, I am arbitrarily going ~ an order of magnitude lower than that for something as unprecedented as 10K human infections. Maybe should be much lower but hedging for the time being and will allow another couple months of observations. And Sergio: I'm currently at 20% on the question of reported human-to-human transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 globally before 2026. However, this question is only about the US, and is more general about all subtypes of H5. But H5N1 very strongly appears to be the most important subtype to consider in this time period. And, given the current situation in the US with H5N1 human cases derived from exposure to poultry or cattle (with cattle(mammals) being more worrisome), h2h transmission seems quite more likely to arise in North America than elsewhere before 2026. Conditioning on h2h transmission in the US (and also trying to consider, with lower probability, a start in Canada), I want to estimate the chances that it becomes sustained and out of control (in which case, if it starts in Canada, I largely expect it to spread to the US). The (6) past events of probable h2h transmission of avian H5(N1), none of which were sustained, could serve as a base rate, although I'm a bit wary of giving much weight to this precedent, since the last event was quite a while ago (2007), and also because reporting and testing standards may have improved considerably since then (so perhaps they might not have been classified as h2h transmission events if they had occurred more recently). The current situation in the US, and events such as the Canadian teen who got sick with H5N1, do suggest a higher background level of risk than normal (which would be reduced if a vaccine for cattle is licensed soon), but I'm wary of overupdating. Conditioned on sustained h2h transmission, reaching over 10k cases in a few months seems likely, although perhaps very strong monitoring and surveillance could contain the situation in time (at the very least to moderate the growth rate). Trying to combine all these factors somewhat haphazardly, I'm currently at 3.5% for this question. That’s before 2026. What about longer-term? Manifold gives a ~50% chance before 2030; Metaculus uses a more complicated method but it says about 25% chance before 2030. H5N1 may cross to humans, but it could take a while. Superforecaster Juan Cambeiro at The Institute For Progress estimated a 4% chance of a “worse than COVID” H5N1 pandemic in “the next year”, but their estimate was made in 2023, without the benefit of the Metaculus estimates or most of our current knowledge. This feels high now - Metaculus says 5% total for H5N1 pandemic, and most pandemic flus are not worse than COVID. IFP also seem to be expecting a case fatality rate greater than 10%, which I find unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. I trust their estimate less than Metaculus’ current ones. I conclude that the most plausible estimate for the chance of an H5N1 pandemic in the next year is 5%. Interestingly, 5% is about the base rate for pandemic flus per year: five in the past century = one per twenty years = 5% chance per year. Isn’t it surprising that we’re still at the base rate when we can see a dangerous-looking flu virus spreading through the types of animals that have caused pandemic flus in the past? Part of the answer is that we’re not - in addition to the 5% chance of H5N1, we have to add the chance of some other pandemic flu. This probably isn’t 5% on its own; scientists monitor flu strains closely, and they haven’t found any others which are giving off as many red flags as H5N1. Still, something could always come out of left field. Maybe we should add a 2.5% chance of some other strain, for a total of 7.5% chance of a flu pandemic (ie beyond normal seasonal flu) next year. But still, isn’t it surprising that we’re so close to the base rate? One way to think about this: the base rate represents how concerned we should be if there was no epidemiological monitoring at all. In that case, we would estimate a probability distribution across different epidemiological landscapes, most of which contain some concerning-looking flu strains. Since we are doing the epidemiological monitoring, we can collapse that distribution into a single picture: one flu strain, H5N1, is in fact pretty concerning, and other strains mostly aren’t. This is enough to move our prior from 5% to 7.5%, but no more. The forecasters I talked to raised one other point of uncertainty: does the flu work more like a dice roll, or like a bus? Dice rolls are uncorrelated with their predecessors; even if it’s been a hundred rolls since you last rolled a 6, your chance this time is still 1/6. But buses come at fixed intervals; if the buses are hourly, and you haven’t seen a bus in the past 59 minutes, then your chance of seeing a bus in the next minute is very high. It’s been 16 years since the last flu pandemic; these pandemics come (on average) every 20 years. I don’t think anyone has a good sense of how to think about this. But it was 40 years between the Spanish and Hong Kong flus, so the twenty year number is at best a rule of thumb. The 5% number feels very low to me (and, apparently, to the average Manifold forecaster). Isn’t H5N1 spreading to cows and pigs and all sorts of other mammals? Isn’t it in the news all the time? I trust Metaculus a lot, but I agree that this is a surprising update, and I’m taking it on faith rather than feeling it in my bones. What Would The Fatality Rate Be For An H5N1 Pandemic? There are four basic stories you could tell about likely H5N1 mortality. First, maybe mortality would be 50%. The argument here is that official statistics report this mortality rate in the chicken farmers who have been infected with H5N1 so far. Several news sources and even some scientists have raised the specter of a pandemic version of H5N1 pandemic with this same death rate, which could kill a quarter to a third of the world population. THIS IS EXTREMELY FAKE. The official statistics only report fatality rate in the infections we know about. Bird flu is rare, there’s no mass testing, and we only learn that somebody had it if they’re in a hospital and the doctors are worried enough to test for rare conditions. Of Americans who got bird flu in the past year, 0 out of 61 have died. Probably this is mostly because America upped its detection game and is now finding milder cases; we also can’t rule out the virus mutating to become less virulent. Metaculus estimates the current true mortality rate as 1.25%. …but leaves a wide 90% confidence interval, from 0.5% to 7%. Second, maybe mortality would be somewhere around 1.25%. The argument here is that Metaculus uses this as its central estimate of US mortality. But Sentinel discusses some reasons to be skeptical of broad inferences from the US numbers: Scientists have been puzzled by the apparently low H5N1 case fatality rate in humans in the US. They offer a number of hypotheses: “The way in which the virus is being transmitted — along with the amount of virus exposure — is limiting the severity of disease.”

63% chance it’s between 2 - 10x as bad (eg the Hong Kong Flu of 1968)

1968 convention1 mentions across 1 issues

1968 convention is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 08, 2022 and July 08, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "implemented after the chaos of the 1968 convention". It most often appears alongside 1976 Democratic, 1976 Democratic primary, 1976 primary.

Reference entry: 1968 convention
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 08, 2022
Last seen: July 08, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Outlier July 08, 2022

1976 Democratic 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic primary 1 shared issues
1976 primary 1 shared issues
1979 oil crisis 1 shared issues
1980 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Public Citizens

July 08, 2022 · Original source

When he first enters the 1976 Democratic primary, Carter is a complete unknown, and the general consensus is that he’s the longest of long shots. (“Jimmy who?” one opponent asks.) But two things go very, very right for him. First, he’s one of the few people who fully understands the changes to the Democratic primary process that were implemented after the chaos of the 1968 convention [1]. He stakes his campaign on the now-familiar strategy of winning the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which is groundbreaking at the time. More importantly, the fact that no one has ever heard of him turns out to be a huge advantage in the wake of Watergate, when voters are hungry for an outsider.

1968 Summer Olympics1 mentions across 1 issues

1968 Summer Olympics is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 23, 2023 and June 23, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "used it to win the gold medal in the 1968 Summer Olympics". It most often appears alongside 1965, 2000 election, 2023 book review contest.

Reference entry: 1968 Summer Olympics
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 23, 2023
Last seen: June 23, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Public Citizens June 23, 2023

1965 1 shared issues
2000 election 1 shared issues
2023 book review contest 1 shared issues
American Capitalism 1 shared issues
Bush 1 shared issues

Source context

June 23, 2023 · Original source

The Fosbury flop, a high jump style where you arch yourself backwards over the pole, was revolutionary when its namesake used it to win the gold medal in the 1968 Summer Olympics. Still, I do think some of the blame for the way this all panned out can be laid on Nader’s particular personal idiosyncrasies. His ironclad black-and-white view of the world, combined with his near-pathological aversion to dealmaking and compromise, made him uniquely suited to a form of activism that focused on regulatory and legal action rather than coalition-building and electoral politics. Nader was infamously rigid and inflexible, so it’s no surprise that his movement was too. But a less rules-oriented movement might have created fewer of the bureaucratic barriers that have now become a hindrance to progressive action.

1970s World Bank initiatives in Lesotho1 mentions across 1 issues

1970s World Bank initiatives in Lesotho is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 28, 2022 and July 28, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "specific failing ... 1970s World Bank initiatives in Lesotho". It most often appears alongside Alex, archpawn, Ba'hai.

Reference entry: 1970s World Bank initiatives in Lesotho
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 28, 2022
Last seen: July 28, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On Criticism Of Criticism Of Criticism July 28, 2022

Alex 1 shared issues
archpawn 1 shared issues
Ba'hai 1 shared issues
Ba'hai faith 1 shared issues
Baha'u'llah 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On Criticism Of Criticism Of Criticism

July 28, 2022 · Original source

I think part of the problem here is that a lot of general criticisms are based on this sort of specific failing, but get expressed in general terms because you can’t expect a general audience to be familiar with the specifics of 1970s World Bank initiatives in Lesotho. So in some sense I think my review was motivated by a less fleshed out version of Scott’s take here — a desire for people to know an example of the sort of specific failure the general critiques (at least those coming from inside dev Econ) have in mind.

1976 Democratic1 mentions across 1 issues

1976 Democratic is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 08, 2022 and July 08, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "commits privately to a presidential run only a year into his time in the governor’s office. When he first enters the 1976 Democratic". It most often appears alongside 1968 convention, 1976 Democratic primary, 1976 primary.

Reference entry: 1976 Democratic
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 08, 2022
Last seen: July 08, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Outlier July 08, 2022

1968 convention 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic primary 1 shared issues
1976 primary 1 shared issues
1979 oil crisis 1 shared issues
1980 1 shared issues

Source context

July 08, 2022 · Original source

When he first enters the 1976 Democratic primary, Carter is a complete unknown, and the general consensus is that he’s the longest of long shots. (“Jimmy who?” one opponent asks.) But two things go very, very right for him. First, he’s one of the few people who fully understands the changes to the Democratic primary process that were implemented after the chaos of the 1968 convention [1]. He stakes his campaign on the now-familiar strategy of winning the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which is groundbreaking at the time. More importantly, the fact that no one has ever heard of him turns out to be a huge advantage in the wake of Watergate, when voters are hungry for an outsider.

1976 Democratic primary1 mentions across 1 issues

1976 Democratic primary is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 08, 2022 and July 08, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "When he first enters the 1976 Democratic primary". It most often appears alongside 1968 convention, 1976 Democratic, 1976 primary.

Reference entry: 1976 Democratic primary
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 08, 2022
Last seen: July 08, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Outlier July 08, 2022

1968 convention 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic 1 shared issues
1976 primary 1 shared issues
1979 oil crisis 1 shared issues
1980 1 shared issues

Source context

July 08, 2022 · Original source

When he first enters the 1976 Democratic primary, Carter is a complete unknown, and the general consensus is that he’s the longest of long shots. (“Jimmy who?” one opponent asks.) But two things go very, very right for him. First, he’s one of the few people who fully understands the changes to the Democratic primary process that were implemented after the chaos of the 1968 convention [1]. He stakes his campaign on the now-familiar strategy of winning the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which is groundbreaking at the time. More importantly, the fact that no one has ever heard of him turns out to be a huge advantage in the wake of Watergate, when voters are hungry for an outsider.

1976 primary1 mentions across 1 issues

1976 primary is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 08, 2022 and July 08, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "Reagan succeeds in his 1976 primary challenge to Gerald Ford". It most often appears alongside 1968 convention, 1976 Democratic, 1976 Democratic primary.

Reference entry: 1976 primary
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 08, 2022
Last seen: July 08, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Outlier July 08, 2022

1968 convention 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic primary 1 shared issues
1979 oil crisis 1 shared issues
1980 1 shared issues

Source context

July 08, 2022 · Original source

Reading this book, I kept imagining the alternate history in which Reagan succeeds in his 1976 primary challenge to Gerald Ford, which he lost narrowly in real life. Since Reagan is a much more talented politician than Ford, and isn’t tainted by Ford’s association with Nixon, he almost certainly picks up a couple points of the vote and beats Carter. Then he ends up presiding over stagflation and takes the blame for the poor economy. He loses in 1980 to Ted Kennedy, who ushers in a decade of liberal dominance until his presidency implodes in scandal amidst the revelation of his many drunken affairs.

19771 mentions across 1 issues

1977 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 01, 2025 and January 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "1977: An H1N1 flu (“Russian flu”) leaked from a biology lab (?) in Russia". It most often appears alongside 1918, 1940s, 1968.

Reference entry: 1977
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 01, 2025
Last seen: January 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

H5N1: Much More Than You Wanted To Know January 01, 2025

1918 1 shared issues
1940s 1 shared issues
1968 1 shared issues
2009 1 shared issues
Asian flu 1 shared issues

Source context

January 01, 2025 · Original source

From “Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus”, linked above. You may recognize the lead author - Michael Worobey has also been a leading voice on the zoonotic side of the COVID origins debate. The recent history of the flu, as far as I can tell, is: 1918: An H1N1 flu (“Spanish flu”) jumped from birds to humans in America and killed 50 million people worldwide. This replaced all older strains, so most seasonal flus during this era were H1N1. 1957: An H2N2 flu (“Asian flu”) crossed from birds to humans in China, and killed about 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H1N1 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H2N2. 1968: An H3N2 flu (“Hong Kong flu”) crossed from pigs (?) to humans in Hong Kong, and killed another 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H2N2 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H3N2. 1977: An H1N1 flu (“Russian flu”) leaked from a biology lab (?) in Russia (it might have been a strain from the 1940s, which the Russians were trying to make a vaccine for). It didn’t kill that many people, but it stuck around, and from then on, seasonal flus could be either H3N2 or H1N1. 2009: An H1N1 flu (“Mexican flu” until the PC police stepped in; afterwards “swine flu”) took some horrible circuitous route between birds and pigs and back again, crossed over into humans in Mexico, and killed 200,000 people. It outcompeted older strains of H1N1, but couldn’t crowd out H3N2, so seasonal flus are still either H3N2 or H1N1. …which brings us to the present, hopefully illuminating why “new flu strain crosses over from animals into humans” is such an “uh oh” moment. The Bird Flu Technically, all pandemic flus start as bird flus. Influenza A evolved in birds. Sometimes it spreads to other animals, including pigs, cattle, and humans. The most common way for a bird flu to spread to humans is to “reassort” (not exactly virus sex, but close enough, and the real version is less memorable) with a human flu virus (ie one that has already crossed over to humans). The resulting virus has all of the human flu virus’ human adaptations, but borrows enough new antigens from the bird virus to evade the immune system. Pigs can be infected by both human and bird viruses, so they are a common place for this reassortment to take place. If reassortment is sort of like viral sex, pigs are sort of like Tinder. When a bird flu and human flu reassort in pigs, the resulting disease is called a swine flu. At least the 2009 flu pandemic was a swine flu, and a minority opinion thinks the 1918 pandemic was too. There aren’t major epidemiological differences between direct-from-bird flus and swine flus. H5N1 was first noticed in birds - specifically, a flock of chickens in Scotland in 1959 - after which it disappeared for forty years. In 1996, it showed up in geese in China, then gradually increased its market share among birds worldwide. In 2022, it was found in minks; apparently it had learned to infect mammals. By early 2024, it was seen in cows. Now it’s in cow herds in 16 states, and one of them (California) has declared a state of emergency. And in October, H5N1 was found in pigs for the first time. It’s not uncommon for humans to catch an animal disease. This doesn’t mean the disease has “crossed over” to humans. If the virus isn’t suited to human-to-human transmission, it simply dies off (either before or after killing its human host). Thus, chicken farmers have been reporting scattered H5N1 cases since 1997; now that the virus has spread to cattle, cow farmers have started reporting the same. A Metaculus comment on this topic introduced me to the phrase “biocomputational surface”. Every viral replication that takes place in a human gives the virus one more chance to develop the set of mutations that makes it human-transmissible and start the next pandemic. Or, more likely, every viral replication that takes place in a human who has both the H5N1 bird flu and a normal human flu - or in a pig which has both viruses - gives the virus one extra chance to reassort in a way that produces a bird-antigen-fortified human-adapted flu virus. This doesn’t mean H5N1 will definitely become human-transmissible soon. Many viruses hang out on the borders of transmissibility for decades. Some, for unclear reasons, never cross over at all. But all of this is compatible with the virus becoming transmissible soon. So: What Is The Chance Of A Pandemic? The prediction markets on this topic ask a question about “10,000 cases in the United States”. Does this necessarily mean “pandemic”? Might it be possible to get to 10,000 cases just from the scattered chicken and cow farmers, with no human-to-human transmission? Despite many chicken and cow infections this year, there have only been 60 - 70 recorded human cases. Unless there is a phase change in screening methods, it seems hard for this number to increase to 10,000 off farmers alone. I think it’s fair to treat this question as operationalizing “what is the chance of a pandemic”? By this definition, Manifold estimates a 40% chance of an H5N1 pandemic in 2025. Metaculus estimates a 5% chance. You can see below whether that’s changed since I wrote this essay: 5% versus 40% is a big difference! Who do we trust? I trust Metaculus. Metaculus has beaten Manifold in both of the two head-to-head comparisons that I know of (Jeremiah Johnson’s and mine). Manifold’s number swings by a factor of two from week to week; Metaculus has been steady. But also, Metaculus hosts a CDC-sponsored respiratory disease forecasting tournament which has enriched them in epidemiological expertise. And if you look at the quality of comments on both sites, it’s pretty obvious where the people with more intellectual chops are hanging out. The Manifold comments are mostly single sentences, or occasionally just links to an article about new cases. The Metaculus comments look more like this one by dimaklenchin: Despite the panic propaganda, H5N1 is unlikely to be "just a single mutation away from switching host preference": 1) It normally takes a lot more than a single mutation to switch hosts. E.g., there are at least five different reasons why SIV (monkey equivalent of HIV) is not infectious to humans. Heck, a variant of SIV that bears HIV's receptor-recognizing surface protein (SHIV) is still not infectious to humans. HIV most certainly evolved from SIV but, almost as certainly, it took a very long time to get there. Not that all viruses are the same and things can't turn out differently with flu, but I don't subscribe to the idea that a mere change of receptor specificity (something that can take 1-2 mutations) will be sufficient. 2) We have data. Lots of human infections with other varieties of bird flu in the past - all those viruses ultimately went nowhere. Why would H5N1 be radically different? E.g., the "Canadian teen", despite what sounds like a prolonged exposure, failed to infect anyone around him. Since I am at 18% for the h-2-h H5N1 detection in 2025, I am arbitrarily going ~ an order of magnitude lower than that for something as unprecedented as 10K human infections. Maybe should be much lower but hedging for the time being and will allow another couple months of observations. And Sergio: I'm currently at 20% on the question of reported human-to-human transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 globally before 2026. However, this question is only about the US, and is more general about all subtypes of H5. But H5N1 very strongly appears to be the most important subtype to consider in this time period. And, given the current situation in the US with H5N1 human cases derived from exposure to poultry or cattle (with cattle(mammals) being more worrisome), h2h transmission seems quite more likely to arise in North America than elsewhere before 2026. Conditioning on h2h transmission in the US (and also trying to consider, with lower probability, a start in Canada), I want to estimate the chances that it becomes sustained and out of control (in which case, if it starts in Canada, I largely expect it to spread to the US). The (6) past events of probable h2h transmission of avian H5(N1), none of which were sustained, could serve as a base rate, although I'm a bit wary of giving much weight to this precedent, since the last event was quite a while ago (2007), and also because reporting and testing standards may have improved considerably since then (so perhaps they might not have been classified as h2h transmission events if they had occurred more recently). The current situation in the US, and events such as the Canadian teen who got sick with H5N1, do suggest a higher background level of risk than normal (which would be reduced if a vaccine for cattle is licensed soon), but I'm wary of overupdating. Conditioned on sustained h2h transmission, reaching over 10k cases in a few months seems likely, although perhaps very strong monitoring and surveillance could contain the situation in time (at the very least to moderate the growth rate). Trying to combine all these factors somewhat haphazardly, I'm currently at 3.5% for this question. That’s before 2026. What about longer-term? Manifold gives a ~50% chance before 2030; Metaculus uses a more complicated method but it says about 25% chance before 2030. H5N1 may cross to humans, but it could take a while. Superforecaster Juan Cambeiro at The Institute For Progress estimated a 4% chance of a “worse than COVID” H5N1 pandemic in “the next year”, but their estimate was made in 2023, without the benefit of the Metaculus estimates or most of our current knowledge. This feels high now - Metaculus says 5% total for H5N1 pandemic, and most pandemic flus are not worse than COVID. IFP also seem to be expecting a case fatality rate greater than 10%, which I find unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. I trust their estimate less than Metaculus’ current ones. I conclude that the most plausible estimate for the chance of an H5N1 pandemic in the next year is 5%. Interestingly, 5% is about the base rate for pandemic flus per year: five in the past century = one per twenty years = 5% chance per year. Isn’t it surprising that we’re still at the base rate when we can see a dangerous-looking flu virus spreading through the types of animals that have caused pandemic flus in the past? Part of the answer is that we’re not - in addition to the 5% chance of H5N1, we have to add the chance of some other pandemic flu. This probably isn’t 5% on its own; scientists monitor flu strains closely, and they haven’t found any others which are giving off as many red flags as H5N1. Still, something could always come out of left field. Maybe we should add a 2.5% chance of some other strain, for a total of 7.5% chance of a flu pandemic (ie beyond normal seasonal flu) next year. But still, isn’t it surprising that we’re so close to the base rate? One way to think about this: the base rate represents how concerned we should be if there was no epidemiological monitoring at all. In that case, we would estimate a probability distribution across different epidemiological landscapes, most of which contain some concerning-looking flu strains. Since we are doing the epidemiological monitoring, we can collapse that distribution into a single picture: one flu strain, H5N1, is in fact pretty concerning, and other strains mostly aren’t. This is enough to move our prior from 5% to 7.5%, but no more. The forecasters I talked to raised one other point of uncertainty: does the flu work more like a dice roll, or like a bus? Dice rolls are uncorrelated with their predecessors; even if it’s been a hundred rolls since you last rolled a 6, your chance this time is still 1/6. But buses come at fixed intervals; if the buses are hourly, and you haven’t seen a bus in the past 59 minutes, then your chance of seeing a bus in the next minute is very high. It’s been 16 years since the last flu pandemic; these pandemics come (on average) every 20 years. I don’t think anyone has a good sense of how to think about this. But it was 40 years between the Spanish and Hong Kong flus, so the twenty year number is at best a rule of thumb. The 5% number feels very low to me (and, apparently, to the average Manifold forecaster). Isn’t H5N1 spreading to cows and pigs and all sorts of other mammals? Isn’t it in the news all the time? I trust Metaculus a lot, but I agree that this is a surprising update, and I’m taking it on faith rather than feeling it in my bones. What Would The Fatality Rate Be For An H5N1 Pandemic? There are four basic stories you could tell about likely H5N1 mortality. First, maybe mortality would be 50%. The argument here is that official statistics report this mortality rate in the chicken farmers who have been infected with H5N1 so far. Several news sources and even some scientists have raised the specter of a pandemic version of H5N1 pandemic with this same death rate, which could kill a quarter to a third of the world population. THIS IS EXTREMELY FAKE. The official statistics only report fatality rate in the infections we know about. Bird flu is rare, there’s no mass testing, and we only learn that somebody had it if they’re in a hospital and the doctors are worried enough to test for rare conditions. Of Americans who got bird flu in the past year, 0 out of 61 have died. Probably this is mostly because America upped its detection game and is now finding milder cases; we also can’t rule out the virus mutating to become less virulent. Metaculus estimates the current true mortality rate as 1.25%. …but leaves a wide 90% confidence interval, from 0.5% to 7%. Second, maybe mortality would be somewhere around 1.25%. The argument here is that Metaculus uses this as its central estimate of US mortality. But Sentinel discusses some reasons to be skeptical of broad inferences from the US numbers: Scientists have been puzzled by the apparently low H5N1 case fatality rate in humans in the US. They offer a number of hypotheses: “The way in which the virus is being transmitted — along with the amount of virus exposure — is limiting the severity of disease.”

1977 influenza pandemic1 mentions across 1 issues

1977 influenza pandemic is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 30, 2022 and July 30, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "In 1977 there was an influenza pandemic, now called the Russian Flu". It most often appears alongside 1950s influenza strain, 1992 scientific investigation, ACX.

Reference entry: 1977 influenza pandemic
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 30, 2022
Last seen: July 30, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Viral July 30, 2022

1950s influenza strain 1 shared issues
1992 scientific investigation 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
ACX community 1 shared issues
Alex Jones 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Viral

July 30, 2022 · Original source

In 1977 there was an influenza pandemic, now called the Russian Flu, which ultimately killed about 700,000 people. It was discovered that this flu strain was nearly genetically identical to a strain that had previously been common in the 1950s, but had since disappeared, except for samples that were being studied in research labs. It’s now thought that the 1977 Russian Flu was the result of vaccine trials gone awry, in which military recruits became infected after being exposed to live attenuated H1N1 virus.

1979 oil crisis1 mentions across 1 issues

1979 oil crisis is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 08, 2022 and July 08, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "The poor economy receives an additional shock with the 1979 oil crisis". It most often appears alongside 1968 convention, 1976 Democratic, 1976 Democratic primary.

Reference entry: 1979 oil crisis
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 08, 2022
Last seen: July 08, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Outlier July 08, 2022

1968 convention 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic 1 shared issues
1976 Democratic primary 1 shared issues
1976 primary 1 shared issues
1980 1 shared issues

Source context

The Psychopolitics Of Trauma

July 08, 2022 · Original source

The poor economy receives an additional shock with the 1979 oil crisis, when a drop in global oil production instigated by the Iranian revolution (more on that later) triggers a market reaction that more than doubles the price of oil. The result is not just skyrocketing gas prices but around-the-block lines at gas stations, with some even instituting rationing. Carter’s approval ratings, never great to begin with, drop into the low 30s.

1979 study on capital punishment by psychologists1 mentions across 1 issues

1979 study on capital punishment by psychologists is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 25, 2024 and January 25, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "in 1979 some psychologists asked partisans to read pairs of studies about capital punishment". It most often appears alongside 2016 election, Bayesian updating, Big Government.

Reference entry: 1979 study on capital punishment by psychologists
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 25, 2024
Last seen: January 25, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

The Psychopolitics Of Trauma January 25, 2024

2016 election 1 shared issues
Bayesian updating 1 shared issues
Big Government 1 shared issues
Big Tech 1 shared issues
Black Lives Matter 1 shared issues

Source context

January 25, 2024 · Original source

...it looks a lot like the dog example: zealots' priors determine what information they pay attention to, then distorts their judgment of that information. So for example, in 1979 some psychologists asked partisans to read pairs of studies about capital punishment (a controversial issue at the time), then asked them to rate the methodologies on a scale from -8 to 8. Conservatives rated the pro-punishment study at about +2 and the...

1980 referendum1 mentions across 1 issues

1980 referendum is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 19, 2023 and May 19, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "As of the 1980 referendum, she thinks they should go for independence". It most often appears alongside 1980, 1995 referendum, A.W. Phillips.

Reference entry: 1980 referendum
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 19, 2023
Last seen: May 19, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

The Question Of Separatism May 19, 2023

1980 1 shared issues
1995 referendum 1 shared issues
A.W. Phillips 1 shared issues
Adam Smith 1 shared issues
Alberta 1 shared issues

Source context

The Question Of Separatism

May 19, 2023 · Original source

Meanwhile, Montreal never generated a conurbation or significant city region. This is Jacobs’s main hypothesis for why it was overtaken by Toronto, though she doesn’t give a lot of detail on why it happened. In any case, the result was that Montreal lost its status as the economic capital of the country. It became a regional city. The problem is that regional cities tend to do poorly. The nature of nations is to centralize everything in one place (we’ll come back to this). That’s why Paris has a large and rich city region, but Lyon and Marseille don’t. That’s why London looms so large in the UK’s economy while Glasgow or Manchester now contribute very little. There’s nothing wrong per se with being an economically stagnant regional city. Such cities can be fine places. When they’re the center of a supply region, like Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta, they can even be wealthy. The complication for Montreal, though, is that its previous status as the main Canadian metropolis made it grow too large for this purpose. Yet, at the same time, Montreal plays an outsized cultural role for French-speaking Canadians — one that Toronto doesn’t even come close to fulfilling. So, Jacobs sees only decline for Montreal. And she thinks this means decline for Quebecois culture generally. Without a strong import-replacing city, Quebec will become a patchwork of supply regions, regions that workers abandon, or transplant economies, like the poverty-stricken Atlantic provinces in eastern Canada already are. Either the Quebecois resign themselves to this fate, she says, or they fight it — and the only true way to fight it is to declare independence. As of the 1980 referendum, she thinks they should go for independence. Generalized Separatism Quebecers did not go for independence, neither then in 1980 nor in 1995 when they voted on the question again. If they had, it would probably have been an example of a peaceful secession. Jacobs points out that there haven’t been many of those, if you exclude the decolonization of overseas imperial possessions (like Canada from Britain). Non-peaceful secessions have been common, but in those cases the destructiveness of war tends to overshadow everything else, economically speaking. In fact that might be the main reason most of us intuitively dislike separatism: we associate it with conflict. But peaceful non-colonial secessions do happen. Since 1980 there have been several more cases, like Czechia and Slovakia. When Jacobs wrote her book, though, the only good example she could think of was the independence of Norway from Sweden in 1905. She tells a great account of the process, noting that the outcome wasn’t predetermined: Sweden didn’t want to lose its western province, and did what it could to contain Norwegian nationalist sentiment. But Norwegian nationalist sentiment won — and importantly, both Norway and Sweden seemingly benefitted. Neither of them was particularly rich in the 19th century, and Norway was in fact dirt poor, which is why so many Norwegians escaped by emigrating to North America. Yet after the dissolution of their union, the two countries developed quickly, and both are now among the wealthiest countries in the world. They certainly didn’t disintegrate. (Of course, in Norway the wealth is due in large part to the oil that they discovered in the late 1960s. But they were pretty advanced by that point already — advanced enough that they could use the oil to develop their own industry, rather than get rich quick by exporting it raw, which is what keeps many countries trapped as supply regions.) When people argue against separatism, they often tout the benefits of being large. A Canada that would be split in two would mean smaller markets, and a weaker political counterweight to the United States. (Not to be mean to Canadian readers, but this argument seems delusional to me — I don’t think Americans currently see Canada as a political counterweight of any significance.) It would certainly be less prestigious. Large size, Jacobs says, is associated with power, and we admire power. We love slogans like “unity makes strength.” But after the medium-sized country of Sweden-Norway became the two smaller countries of Sweden and Norway, they both did well. Small size is less powerful, but it has its own advantages, such as nimbleness and ability to fail non-catastrophically. Small size also allows more diversity in cultural and economic matters, and here Jacobs waxes philosophical, pointing out that favoring diversity over uniformity is a recent, post-Enlightenment idea that has not yet been fully embraced in politics. We can see analogs everywhere. Europe, split into numerous small countries from the Middle Ages onward, became far more advanced than China, which has been unified more often than not. The city-states of ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy are seen as golden ages of Western civilization, even if they weren’t part of larger political units and therefore constantly went to war with one another. In business, large companies are impressive and powerful, but people always complain that Google or Microsoft have become stagnant and that the best place to work is tiny startups of about 2 cofounders and 4 employees. In biology, humans are more successful than numerous larger animals, and in terms of raw numbers, small animals like rats or insects are the most successful of all. Jacobs’s point isn’t that smaller is always better. Her point is that the converse statement, “bigger is always better,” is false — despite how intuitive it feels for political entities. Just like we don’t view a small nation like Switzerland or Singapore as a failure of unity, we (and in particular, Canadians) shouldn’t see the secession of a place like Quebec, if it’s done peacefully and democratically, as a failure either. Still, some people in online reviews of the book complain that this argument is a bit thin, especially considering that it serves as the foundation for the later chapters (which are more directly about late 1970s Quebec politics). Sure, small is beautiful, but large states are great for stability, peace, markets, whatever. If the potential benefits of small national size are Jacobs’s strongest argument, then we can breathe a sigh of relief and go back to agreeing that separatism is bad. Pointing out the widespread bias in favor of unified political entities does seem valuable to me, but okay, fair enough. Does Jacobs have deeper reasons why separatism might be a good idea in general? Yes, and for this we go back to the second half of Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Why Nations and Empires Fail Our breathing rate is regulated through a feedback mechanism. Too much carbon dioxide in the blood, or too little oxygen, and the brain stem commands the diaphragm to accelerate breathing. Once the levels are back to normal, the brain stem receives this feedback and slows breathing down again. Now, Jacobs asks, imagine an impossible creature: ten people, all doing their own thing, but whose breathing is somehow regulated by a single brain stem. The feedback the brain stem receives is a consolidated average of everyone’s carbon dioxide and oxygen levels, and the breathing rate the stem decides on is applied to all ten people, regardless of whether they’re sleeping or playing tennis. This, to put it mildly, wouldn’t work. This creature is an analogy, representing a nation. The ten people are its individual cities, and the breathing rate is the cities’ economies. If it sounds like a stupid analogy, that’s because it is: “I have had to propose a preposterous situation,” writes Jacobs, “because systems as structurally flawed as this don’t exist in nature; they wouldn’t last.” Nor do they exist in machines we design; they wouldn’t work. But “nations, from this point of view, don’t work either, yet do exist.” The feedback mechanism that fails to work properly in a nation is currency. A currency always fluctuates according to the exports and imports of the area where it circulates. Let me use the Republic of Venice and its ducat as a toy example, because the coins look nice: Whenever Venice produces something (like salt) and sells it abroad, foreigners need ducats to buy the exports, so the demand for ducats increases. When Venice buys something from abroad, it needs to use foreign currencies, so the demand for ducats decreases. Add up everything that Venice exports and imports, and you get either a trade surplus (more exports than imports) or a trade deficit (more imports than exports), which determines the value of the ducat relative to other currencies. In both cases, a negative feedback loop restores balance over time, just like our brain stem does with carbon dioxide levels. A trade surplus, and therefore a strong ducat, means that when foreigners want Venetian salt, it’s expensive. So Venice’s exports decrease, while imports increase, since Venetians can use their valuable ducats to buy stuff cheaply from abroad. Conversely, a trade deficit makes exports a bargain for foreigners and imports expensive for Venetians. This feedback loop is great. It’s exactly what a city needs to trigger the crucial import replacement process. When exports decrease and a trade deficit begins (maybe because Constantinople found a cheaper source of salt somewhere else), the weak ducat means that Venice is less able to afford the resources and manufactured goods it used to import. The people of Venice don’t want to have less of those goods, though, so they figure out ways to produce some themselves — that is, they do import replacement. Later they will be able to export the output of the newly expanding industries too, strengthening the ducat and continuing the cycle. Currencies, Jacobs explains, function as automatic tariffs (to protect local industry from foreign imports) and automatic export subsidies (to encourage local industry to export). They are “automatic” because of the feedback mechanism. Just like an accelerated breathing rate, they take effect exactly when they are needed — and no longer. … Or so they should, except that import replacement, as we discussed, is a city process. Whereas most currencies are national or supranational. National currencies work well for city-states, like the Republic of Venice or today’s Singapore. But in large nations, which, remember, are not the fundamental unit of economic life, they mess everything up. Take a city like Detroit. When Detroit’s exports (primarily cars) decrease, Detroit gets no feedback about this, because its currency is the United States dollar, and the United States dollar’s value depends on much more than Detroit. It depends on other cities whose foreign exports might be increasing at the moment. And on rural regions that are selling resources like oil abroad. Also, trade between Detroit and other cities that use the United States dollar — i.e., American cities — is structurally unable to provide any feedback whatsoever. So Detroit doesn’t get the signal that it should buy less stuff from other cities and replace the missing imports with local production. Instead, it just declines. Jacobs hypothesizes that this issue of national currencies is at the root of every large country’s economic troubles. It is why nations and empires always centralize everything into one large city, whether that’s Paris, London, Tokyo, or Toronto, or ancient Rome: that city, being the largest, is simply the only one for which national-level currency feedback works fine. The rest of the nation or empire, then, declines. But of course, nations and empires don’t accept this. They care about the economic well-being of their peripheral regions, sometimes out of genuine concern for the people there, sometimes out of fear that they rebel or hold independence referendums. So nations and empires will embark on every possible solution to reverse the decline. All of their solutions will look like good ideas at first, and yet fail at helping the peripheral regions. Worse, these solutions will weaken the cities, thereby destroying the only real wealth of the country and bringing untold hardship for everyone. Eventually the nation or empire will disintegrate, as nations and empires always do, and always will. Jacobs calls these false solutions transactions of decline. She identifies three types, and, content warning, you might not like some of them depending on your political sensibilities. Sustained military production is a transaction of decline. Permanent military bases and garrison towns are a special kind of settlement: they import a lot and export nothing. Superficially, producing weapons and supplies for the military seems like a good deal for some cities — Jacobs gives the example of Seattle, which, before Microsoft and Amazon were a thing, depended mostly on making military aircraft. But because nobody in a military base ever tries to replace those weapons and supplies with their own production, the trade is sterile in terms of economic development. In a sense, the wealth is slowly “drained” from cities. Large empires are especially prone to this: eventually all of their wealth is destined to the military just to keep the empire together.

1992 Presidential debate1 mentions across 1 issues

1992 Presidential debate is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 25, 2023 and July 25, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "'in the 1992 Presidential debate, all three candidates (Clinton, Bush, and Perot) took notes lefthanded'". It most often appears alongside ABA, Adesh Thapliyal, Alan Smith.

Reference entry: 1992 Presidential debate
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 25, 2023
Last seen: July 25, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On Social Model Of Disability July 25, 2023

ABA 1 shared issues
Adesh Thapliyal 1 shared issues
Alan Smith 1 shared issues
Alexander Graham Bell 1 shared issues
American Psychological Association 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On Social Model Of Disability

July 25, 2023 · Original source

Left-handedness was much discriminated against in the past. For example, Ronald Reagan was a natural lefty who was brought up to write righthanded. But then discrimination against left-handers greatly declined in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if the immense popularity of lefthanded baseball heroes like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth changed American attitudes. For example, in the 1992 Presidential debate, all three candidates (Clinton, Bush, and Perot) took notes lefthanded.

1992 scientific investigation1 mentions across 1 issues

1992 scientific investigation is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 30, 2022 and July 30, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "A proper scientific investigation was finally allowed in 1992 and 1993". It most often appears alongside 1950s influenza strain, 1977 influenza pandemic, ACX.

Reference entry: 1992 scientific investigation
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 30, 2022
Last seen: July 30, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Viral July 30, 2022

1950s influenza strain 1 shared issues
1977 influenza pandemic 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
ACX community 1 shared issues
Alex Jones 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Viral

July 30, 2022 · Original source

In April 1979, anthrax escaped from a biological warfare lab in Sverdlovsk, USSR, resulting in at least 64 deaths. This leak was successfully covered up by the Soviet authorities for more than a decade, with the KGB confiscating hospital records of the victims. The truth was only discovered after the fall of the Soviet Union, when a proper scientific investigation was finally allowed in 1992 and 1993.

1992 treaty1 mentions across 1 issues

1992 treaty is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 21, 2021 and May 21, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "agreed upon in a 1992 treaty". It most often appears alongside ACX, Africa, Alaska.

Reference entry: 1992 treaty
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 21, 2021
Last seen: May 21, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Accidental Superpower May 21, 2021

ACX 1 shared issues
Africa 1 shared issues
Alaska 1 shared issues
Allen Farrington 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: The Accidental Superpower

May 21, 2021 · Original source

We didn’t just get tremendous economic growth though – we got “magical” results, but they were based on a one-time confluence of factors that “overwhelmed the normal rule that lots of twenty-and thirty-somethings make for an expensive-capital environment.” What were these one-time accelerants? He identifies the peace dividend – cuts in military spending that allowed capital to be put to more productive uses – as one such change, along with the emergent dominance of the US dollar, particularly boosted by Russian demand thanks to the collapse of their currency, and a later boost in demand thanks to the East Asian financial crisis. With the Europeans’ decision to eliminate national currencies (agreed upon in a 1992 treaty, with the Euro to be introduced in 1999), they became relatively unattractive, and the Euro itself (an “unprecedented experiment in pan-government planning”) was too risky. Many holders of European currencies switched to the US dollar, such that between 1994 and 2002 (“when the euro finally got some traction and the surge dialed back”) there was a $2 trillion increase in the money supply. Zeihan also points to a collapse in commodities prices influenced by the elimination of Russian demand, but continued Russian production of oil and other commodities, followed by a collapse in demand thanks to the East Asian financial crisis. This story of capital coming to the West (“allowing consumption-driven growth not simply to soar, but to explode”) is one of chance world events. However, the story of capital coming from the Boomer cohort is one of demographics. By the 2000s, they’re the mature workers of Zeihan’s four stages described above – and as the bulge in the demographic pyramid, they started flooding the world with capital. Accordingly, “The cost of credit plummeted to levels never before experienced.” Zeihan suggests that developed-world demographics are the cause of booms in places that haven’t been well-developed, from Southern Europe to Brazil, Russia, and India. But he says it’s quickly coming to an end; Boomer savings into stocks and bonds will be moving to low-risk instruments and then turning into withdrawals rather than savings, and the cohort behind them is too small to replace all of that capital. And it’s a worldwide phenomenon: In every single developed country there is currently an American-style population inversion between the about-to-retire and the about-to-be-mature-workers age groups. Japan’s Boomers bulge is a decade older than the American equivalent, while Spain’s is roughly fifteen years younger. Everyone else falls somewhere in between. It dictates a period of chronically low growth and high credit costs, just not on precisely the same time frame. The undeveloped world is that way because it can’t self-fund, so without foreign capital, their growth will come to an end. In sum, the 1990-2005 period of high growth and easy capital was a historical anomaly; “the post-Cold War financial flight was a once-in-a-generation event” and the demographic bulge that coincided with it won’t come around again for decades, if ever. 4 2: America’s incredible advantages As noted above, Zeihan really likes America’s position in the world. He likes its demographics (relative to other developed countries) and loves its geography. Taking the population question first, in America, “the demographic inversion is only a temporary development.” America is younger than the rest of the developed world, as it urbanized later and its enormous size made having kids easier despite that urbanization (i.e., the suburbs exist). This makes the demographic crunch a single-generation issue, as the Millennials are a huge cohort. And even if they weren’t, America assimilates immigrants more easily than other places – Zeihan attributes this to it being a “settler society” – which can help with demographic problems. The rest of the developed world doesn’t have similar cohorts following their massive Boomer and Gen-X analogues. Accordingly: While the American financial world will be past its period of maximum stress by 2030, for the rest of the world 2030 will simply be another year of an ever-deepening imbalance between retirees and taxpayers, with smaller and smaller generations coming up the ranks generating less and less growth. For the developed world beyond the United States—and even large portions of the developing world—chronic capital poverty and permanent recession will be the new normal from which there is no return. Together with America’s Millennial-led growth and abundant energy (there’s a chapter explaining how shale is a done deal that, as of the mid-2014 writing, already made America the world’s largest energy producer 5), by 2030 Zeihan sees it as practically the only country with an economy worth noting. Anyone who is familiar with American geography should see the argument that’s coming about that aspect of Zeihan’s model. Isn’t the Mississippi River a pretty big deal? And those oceans on the east and west coasts seem like nice borders. Indeed, while he gives us many reasons why there was always going to be an American superpower, geography is central to his story. He has lots to say about America’s internal river systems, farmland, and other geographic features. What mountain barriers exist are apparently better than in other countries in terms of allowing internal transport; the Rockies have major passes, several of which have large cities within them, and the easiest pass in the Appalachians featured America’s first National Road, 130 miles of buried logs that linked two rivers, and thus the east coast with the best farmland in the world. As we saw with his exposition on the Nile, Zeihan puts a lot of emphasis on the value of river systems. He argues that America’s waterway network alone should be sufficient for “global dominance.” The numbers he provides in support of this point are impressive. For example, “the Mississippi is only one of twelve major navigable American rivers. Collectively, all of America’s temperate-zone rivers are 14,650 miles long. China and Germany each have about 2,000 miles, France about 1,000. The entirety of the Arab world has but 120.” He praises US barrier islands that mitigate oceanic destruction and effectively create another river system, as well as the fact that the river system is an actual network. All of this gives America more internal waterways than the rest of the world combined. Thus, we get cheap transportation for “Nebraska corn or Tennessee whiskey or Texas oil or New Jersey steel or Georgia peaches or Michigan cars,” enabling savings that “can be used for whatever Americans (or their government) want, from iPhones to aircraft carrier battle groups.” America doesn’t have to spend on artificial infrastructure, like German roads and rails, but when it does, the competition from the rivers keeps transport costs low. Cheap internal transportation has other benefits. “It’s a recipe for small government and high levels of entrepreneurship,” as small government keeps taxes low, leaving people with plenty of capital. Some people may think of the American consumer with disdain, but it isn’t a new phenomenon. Zeihan points out that America has been the world’s largest consumer market “since shortly after the Civil War.” His observation about a robust food supply forming the base of any civilization bodes well for America, which apparently has the largest connected stretch of quality farmland in the world (the Midwest), the value of which is exponentially increased by the fact that it overlaps with so many of these amazing river systems. It isn’t just the Midwest that he gushes over. California’s Central Valley and the Sacramento River, and Washington and Oregon’s farmland with the Columbia and Snake Rivers get praise. The only major farmland more than 150 miles from a navigable waterway is some of the Great Plains near the Rockies. ***** Zeihan provides a reminder that national security is actually a thing, and that at its most basic level, it’s about protection against invasions. It was something of a shock reading about America’s land borders in that context. “As Santa Anna discovered during the Texas Independence War, there is no good staging location in (contemporary) Mexican territory that could strike at American lands.” And, “Canada’s border with the United States is much longer, more varied, and even more successful at keeping the two countries separated,” thanks to mountains and thick forests over much of it. The mid-continent lands are much more connected, but Zeihan frames these Canadian areas as basically American; they’re physically separated from Canada’s core eastern provinces, so trade with them is weaker than with the closer American states. Then there are the oceans. As much as Zeihan loves deserts for protection, he loves oceans more (particularly in a post-World War II world; more on that below). We get a story about the War of 1812 nearly splitting America into three when the British attacked Baltimore. America learned about “strategic vulnerability and sea approaches,” as the attack “on Baltimore—indeed, the entire war effort—would have been impossible without launching grounds in Canada and the Caribbean.” American foreign policy since then can be understood with respect to this lesson. Zeihan cites it as inspiration for America’s steps to make its ocean borders truly impenetrable, such as working to sever Canada from Britain, and the imperial-era acquisitions of Alaska, Hawaii, Midway, Puerto Rico, and de facto control of Cuba (preventing enemies from cutting off Mississippi River-based trade from the rest of the world). There’s more to Zeihan’s being awestruck by America than his analysis of its balance of transport advantages. He argues that America has been the world leader for agriculture, technology, finance, and industry since the Civil War, and runs through a litany of reasons for its preeminence: America is like a continent-sized island (because of its effective land borders), which is always going to be a more natural naval power than a more landlocked country.

Inline links: 4, 5

1993 Russian constitutional crisis1 mentions across 1 issues

1993 Russian constitutional crisis is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between August 11, 2023 and August 11, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "the constitutional crisis of 1993 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis )". It most often appears alongside 2011 parliamentary election, 2011-2014 protests, 9/11 was an inside job.

Reference entry: 1993 Russian constitutional crisis
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: August 11, 2023
Last seen: August 11, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On Putin August 11, 2023

2011 parliamentary election 1 shared issues
2011-2014 protests 1 shared issues
11 was an inside job 1 shared issues
Aksenenko 1 shared issues
Alexei 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On Putin

August 11, 2023 · Original source

...wield less power than FSB, but because the Russian Constitution of 1993 gives exceeding powers to the president even in its original form. By itself, it was a result of the constitutional crisis of 1993 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis ), where Yeltsin first illegally dissolved the parliament, then ignored the decision of the constitutional court and his impeachment by the parliament to bomb the parliame...

1995 referendum1 mentions across 1 issues

1995 referendum is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 19, 2023 and May 19, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "nor in 1995 when they voted on the question again". It most often appears alongside 1980, 1980 referendum, A.W. Phillips.

Reference entry: 1995 referendum
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 19, 2023
Last seen: May 19, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

The Question Of Separatism May 19, 2023

1980 1 shared issues
1980 referendum 1 shared issues
A.W. Phillips 1 shared issues
Adam Smith 1 shared issues
Alberta 1 shared issues

Source context

The Question Of Separatism

May 19, 2023 · Original source

Meanwhile, Montreal never generated a conurbation or significant city region. This is Jacobs’s main hypothesis for why it was overtaken by Toronto, though she doesn’t give a lot of detail on why it happened. In any case, the result was that Montreal lost its status as the economic capital of the country. It became a regional city. The problem is that regional cities tend to do poorly. The nature of nations is to centralize everything in one place (we’ll come back to this). That’s why Paris has a large and rich city region, but Lyon and Marseille don’t. That’s why London looms so large in the UK’s economy while Glasgow or Manchester now contribute very little. There’s nothing wrong per se with being an economically stagnant regional city. Such cities can be fine places. When they’re the center of a supply region, like Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta, they can even be wealthy. The complication for Montreal, though, is that its previous status as the main Canadian metropolis made it grow too large for this purpose. Yet, at the same time, Montreal plays an outsized cultural role for French-speaking Canadians — one that Toronto doesn’t even come close to fulfilling. So, Jacobs sees only decline for Montreal. And she thinks this means decline for Quebecois culture generally. Without a strong import-replacing city, Quebec will become a patchwork of supply regions, regions that workers abandon, or transplant economies, like the poverty-stricken Atlantic provinces in eastern Canada already are. Either the Quebecois resign themselves to this fate, she says, or they fight it — and the only true way to fight it is to declare independence. As of the 1980 referendum, she thinks they should go for independence. Generalized Separatism Quebecers did not go for independence, neither then in 1980 nor in 1995 when they voted on the question again. If they had, it would probably have been an example of a peaceful secession. Jacobs points out that there haven’t been many of those, if you exclude the decolonization of overseas imperial possessions (like Canada from Britain). Non-peaceful secessions have been common, but in those cases the destructiveness of war tends to overshadow everything else, economically speaking. In fact that might be the main reason most of us intuitively dislike separatism: we associate it with conflict. But peaceful non-colonial secessions do happen. Since 1980 there have been several more cases, like Czechia and Slovakia. When Jacobs wrote her book, though, the only good example she could think of was the independence of Norway from Sweden in 1905. She tells a great account of the process, noting that the outcome wasn’t predetermined: Sweden didn’t want to lose its western province, and did what it could to contain Norwegian nationalist sentiment. But Norwegian nationalist sentiment won — and importantly, both Norway and Sweden seemingly benefitted. Neither of them was particularly rich in the 19th century, and Norway was in fact dirt poor, which is why so many Norwegians escaped by emigrating to North America. Yet after the dissolution of their union, the two countries developed quickly, and both are now among the wealthiest countries in the world. They certainly didn’t disintegrate. (Of course, in Norway the wealth is due in large part to the oil that they discovered in the late 1960s. But they were pretty advanced by that point already — advanced enough that they could use the oil to develop their own industry, rather than get rich quick by exporting it raw, which is what keeps many countries trapped as supply regions.) When people argue against separatism, they often tout the benefits of being large. A Canada that would be split in two would mean smaller markets, and a weaker political counterweight to the United States. (Not to be mean to Canadian readers, but this argument seems delusional to me — I don’t think Americans currently see Canada as a political counterweight of any significance.) It would certainly be less prestigious. Large size, Jacobs says, is associated with power, and we admire power. We love slogans like “unity makes strength.” But after the medium-sized country of Sweden-Norway became the two smaller countries of Sweden and Norway, they both did well. Small size is less powerful, but it has its own advantages, such as nimbleness and ability to fail non-catastrophically. Small size also allows more diversity in cultural and economic matters, and here Jacobs waxes philosophical, pointing out that favoring diversity over uniformity is a recent, post-Enlightenment idea that has not yet been fully embraced in politics. We can see analogs everywhere. Europe, split into numerous small countries from the Middle Ages onward, became far more advanced than China, which has been unified more often than not. The city-states of ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy are seen as golden ages of Western civilization, even if they weren’t part of larger political units and therefore constantly went to war with one another. In business, large companies are impressive and powerful, but people always complain that Google or Microsoft have become stagnant and that the best place to work is tiny startups of about 2 cofounders and 4 employees. In biology, humans are more successful than numerous larger animals, and in terms of raw numbers, small animals like rats or insects are the most successful of all. Jacobs’s point isn’t that smaller is always better. Her point is that the converse statement, “bigger is always better,” is false — despite how intuitive it feels for political entities. Just like we don’t view a small nation like Switzerland or Singapore as a failure of unity, we (and in particular, Canadians) shouldn’t see the secession of a place like Quebec, if it’s done peacefully and democratically, as a failure either. Still, some people in online reviews of the book complain that this argument is a bit thin, especially considering that it serves as the foundation for the later chapters (which are more directly about late 1970s Quebec politics). Sure, small is beautiful, but large states are great for stability, peace, markets, whatever. If the potential benefits of small national size are Jacobs’s strongest argument, then we can breathe a sigh of relief and go back to agreeing that separatism is bad. Pointing out the widespread bias in favor of unified political entities does seem valuable to me, but okay, fair enough. Does Jacobs have deeper reasons why separatism might be a good idea in general? Yes, and for this we go back to the second half of Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Why Nations and Empires Fail Our breathing rate is regulated through a feedback mechanism. Too much carbon dioxide in the blood, or too little oxygen, and the brain stem commands the diaphragm to accelerate breathing. Once the levels are back to normal, the brain stem receives this feedback and slows breathing down again. Now, Jacobs asks, imagine an impossible creature: ten people, all doing their own thing, but whose breathing is somehow regulated by a single brain stem. The feedback the brain stem receives is a consolidated average of everyone’s carbon dioxide and oxygen levels, and the breathing rate the stem decides on is applied to all ten people, regardless of whether they’re sleeping or playing tennis. This, to put it mildly, wouldn’t work. This creature is an analogy, representing a nation. The ten people are its individual cities, and the breathing rate is the cities’ economies. If it sounds like a stupid analogy, that’s because it is: “I have had to propose a preposterous situation,” writes Jacobs, “because systems as structurally flawed as this don’t exist in nature; they wouldn’t last.” Nor do they exist in machines we design; they wouldn’t work. But “nations, from this point of view, don’t work either, yet do exist.” The feedback mechanism that fails to work properly in a nation is currency. A currency always fluctuates according to the exports and imports of the area where it circulates. Let me use the Republic of Venice and its ducat as a toy example, because the coins look nice: Whenever Venice produces something (like salt) and sells it abroad, foreigners need ducats to buy the exports, so the demand for ducats increases. When Venice buys something from abroad, it needs to use foreign currencies, so the demand for ducats decreases. Add up everything that Venice exports and imports, and you get either a trade surplus (more exports than imports) or a trade deficit (more imports than exports), which determines the value of the ducat relative to other currencies. In both cases, a negative feedback loop restores balance over time, just like our brain stem does with carbon dioxide levels. A trade surplus, and therefore a strong ducat, means that when foreigners want Venetian salt, it’s expensive. So Venice’s exports decrease, while imports increase, since Venetians can use their valuable ducats to buy stuff cheaply from abroad. Conversely, a trade deficit makes exports a bargain for foreigners and imports expensive for Venetians. This feedback loop is great. It’s exactly what a city needs to trigger the crucial import replacement process. When exports decrease and a trade deficit begins (maybe because Constantinople found a cheaper source of salt somewhere else), the weak ducat means that Venice is less able to afford the resources and manufactured goods it used to import. The people of Venice don’t want to have less of those goods, though, so they figure out ways to produce some themselves — that is, they do import replacement. Later they will be able to export the output of the newly expanding industries too, strengthening the ducat and continuing the cycle. Currencies, Jacobs explains, function as automatic tariffs (to protect local industry from foreign imports) and automatic export subsidies (to encourage local industry to export). They are “automatic” because of the feedback mechanism. Just like an accelerated breathing rate, they take effect exactly when they are needed — and no longer. … Or so they should, except that import replacement, as we discussed, is a city process. Whereas most currencies are national or supranational. National currencies work well for city-states, like the Republic of Venice or today’s Singapore. But in large nations, which, remember, are not the fundamental unit of economic life, they mess everything up. Take a city like Detroit. When Detroit’s exports (primarily cars) decrease, Detroit gets no feedback about this, because its currency is the United States dollar, and the United States dollar’s value depends on much more than Detroit. It depends on other cities whose foreign exports might be increasing at the moment. And on rural regions that are selling resources like oil abroad. Also, trade between Detroit and other cities that use the United States dollar — i.e., American cities — is structurally unable to provide any feedback whatsoever. So Detroit doesn’t get the signal that it should buy less stuff from other cities and replace the missing imports with local production. Instead, it just declines. Jacobs hypothesizes that this issue of national currencies is at the root of every large country’s economic troubles. It is why nations and empires always centralize everything into one large city, whether that’s Paris, London, Tokyo, or Toronto, or ancient Rome: that city, being the largest, is simply the only one for which national-level currency feedback works fine. The rest of the nation or empire, then, declines. But of course, nations and empires don’t accept this. They care about the economic well-being of their peripheral regions, sometimes out of genuine concern for the people there, sometimes out of fear that they rebel or hold independence referendums. So nations and empires will embark on every possible solution to reverse the decline. All of their solutions will look like good ideas at first, and yet fail at helping the peripheral regions. Worse, these solutions will weaken the cities, thereby destroying the only real wealth of the country and bringing untold hardship for everyone. Eventually the nation or empire will disintegrate, as nations and empires always do, and always will. Jacobs calls these false solutions transactions of decline. She identifies three types, and, content warning, you might not like some of them depending on your political sensibilities. Sustained military production is a transaction of decline. Permanent military bases and garrison towns are a special kind of settlement: they import a lot and export nothing. Superficially, producing weapons and supplies for the military seems like a good deal for some cities — Jacobs gives the example of Seattle, which, before Microsoft and Amazon were a thing, depended mostly on making military aircraft. But because nobody in a military base ever tries to replace those weapons and supplies with their own production, the trade is sterile in terms of economic development. In a sense, the wealth is slowly “drained” from cities. Large empires are especially prone to this: eventually all of their wealth is destined to the military just to keep the empire together.

1999 apartment bombings1 mentions across 1 issues

1999 apartment bombings is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between September 13, 2024 and September 13, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "figure out what happened in the 1999 apartment bombings that are widely considered a false flag operation". It most often appears alongside 9/11, Abbasid, Abu Hafs.

Reference entry: 1999 apartment bombings
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: September 13, 2024
Last seen: September 13, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Nine Lives September 13, 2024

11 1 shared issues
Abbasid 1 shared issues
Abu Hafs 1 shared issues
Abu Hamza al-Ghamdi 1 shared issues
Abu Khabab 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Nine Lives

September 13, 2024 · Original source

Someone writing The Authenticity of Various Hadiths: Much More Than You Wanted to Know probably won’t bring peace to the Middle East in itself, but still, Dean’s advice is good encouragement that actually engaging in debate with people on their own terms can be worthwhile, even with people who are as deeply lost as the jihadists. Putin (probably) didn’t do the 1999 apartment bombings This point doesn’t really fit among the overarching themes of the book, but is still very important information, so I shoehorn it into the review here.

In fact, this was the original reason I started reading this book. Two years ago, soon after the Ukraine invasion, I tried to figure out what happened in the 1999 apartment bombings that are widely considered a false flag operation. For example, Scott writes in his book review on Putin: “The standard position in the West is now that Putin orchestrated the apartment bombings himself - killing 300 Russians - as a justification for escalating the war on Chechnya and to make himself look good after he framed some perpetrators.” However, there was a throwaway line on Wikipedia about a British informant claiming the opposite. Later, this line was removed from Wikipedia for reasons that are unclear to me, and I found no other source mentioning this, so I tracked down the original book that was referenced. That was Aimen Dean’s memoir.

Inline links: 1999 apartment bombings, book review

1999 British eclipse1 mentions across 1 issues

1999 British eclipse is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between October 01, 2025 and October 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "survey after the 1999 British eclipse found 70 patients". It most often appears alongside 1910s Portugal, 2017 US eclipse, A Ordem.

Reference entry: 1999 British eclipse
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: October 01, 2025
Last seen: October 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know October 01, 2025

1910s Portugal 1 shared issues
2017 US eclipse 1 shared issues
A Ordem 1 shared issues
Abraham Lincoln 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues

Source context

The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know

October 01, 2025 · Original source

Scientists have tried to measure the number of extra retinopathy cases presenting at eye clinics after major eclipses. A survey after the 1999 British eclipse found 70 patients, all of whom made full recoveries after six months; another after the 2017 US eclipse found 113. If 154 million Americans viewed the 2017 eclipse, and only 74% used proper eclipse glasses, that suggests that 40 million people viewed the eclipse without glasses. Suppose that 3/4 of those people were at least slightly responsible - they only took short glances, or they only looked during full totality. That’s still 10 million people irresponsibly staring directly at the sun. Only ~100 of these made it to a clinic to report eye damage, for a 1/100,000 injury rate. This paper on a UK eclipse goes into more detail about the exposure times: The time spent looking at the eclipse was reported to be seconds (less than 1 min) in 39% of cases. In a quarter of cases the time spent looking at the eclipse was minutes (range 1-45 min). The duration of exposure in the remaining percentage of cases was unspecified. Taken seriously, this is pretty surprising. If there were a simple dose-response relationship between sun-staring and damage, we would expect everyone with damage to have stared longer than a certain threshold. But in fact, we get a wide variety of doses, with some people reporting damage after ~10 seconds, and others taking 45 minutes. My very weak guess here is that claims like “I stared for three minutes” hide a lot of diversity. Many people who stare at the sun for a long time and get eye damage will feel stupid and claim that they stared for a shorter time. Other people who say they stared for a long time will actually have taken short “breaks”, or even made involuntary microsaccades that shift the sunlight onto a different part of the retina. Everyone will be blinking at some rate which might be faster or slower. And different people will have pupils that contract different amounts in response to light. Finally, we previously discussed how the sun seemed to have been filtered by clouds during the Fatima miracle. This seems to be a common feature - it was also a cloudy/rainy day at Ghiaie, Benin City, Necedah, Lubbock, and the Medjugorje examples we have good videos of. Cloud filters do not make it absolutely safe to stare at the sun, and experts explicitly say not to let your guard down in situations like these. But GPT estimates they decrease solar radiation by a factor of 4 - 20x, and might push time-to-damage more towards the forty-five minutes side of the window. Out of ten million estimated irresponsible eclipse viewers, only a hundred (1/100,000) came to medical attention. Out of a million Medjugorge pilgrims per year, only about ten (1/100,000) have come to medical attention. I don’t know why these numbers are so low, and I still don’t recommend staring at the sun. But it doesn’t seem completely implausible that the 70,000 people at Fatima could do it for ten minutes on a cloudy day and not cause a medically-noticeable mass blindness epidemic. 5.1: reddit.com/r/sungazing August Messeen stared at the sun for a little while, and only saw mildly interesting minor phenomena; I said we needed to find someone dumber and more masochistic than he was. The great 19th century psychophysicists like Joseph Plateau and Gustav Fechner stared at the sun for a medium while, and also didn’t see very much. Can we find people even dumber and more masochistic than they were? This is the 21st century, we have the Internet, and the answer to this kind of question is always “yes”. Sungazing is an ancient spiritual practice which, like most ancient spiritual practices, was invented by a 1900s quack doctor. According to its practitioners, staring at the sun for long periods heals your eyesight, improves your health, and confers spiritual benefits. The r/sungazing subreddit is a veritable Athens of our times, with its 2,039 readers boldly exploring the important spiritual questions surrounding the technique: There are guides to sungazing safely; the most important rule seems to be to only gaze around sunrise/sunset, and only for a very short period of time. I don’t know whether these rules actually make sungazing safe - the posts above suggest no - but it doesn’t matter; many users proudly ignore them. Sungazing Redditors often say they do their sungazing at high noon, or for extreme durations: Have any of these Buddhas-of-our-age noticed unusual phenomena similar to those reported at Fatima? Here are some selections from r/sungazing and some associated subreddits: (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) Most of these come from one topic in the forum, Sun Turned Purple? There are hundreds of other topics about optimal sungazing times, lists of benefits, and (of course) various people who got severe eye damage, and none of these people ever mentioned the color-changing swirling sun until this one topic, where one person says “has anyone else ever seen this?” and dozens of people agree that they have. Does that mean that lots of people might have seen it, and it’s just too weird to talk about? These comments show some clear resemblances to the Fatima account. They talk about a swirling motion and color changes8. Many focus on purple in particular, but that might just be primed by the topic name. Also, compare to Jose Garrett’s account of Fatima: Everything had the color of an amethyst: the sky, the air, everything and everybody. A little oak nearby was casting a heavy purple shadow on the ground. Still, the pattern of occurrences is confusing. Some of these people sungaze every day, but say they’ve only seen this once or twice. Others say they see it every time, and still others say they saw it the very first time they started sungazing. It seems like there must be plenty of variability - both between people (in their tendency to see it) and between times (in whether conditions are optimal to cause it). It’s still not obvious why some experienced sungazers go years without seeing it or never see it at all, but all 70,000 people at Fatima saw it immediately the first time they looked. This is our most promising lead yet, but still not perfect. Let’s move on. 5.2: Visual Release Hallucinations Some people at Fatima, Heroldsbach, and Lubbock saw things beyond just the spinning sun - complex visions of the cross, the Virgin, or other holy symbols. These confound optical/hallucinatory explanations and Dalleur-style “objective miracle” explanations alike. They seem to demand some sort of prophetic vision. Is there any way to reconcile them with a scientific/materialist story? Visual release hallucinations are a class of complex hallucinations caused by visual loss, common in cataracts and macular degeneration. The brain, denied useful input, takes a cue from chatbots and exam-takers and simply makes things up. Wikipedia describes the symptoms: Complex hallucinations may depict silent, non-interactive figures, whether multitudes of people, animals, or surreal objects, that appear life-like, as well as highly detailed landscapes or objects. The most common hallucination is of faces or cartoons. If anything, this paragraph undersells the weirdness of this condition: in its most famous variant, Charles Bonnet Syndrome, the hallucinatory content is specifically elves, fairies, and leprechauns (yes, they are dressed exactly how you would expect elves, fairies, and leprechauns to be dressed). Why elves, fairies, and leprechauns? There is no consensus theory. We know that humans have hyperactive agent detection - we see faces in the clouds, interpret dark trees as menacing giants, and imagine storms as punishment from wrathful gods. If whatever “noise” produces Charles Bonnet hallucinations is too small to resolve into a full-sized figure, maybe the brain resolves it into a tiny figure, and then - groping for a top-down prior to constrain what a tiny figure should look like - settles on elves or fairies or leprechauns. In a typical case, the condition does not affect reasoning, and patients are able to infer that their hallucinations cannot be real. In an atypical case, you get this website by someone who believes that their Charles Bonnet syndrome gives them special access to a non-material reality. If CBS patients can see leprechauns, can their hallucinations be shaped by other cultural archetypes - like religious beliefs? Unsurprisingly, yes. Here is an example of a CBS sufferer seeing the Devil. Here is an example of auditory CBS (maybe cheating?) centering around religious hymns. We cannot invoke CBS itself to explain visions associated with the dancing sun, because it typically develops months to years after visual loss (although there are scattered examples of it appearing on timescales as short as ten minutes). And most people who see the dancing sun see it quickly, before severe retinal damage has had a chance to occur, and without any long-term visual abnormalities. We would have to posit an entirely new kind of visual release hallucination, previously unknown to science, in which the temporary bedazzlement of staring at the sun counts as the sort of visual release that makes the brain start confabulating. Also, I haven’t made a formal study of the testimonies, but I don’t think every single person who sees the Virgin Mary at a Marian apparition has been staring at the sun. Some people just see her on the ground nearby. But of all the places to find supplemental evidence, I was able to get one story from Robert (father of Charles) Darwin’s book on his sungazing experiments: Benvenuto Celini , an Italian artist, a man of strong abilities, relates, that having passed the whole night on a distant mountain with some companions and a conjurer, and performed many ceremonies to raise the devil, on their return in the morning to Home, and looking up when the sun began to rise, they saw numerous devils run on the tops of the houses, as they passed along; so much were the spectra of their weakened eyes magnified by fear, and made subservient to the purposes of fraud or superstition. And another from, of all places, Facebook: (source) The swirling, colorful sun sounds like the miracle of Fatima. The “tree of life symbol” might be a Purkinje tree, an established entoptic phenomenon. As for the rest, your guess is as good as mine. For what it’s worth, evangelical Christians warn that Demons Enter By Sungazing. This could just be the evangelical Christian tendency to worry about demons being associated with every unusual spiritual practice. But those figures walking out of the lake will haunt my dreams. 6: And I Say, It’s All Right Here’s the most sensible story I can generate for the Sun Miracle of Fatima: There is some previously unknown optical illusion that potentially causes the sun to appear to change colors and spin. This phenomenon is rare and inconsistent, and usually appears only after someone has stared at the sun a very long time. This explains why it’s only reported in the wild by a few weird Redditors who stare at the sun on purpose every day. The appearance of this illusion is somehow modulated by cloud cover. In normal conditions (bright day, no clouds) it’s almost impossible to summon without long periods of sungazing. But when the sun is half-hidden by translucent clouds, the illusion happens much faster. This explains why the Fatima, Ghiaie, Benin City, Necedah, and Lubbock miracles - as well as some of the most impressive Medjugorje cases - all happened just after rain stopped and the clouds were just starting to clear. It also explains why Fatima witnesses say that the sun was “covered in gauze” or “blocked by smoked glass” or “had a diaphanous veil” or “looked like it was seen through a window”. It’s also why, during the most impressive instances of the miracle, people say they can stare at the sun without it being too bright or hurting their eyes. But like koro, the illusion is also modulated by expectations and social priming. Paying attention to the sun, expecting something weird to be there, is much more likely to generate the illusion than catching a casually glance of it. This explains why it is most common during Marian apparitions and other Catholic events full of people familiar with Fatima, and only very occasionally appears to weird Redditors who aren’t specifically looking for it. It also explains why Professors Messeen and Stöckl (who were specifically thinking about Fatima at the time) got better results than earlier scientists (who were observing without preconceptions). At Fatima, the basic illusion, the meteorologic conditions, and the social priming all came together to a point where 80%+ of the pilgrims saw the phenomenon quickly enough that they neither stopped looking nor perceived it as taking unreasonably long. The conditions lasted ten minutes, during which time the sun peeked out from behind the clouds three times; to people who had been staring at the (veiled) sun with their pupils dilated, this looked like the sun suddenly flaring up monstrously large and hurling itself towards Earth (and speculatively, maybe something similar is responsible for the changes in the Filipino video). A small number of mentally susceptible people, already in a vulnerable state because of this apparent miracle, influenced by a process similar to visual release hallucinations, saw additional visions, like the Virgin Mary or the Cross. Some distant witnesses remembered that someone had prophecied a nearby miracle for that day. Because they were not so distant as to have totally different meteorologic conditions, when they looked up at the sky trying to catch the miracle, they saw it too. After the miracle ended, the people who saw it were primed to see it again for the next few weeks - partly because they were looking at the sun expectantly, and partly because they were in a susceptible frame of mind (cf discussion of delusional parasitosis here, panic attacks here, or chronic pain here) - explaining Garrett’s claim that “now everyone sees [the sparkling rotations of the sun] many days and many times”. Even thinking about the miracle served as a form of priming, so further Marian devotions in Fatima and elsewhere became hotspots for miraculous activity. This theory avoids some of the pitfalls of its component parts: I previously said that entoptic phenomena / hallucinations / illusions couldn’t explain the miracle, because normal sungazers don’t report it. This new theory adds modulation by meteorologic conditions and social priming. Absent these factors, the miracle will only occur for a small fraction of sungazers after many minutes spent gazing (producing the scattered Reddit reports). Given these factors, it can occur en masse.

2000 election1 mentions across 1 issues

2000 election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 23, 2023 and June 23, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "We’re now over four thousand words into this review, and I’ve barely even mentioned the 2000 election". It most often appears alongside 1965, 1968 Summer Olympics, 2023 book review contest.

Reference entry: 2000 election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 23, 2023
Last seen: June 23, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Public Citizens June 23, 2023

1965 1 shared issues
1968 Summer Olympics 1 shared issues
2023 book review contest 1 shared issues
American Capitalism 1 shared issues
Bush 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Public Citizens

June 23, 2023 · Original source

We’re now over four thousand words into this review, and I’ve barely even mentioned the 2000 election. While that infamous debacle isn’t a core part of this story, I do think it’s worth a quick postscript. How did someone like Nader—a staunch believer in staying outside the system who repeatedly refused his supporters’ requests that he seek elected office—end up running a doomed third-party campaign, and in the process help elect a president who worsened America way more than Nader ever improved it?

2003 recall election1 mentions across 1 issues

2003 recall election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between August 25, 2021 and August 25, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "in the 2003 recall election , Democrats fielded a great replacement candidate". It most often appears alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barbara Fried, California.

Reference entry: 2003 recall election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: August 25, 2021
Last seen: August 25, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Governor Of California? August 25, 2021

Arnold Schwarzenegger 1 shared issues
Barbara Fried 1 shared issues
California 1 shared issues
California Democratic Party 1 shared issues
California Democrats 1 shared issues

Source context

If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Governor Of California?

August 25, 2021 · Original source

Maybe at some point this seemed like a defensible position? California is a deep blue state, so maybe Democrats thought they could just...not dignify the recall with a response? [EDIT: Commenters bring up that in the 2003 recall election, Democrats fielded a great replacement candidate, lots of Democrats who disliked the governor voted yes on recall because it was costless with such a good replacement, and then the governor got recalled and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger won the replacement election. Now they want to try the opposite strategy of forcing Democratic voters to oppose the recall entirely.] But the mask mandates are lasting longer than expected, the wildfires are pretty bad this year, and Newsom supporters lack all conviction while his opponents are full of passionate intensity. For whatever reason, polls show the recall-Newsom question is 50-50 to pass right now.

Inline links: in the 2003 recall election, polls show

2006 IAU vote1 mentions across 1 issues

2006 IAU vote is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 01, 2023 and June 01, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "the 2006 IAU vote [to de-planetize Pluto]". It most often appears alongside 9/11, Abacha, Africa.

Reference entry: 2006 IAU vote
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 01, 2023
Last seen: June 01, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Links For May 2023 June 01, 2023

11 1 shared issues
Abacha 1 shared issues
Africa 1 shared issues
AISafetyMemes 1 shared issues
Andy Clark 1 shared issues

Source context

Links For May 2023

June 01, 2023 · Original source

17: Sniffnoy: The History Of The Term “Planet” Is Probably Not What You Think It Is. “Moons -- including the Moon -- were considered planets up until the 1920s, and asteroids were considered planets up until the 1950s” and “the 2006 IAU vote [to de-planetize Pluto] was a mistake”.

Inline links: The History Of The Term “Planet” Is Probably Not What You Think It Is

20081 mentions across 1 issues

2008 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2021 and May 04, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "financial crisis, which in fact happened in 2008". It most often appears alongside 9/11 attacks, A Brief History Of Neoliberalism, ABHoN.

Reference entry: 2008
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2021
Last seen: May 04, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Book Review: A Brief History Of Neoliberalism May 04, 2021

11 attacks 1 shared issues
A Brief History Of Neoliberalism 1 shared issues
ABHoN 1 shared issues
ABHoN 1 shared issues
Afghanistan 1 shared issues

Source context

Book Review: A Brief History Of Neoliberalism

May 04, 2021 · Original source

But there is a more sinister interpretation of this paradox. If we lay aside, as I believe we must, the claim that neoliberalization is merely an example of erroneous theory gone wild (pace the economist Stiglitz) or a case of senseless pursuit of a false utopia (pace the conservative political philosopher John Gray), then we are left with a tension between sustaining capitalism, on the one hand, and the restoration/reconstitution of ruling class power on the other. If we are at a point of outright contradiction between these two objectives, then there can be no doubt as to which side the current Bush administration is leaning, given its avid pursuit of tax cuts for the corporations and the rich. Furthermore, a global financial crisis in part provoked by its own reckless economic policies would permit the US government to finally rid itself of any obligation whatsoever to provide for the welfare of its citizens except for the ratcheting up of that military and police power that might be needed to quell social unrest and compel global discipline.

I’m not super sure what Harvey means by saying that the Bush tax cuts are antithetical to true free market ideology. But apparently he thinks this is true, and a sign that the government is trying to provoke a global financial crisis in order to “finally rid itself of any obligation whatsoever to provide for the welfare of its citizens”.

This seems like a kind of conspiratorial take on “businesses did not like anti-business policies, and lobbied to change them”. Also, I wonder if any movement could survive this level of critique. Some progressives formed anti-inequality think tanks after the Great Recession? Guess progressivism is a sham astroturf movement that merely used the Great Recession as an excuse to push their class war agenda!

2008 crisis1 mentions across 1 issues

2008 crisis is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between March 23, 2021 and March 23, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "then cleans up during the 2008 crisis". It most often appears alongside A Failure, But Not Of Prediction, Ancient Phoenicia, Animal Chow.

Reference entry: 2008 crisis
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: March 23, 2021
Last seen: March 23, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Book Review: Antifragile March 23, 2021

A Failure, But Not Of Prediction 1 shared issues
Ancient Phoenicia 1 shared issues
Animal Chow 1 shared issues
anti-rationalism 1 shared issues
Antifragile 1 shared issues

Source context

Book Review: Antifragile

March 23, 2021 · Original source

This is in the context of investing - his sympathetic character, Fat Tony, buys some financial instruments that "predict" everyone else will go bust, then cleans up during the 2008 crisis. I'm not really sure how far Taleb wants to take this. Does he believe that I - someone who doesn't know very much about investing - could beat the market by buying literal oil options, or whatever other kind of option I pleased? What about betting on literal VIX - an index that goes up during higher-than-expected volatility and goes down during lower-than-expected volatility? Taleb never makes this claim, and I think it would be hard to argue that an entire category of instrument has been consistently mispriced since forever. But then what is he trying to say here?

2008 Democratic National Convention1 mentions across 1 issues

2008 Democratic National Convention is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between September 29, 2022 and September 29, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "the 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Denver, Colorado". It most often appears alongside 1 Kings 10-11, Adam Scheffer, Adam Schefter.

Reference entry: 2008 Democratic National Convention
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: September 29, 2022
Last seen: September 29, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Universe-Hopping Through Substack September 29, 2022

1 Kings 10-11 1 shared issues
Adam Scheffer 1 shared issues
Adam Schefter 1 shared issues
Airbnb 1 shared issues
Airbnb 1 shared issues

Source context

Universe-Hopping Through Substack

September 29, 2022 · Original source

The event that marked the turning point [for the founders of AirBnB] was the 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Denver, Colorado. The pair saw an opportunity to capitalize on the quadruple over-attended event that caused a massive shortage in rental housing. Finding hosts to offer up rooms in their houses was actually the easy part. Getting people to rent those rooms proved more difficult.

2008 Financial Crisis1 mentions across 1 issues

2008 Financial Crisis is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 21, 2023 and July 21, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "highly-correlated mortgage-backed securities kicking off the 2008 Financial Crisis". It most often appears alongside 2023 book review contest, 30-Year Mortgage, A.L. Barker.

Reference entry: 2008 Financial Crisis
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 21, 2023
Last seen: July 21, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: The Laws of Trading July 21, 2023

2023 book review contest 1 shared issues
30-Year Mortgage 1 shared issues
A.L. Barker 1 shared issues
ACX Book Review Contest 1 shared issues
AGI 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: The Laws of Trading

July 21, 2023 · Original source

The feedback loop of markets is great at hiding these correlations until something goes wrong. When it does, you have highly-correlated mortgage-backed securities kicking off the 2008 Financial Crisis.

20091 mentions across 1 issues

2009 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 01, 2025 and January 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "2009: An H1N1 flu (“Mexican flu" until the PC police stepped in; afterwards “swine flu")". It most often appears alongside 1918, 1940s, 1968.

Reference entry: 2009
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 01, 2025
Last seen: January 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

H5N1: Much More Than You Wanted To Know January 01, 2025

1918 1 shared issues
1940s 1 shared issues
1968 1 shared issues
1977 1 shared issues
Asian flu 1 shared issues

Source context

Instead Of Pledging To Change The World, Pledge To Change Prediction Markets

January 01, 2025 · Original source

From “Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus”, linked above. You may recognize the lead author - Michael Worobey has also been a leading voice on the zoonotic side of the COVID origins debate. The recent history of the flu, as far as I can tell, is: 1918: An H1N1 flu (“Spanish flu”) jumped from birds to humans in America and killed 50 million people worldwide. This replaced all older strains, so most seasonal flus during this era were H1N1. 1957: An H2N2 flu (“Asian flu”) crossed from birds to humans in China, and killed about 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H1N1 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H2N2. 1968: An H3N2 flu (“Hong Kong flu”) crossed from pigs (?) to humans in Hong Kong, and killed another 2 million people worldwide. It replaced the H2N2 strain, so most seasonal flus during this era were H3N2. 1977: An H1N1 flu (“Russian flu”) leaked from a biology lab (?) in Russia (it might have been a strain from the 1940s, which the Russians were trying to make a vaccine for). It didn’t kill that many people, but it stuck around, and from then on, seasonal flus could be either H3N2 or H1N1. 2009: An H1N1 flu (“Mexican flu” until the PC police stepped in; afterwards “swine flu”) took some horrible circuitous route between birds and pigs and back again, crossed over into humans in Mexico, and killed 200,000 people. It outcompeted older strains of H1N1, but couldn’t crowd out H3N2, so seasonal flus are still either H3N2 or H1N1. …which brings us to the present, hopefully illuminating why “new flu strain crosses over from animals into humans” is such an “uh oh” moment. The Bird Flu Technically, all pandemic flus start as bird flus. Influenza A evolved in birds. Sometimes it spreads to other animals, including pigs, cattle, and humans. The most common way for a bird flu to spread to humans is to “reassort” (not exactly virus sex, but close enough, and the real version is less memorable) with a human flu virus (ie one that has already crossed over to humans). The resulting virus has all of the human flu virus’ human adaptations, but borrows enough new antigens from the bird virus to evade the immune system. Pigs can be infected by both human and bird viruses, so they are a common place for this reassortment to take place. If reassortment is sort of like viral sex, pigs are sort of like Tinder. When a bird flu and human flu reassort in pigs, the resulting disease is called a swine flu. At least the 2009 flu pandemic was a swine flu, and a minority opinion thinks the 1918 pandemic was too. There aren’t major epidemiological differences between direct-from-bird flus and swine flus. H5N1 was first noticed in birds - specifically, a flock of chickens in Scotland in 1959 - after which it disappeared for forty years. In 1996, it showed up in geese in China, then gradually increased its market share among birds worldwide. In 2022, it was found in minks; apparently it had learned to infect mammals. By early 2024, it was seen in cows. Now it’s in cow herds in 16 states, and one of them (California) has declared a state of emergency. And in October, H5N1 was found in pigs for the first time. It’s not uncommon for humans to catch an animal disease. This doesn’t mean the disease has “crossed over” to humans. If the virus isn’t suited to human-to-human transmission, it simply dies off (either before or after killing its human host). Thus, chicken farmers have been reporting scattered H5N1 cases since 1997; now that the virus has spread to cattle, cow farmers have started reporting the same. A Metaculus comment on this topic introduced me to the phrase “biocomputational surface”. Every viral replication that takes place in a human gives the virus one more chance to develop the set of mutations that makes it human-transmissible and start the next pandemic. Or, more likely, every viral replication that takes place in a human who has both the H5N1 bird flu and a normal human flu - or in a pig which has both viruses - gives the virus one extra chance to reassort in a way that produces a bird-antigen-fortified human-adapted flu virus. This doesn’t mean H5N1 will definitely become human-transmissible soon. Many viruses hang out on the borders of transmissibility for decades. Some, for unclear reasons, never cross over at all. But all of this is compatible with the virus becoming transmissible soon. So: What Is The Chance Of A Pandemic? The prediction markets on this topic ask a question about “10,000 cases in the United States”. Does this necessarily mean “pandemic”? Might it be possible to get to 10,000 cases just from the scattered chicken and cow farmers, with no human-to-human transmission? Despite many chicken and cow infections this year, there have only been 60 - 70 recorded human cases. Unless there is a phase change in screening methods, it seems hard for this number to increase to 10,000 off farmers alone. I think it’s fair to treat this question as operationalizing “what is the chance of a pandemic”? By this definition, Manifold estimates a 40% chance of an H5N1 pandemic in 2025. Metaculus estimates a 5% chance. You can see below whether that’s changed since I wrote this essay: 5% versus 40% is a big difference! Who do we trust? I trust Metaculus. Metaculus has beaten Manifold in both of the two head-to-head comparisons that I know of (Jeremiah Johnson’s and mine). Manifold’s number swings by a factor of two from week to week; Metaculus has been steady. But also, Metaculus hosts a CDC-sponsored respiratory disease forecasting tournament which has enriched them in epidemiological expertise. And if you look at the quality of comments on both sites, it’s pretty obvious where the people with more intellectual chops are hanging out. The Manifold comments are mostly single sentences, or occasionally just links to an article about new cases. The Metaculus comments look more like this one by dimaklenchin: Despite the panic propaganda, H5N1 is unlikely to be "just a single mutation away from switching host preference": 1) It normally takes a lot more than a single mutation to switch hosts. E.g., there are at least five different reasons why SIV (monkey equivalent of HIV) is not infectious to humans. Heck, a variant of SIV that bears HIV's receptor-recognizing surface protein (SHIV) is still not infectious to humans. HIV most certainly evolved from SIV but, almost as certainly, it took a very long time to get there. Not that all viruses are the same and things can't turn out differently with flu, but I don't subscribe to the idea that a mere change of receptor specificity (something that can take 1-2 mutations) will be sufficient. 2) We have data. Lots of human infections with other varieties of bird flu in the past - all those viruses ultimately went nowhere. Why would H5N1 be radically different? E.g., the "Canadian teen", despite what sounds like a prolonged exposure, failed to infect anyone around him. Since I am at 18% for the h-2-h H5N1 detection in 2025, I am arbitrarily going ~ an order of magnitude lower than that for something as unprecedented as 10K human infections. Maybe should be much lower but hedging for the time being and will allow another couple months of observations. And Sergio: I'm currently at 20% on the question of reported human-to-human transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 globally before 2026. However, this question is only about the US, and is more general about all subtypes of H5. But H5N1 very strongly appears to be the most important subtype to consider in this time period. And, given the current situation in the US with H5N1 human cases derived from exposure to poultry or cattle (with cattle(mammals) being more worrisome), h2h transmission seems quite more likely to arise in North America than elsewhere before 2026. Conditioning on h2h transmission in the US (and also trying to consider, with lower probability, a start in Canada), I want to estimate the chances that it becomes sustained and out of control (in which case, if it starts in Canada, I largely expect it to spread to the US). The (6) past events of probable h2h transmission of avian H5(N1), none of which were sustained, could serve as a base rate, although I'm a bit wary of giving much weight to this precedent, since the last event was quite a while ago (2007), and also because reporting and testing standards may have improved considerably since then (so perhaps they might not have been classified as h2h transmission events if they had occurred more recently). The current situation in the US, and events such as the Canadian teen who got sick with H5N1, do suggest a higher background level of risk than normal (which would be reduced if a vaccine for cattle is licensed soon), but I'm wary of overupdating. Conditioned on sustained h2h transmission, reaching over 10k cases in a few months seems likely, although perhaps very strong monitoring and surveillance could contain the situation in time (at the very least to moderate the growth rate). Trying to combine all these factors somewhat haphazardly, I'm currently at 3.5% for this question. That’s before 2026. What about longer-term? Manifold gives a ~50% chance before 2030; Metaculus uses a more complicated method but it says about 25% chance before 2030. H5N1 may cross to humans, but it could take a while. Superforecaster Juan Cambeiro at The Institute For Progress estimated a 4% chance of a “worse than COVID” H5N1 pandemic in “the next year”, but their estimate was made in 2023, without the benefit of the Metaculus estimates or most of our current knowledge. This feels high now - Metaculus says 5% total for H5N1 pandemic, and most pandemic flus are not worse than COVID. IFP also seem to be expecting a case fatality rate greater than 10%, which I find unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. I trust their estimate less than Metaculus’ current ones. I conclude that the most plausible estimate for the chance of an H5N1 pandemic in the next year is 5%. Interestingly, 5% is about the base rate for pandemic flus per year: five in the past century = one per twenty years = 5% chance per year. Isn’t it surprising that we’re still at the base rate when we can see a dangerous-looking flu virus spreading through the types of animals that have caused pandemic flus in the past? Part of the answer is that we’re not - in addition to the 5% chance of H5N1, we have to add the chance of some other pandemic flu. This probably isn’t 5% on its own; scientists monitor flu strains closely, and they haven’t found any others which are giving off as many red flags as H5N1. Still, something could always come out of left field. Maybe we should add a 2.5% chance of some other strain, for a total of 7.5% chance of a flu pandemic (ie beyond normal seasonal flu) next year. But still, isn’t it surprising that we’re so close to the base rate? One way to think about this: the base rate represents how concerned we should be if there was no epidemiological monitoring at all. In that case, we would estimate a probability distribution across different epidemiological landscapes, most of which contain some concerning-looking flu strains. Since we are doing the epidemiological monitoring, we can collapse that distribution into a single picture: one flu strain, H5N1, is in fact pretty concerning, and other strains mostly aren’t. This is enough to move our prior from 5% to 7.5%, but no more. The forecasters I talked to raised one other point of uncertainty: does the flu work more like a dice roll, or like a bus? Dice rolls are uncorrelated with their predecessors; even if it’s been a hundred rolls since you last rolled a 6, your chance this time is still 1/6. But buses come at fixed intervals; if the buses are hourly, and you haven’t seen a bus in the past 59 minutes, then your chance of seeing a bus in the next minute is very high. It’s been 16 years since the last flu pandemic; these pandemics come (on average) every 20 years. I don’t think anyone has a good sense of how to think about this. But it was 40 years between the Spanish and Hong Kong flus, so the twenty year number is at best a rule of thumb. The 5% number feels very low to me (and, apparently, to the average Manifold forecaster). Isn’t H5N1 spreading to cows and pigs and all sorts of other mammals? Isn’t it in the news all the time? I trust Metaculus a lot, but I agree that this is a surprising update, and I’m taking it on faith rather than feeling it in my bones. What Would The Fatality Rate Be For An H5N1 Pandemic? There are four basic stories you could tell about likely H5N1 mortality. First, maybe mortality would be 50%. The argument here is that official statistics report this mortality rate in the chicken farmers who have been infected with H5N1 so far. Several news sources and even some scientists have raised the specter of a pandemic version of H5N1 pandemic with this same death rate, which could kill a quarter to a third of the world population. THIS IS EXTREMELY FAKE. The official statistics only report fatality rate in the infections we know about. Bird flu is rare, there’s no mass testing, and we only learn that somebody had it if they’re in a hospital and the doctors are worried enough to test for rare conditions. Of Americans who got bird flu in the past year, 0 out of 61 have died. Probably this is mostly because America upped its detection game and is now finding milder cases; we also can’t rule out the virus mutating to become less virulent. Metaculus estimates the current true mortality rate as 1.25%. …but leaves a wide 90% confidence interval, from 0.5% to 7%. Second, maybe mortality would be somewhere around 1.25%. The argument here is that Metaculus uses this as its central estimate of US mortality. But Sentinel discusses some reasons to be skeptical of broad inferences from the US numbers: Scientists have been puzzled by the apparently low H5N1 case fatality rate in humans in the US. They offer a number of hypotheses: “The way in which the virus is being transmitted — along with the amount of virus exposure — is limiting the severity of disease.”

“Public health officials were previously unaware of a significant number of mild H5N1 cases in humans, leading to a dramatic overestimation of H5’s feared case fatality rate. Only now are we getting a true picture of the spectrum of infection.” In further discussions about why forecasters’ estimates of the H5N1 infection fatality rate (IFR) were so high last week (0.07% to 9%, conditional on a descendant of an H5N1 strain becoming pandemic), forecasters brought up several factors. First, if a descendant of an H5N1 strain does become pandemic, it’s unclear which genetic group of strains that descendant strain might emerge from; for example, it might not be descended from relatively milder North American strains. Second, a descendant of a currently circulating H5N1 virus might become pandemic after reassortment with other flu viruses and would need to undergo additional adaptations to humans to be able to circulate widely in humans. It’s not completely clear what the characteristics of such a virus would end up being; for instance, in addition to adapting to bind more efficiently to “human receptors” in the respiratory tract, the virus would need to adapt to grow at temperatures present in the human respiratory tract, and the resulting adaptations could be expected to change the exact mix of symptoms the virus can cause. Third, the disease does have high case fatality rates in cattle, on the order of 5 to 10%, and we have seen higher case fatality rates in sea mammals. Fourth, the farm-worker populations in which we are observing initial cases are likely relatively healthier than the US population as a whole. Moreover, in general, there are lots of things we don’t know yet, and thus, our confidence intervals for a potential IFR should be wide. Third, maybe mortality would be between 0.01% and 0.2%. The argument here is looking at normal (ie not 1918) flu pandemics of the past century. The least bad among these, the 2009 swine flu, had CFR of 0.01%. The worst, Hong Kong flu, was somewhere around 0.2%. If H5N1 is a normal pandemic flu - and right now there’s not much that differentiates it - it will probably be somewhere in that range. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Comparison_with_other_pandemics Fourth, maybe mortality will be 2-10%. This was the mortality rate of the 1918 Spanish Flu. It seems to be an outlier: as far as we know, no other flu in the past 500 years was nearly as bad (I’m using 500 years as a somewhat arbitrary cutoff since the 1510 flu is one of the better attested historical flus; before that they all sort of dissolve into general plagues) . If there have been ~25 major flu pandemics during that time, that gives us a base rate of only 4% for any given flu pandemic reaching that level of severity. But some people argue that H5N1 is unusually similar to the Spanish Flu, in that both diseases cause “cytokine storm” - a dangerous immune over-reaction which caused a majority of the deaths in 1918. On the other hand, this might be because H5N1 isn’t adapted to humans yet - less adapted viruses usually cause more immune reaction than better-adapted ones. It’s not clear whether this feature would stick around in a pandemic version of H5N1. At least improved medical technology (and lack of a World War screwing things up) probably mean that a virus which was just as severe as 1918 will cause fewer deaths than the 1918 virus did. Much of this discussion hinges on whether we should expect flus to generally become less virulent when adapting to humans and going pandemic. There’s a hand-wavey evolutionary argument that they should: pathogens don’t “want” to kill (or incapacitate) their host before they can spread. But the biologists I talked to said people tend to overupdate on this, that evolution can do lots of weird things, and that the 1918 flu forgot to read the Evolutionary Virology textbook and actually mutated to get worse. There may be a slight tendency for things vaguely like this to happen, but we shouldn’t count on them. After reading the arguments from each camp and talking them over with superforecasters, I think, regarding the infection fatality rate of a future H5N1 pandemic: 30% chance it’s about as bad as a normal seasonal flu

2009 Copenhagen summit1 mentions across 1 issues

2009 Copenhagen summit is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 07, 2021 and June 07, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "Australia's 2009 Copenhagen summit pledge to decrease emissions". It most often appears alongside Australia, Biden, Brazil.

Reference entry: 2009 Copenhagen summit
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 07, 2021
Last seen: June 07, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Instead Of Pledging To Change The World, Pledge To Change Prediction Markets June 07, 2021

Australia 1 shared issues
Biden 1 shared issues
Brazil 1 shared issues
Canada 1 shared issues
George W. Bush 1 shared issues

Source context

June 07, 2021 · Original source

This is nice, but I can't help but remember eg Australia's 2009 Copenhagen summit pledge to decrease emissions 5% by 2020 (in fact, they increased 17%). Or Brazil's pledge at the same summit to cut emissions 38% by 2020 (in fact, they increased 45%). Or Canada's pledge for -20% (they got +1%). I'm not cherry-picking bad actors here, I'm just going through the alphabet (pledges source, outcomes source) . For that matter, what about George W. Bush's pledge to return Americans to the moon by 2020?

Inline links: pledges source, outcomes source, pledge to return Americans to the moon

2009 flu pandemic1 mentions across 1 issues

2009 flu pandemic is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 09, 2024 and April 09, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "For example, we did find the reservoir for the 2009 flu pandemic". It most often appears alongside #S14, 2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak, ACX.

Reference entry: 2009 flu pandemic
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 09, 2024
Last seen: April 09, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On The Lab Leak Debate April 09, 2024

#S14 1 shared issues
2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
Adam larson 1 shared issues
Alexandre Hassanin 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On The Lab Leak Debate

April 09, 2024 · Original source

We've been studying Ebola for over 40 years and have yet to determine the animal reservoir. It took 20 years to identify the reservoir for HIV-1's progenitor. Sometimes finding the reservoir is easy, sometimes it's hard. Typically it is easy when you have lots of cases and the virus is not very efficient at human-to-human transmission, because that necessitates lots of separate zoonotic events, which necessitates lots of infected animals. For something that spreads fast (i.e., the kind of virus likely to start a pandemic), you don't need a big reservoir, so you have a smaller target. For example, we did find the reservoir for the 2009 flu pandemic, but it took 7 years: https://elifesciences.org/articles/16777

Inline links: https://elifesciences.org/articles/16777

2011 parliamentary election1 mentions across 1 issues

2011 parliamentary election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between August 11, 2023 and August 11, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "note from the 2011 parliamentary election". It most often appears alongside 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, 2011-2014 protests, 9/11 was an inside job.

Reference entry: 2011 parliamentary election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: August 11, 2023
Last seen: August 11, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On Putin August 11, 2023

1993 Russian constitutional crisis 1 shared issues
2011-2014 protests 1 shared issues
11 was an inside job 1 shared issues
Aksenenko 1 shared issues
Alexei 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On Putin

August 11, 2023 · Original source

For the culture wars: I think Putin uses it as a tool. Majority of Russians hardly believe in God, but find some kind of church desecration (and what Pussy Riot did would qualify in people's mind) to be disgusting. Thus, Pussy Riot action put the anti-Putin coalition in a kind of trap: on the one hand, their persecution was absolutely lawless (the corresponding penal code article is extremely broad in formulation, but is normally used to persecute people who aggresively brandish their weapons but don't attack anyone), but on the other hand, the majority of Russian citizens were not happy with the Pussy Riot actions. This allowed Putin to rebrand himself as a savior of the "traditional values" (whatever they are) and claim that the anti-Putin coalition wants to destroy them, getting over the general weariness of Russians with the ruling party (which could be noted from the 2011 parliamentary election: many of the regions where United Russia had bad performance do not have big cities in them).

2011-2014 protests1 mentions across 1 issues

2011-2014 protests is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between August 11, 2023 and August 11, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "participating in some of the events described in the post, such as the 2011-2014 protests". It most often appears alongside 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, 2011 parliamentary election, 9/11 was an inside job.

Reference entry: 2011-2014 protests
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: August 11, 2023
Last seen: August 11, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On Putin August 11, 2023

1993 Russian constitutional crisis 1 shared issues
2011 parliamentary election 1 shared issues
11 was an inside job 1 shared issues
Aksenenko 1 shared issues
Alexei 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On Putin

August 11, 2023 · Original source

This account misses something fundamental in my view. I myself was born in Russia and lived most of my life there, participating in some of the events described in the post, such as the 2011-2014 protests. What is really crucial for understanding how Putin came to power is *how bad the 90s were*. The GDP per capita fell by half (by way of comparison, the GDP per capita fell only about 25% during the Great Depression in the US).

2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak1 mentions across 1 issues

2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 09, 2024 and April 09, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak; almost 30k cases". It most often appears alongside #S14, 2009 flu pandemic, ACX.

Reference entry: 2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 09, 2024
Last seen: April 09, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On The Lab Leak Debate April 09, 2024

#S14 1 shared issues
2009 flu pandemic 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
Adam larson 1 shared issues
Alexandre Hassanin 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On The Lab Leak Debate

April 09, 2024 · Original source

2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak; almost 30k cases, no animal intermediate.

2014 Hungarian parliamentary election1 mentions across 1 issues

2014 Hungarian parliamentary election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between November 11, 2021 and November 11, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_parliamentary_election". It most often appears alongside @slatestarcodex, Americans, Angela Merkel.

Reference entry: 2014 Hungarian parliamentary election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: November 11, 2021
Last seen: November 11, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Highlights From The Comments On Orban November 11, 2021

@slatestarcodex 1 shared issues
Americans 1 shared issues
Angela Merkel 1 shared issues
Anglo-Saxon 1 shared issues
Anne Applebaum 1 shared issues

Source context

Highlights From The Comments On Orban

November 11, 2021 · Original source

Also, you can just look at the election maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_parliamentary_election

Inline links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_parliamentary_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_parliamentary_election

Inline links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hungarian_parliamentary_election

20161 mentions across 1 issues

2016 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 27, 2024 and June 27, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023)". It most often appears alongside 2020, 2023, 2024 US election.

Reference entry: 2016
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 27, 2024
Last seen: June 27, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

My 2024 Presidential Debate June 27, 2024

2020 1 shared issues
2023 1 shared issues
2024 US election 1 shared issues
Alexander 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues

Source context

Contra Hanania On Partisanship

June 27, 2024 · Original source

Alexander: Hello and welcome to the first Presidential debate of 2024. Based on the remarkable popularity of the previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023), I’ve been asked to come here again and help the American people learn more about the our two candidates - President Joseph Biden, and former president Donald J. Trump. This debate will be broadcast live to select viewers, and I’ll also post a transcript on my blog.

Inline links: 2016, 2020, 2023

People say “But Donald, I remember voting for you!” Yeah, you voted for me in 2016. Or “No, I remember voting for Joe Biden”. But Joe was on the ballot as Barack Obama’s vice-president in 2012. Or “I remember voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary, I was devastated when he lost.” That was 2016 too! If there was really an election in 2020, why can’t people remember anything about it that isn’t just a rehash of a previous election cycle?

Biden: Isn’t there an election every four years? There was one in 2016. There’s one now. Why wouldn’t there have been one in 2020?

2016 US Presidential election1 mentions across 1 issues

2016 US Presidential election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between December 17, 2024 and December 17, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "system to get the 2016 US Presidential election results". It most often appears alongside ACX Grant, AI, AI Art Turing Test.

Reference entry: 2016 US Presidential election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: December 17, 2024
Last seen: December 17, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Links For December 2024 December 17, 2024

ACX Grant 1 shared issues
AI 1 shared issues
AI Art Turing Test 1 shared issues
Aleister Crowley 1 shared issues
Alfredo Parra 1 shared issues

Source context

Links For December 2024

December 17, 2024 · Original source

5: Nick Maggiulli: "My favorite story about Sam Bankman-Fried involves his time at Jane Street Capital where he built a system to get the 2016 US Presidential election results [a few minutes] before any mainstream media outlets...however, despite learning of a pending Trump victory before anyone else, Jane Street still managed to lose money on their trade because they [incorrectly thought a Trump win would be bad for] US markets."

Inline links: Nick Maggiulli

2016 Washington carbon tax ballot initiative1 mentions across 1 issues

2016 Washington carbon tax ballot initiative is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between December 28, 2021 and December 28, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "Bauman was the sponsor of the 2016 Washington carbon tax ballot initiative". It most often appears alongside 1DaySooner, @GoodSciProject, @metaforecast.

Reference entry: 2016 Washington carbon tax ballot initiative
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: December 28, 2021
Last seen: December 28, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

ACX Grants Results December 28, 2021

1DaySooner 1 shared issues
@GoodSciProject 1 shared issues
@metaforecast 1 shared issues
@standupecon 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues

Source context

ACX Grants Results

December 28, 2021 · Original source

Yoram Bauman, $50,000, to help fund his campaign for economically literate climate change solutions. Bauman was the sponsor of the 2016 Washington carbon tax ballot initiative, which failed by a small margin. Now he's built up a coalition of economists, environmentalists, and friendly politicians to try to get climate measures passed or on the ballot in seven states by 2024. Bauman is the world's only “stand-up economist”, and also on track to be the world's only person to win a bet with Bryan Caplan. You can follow or donate to the effort he’s part of in Utah at CleanTheDarnAir.org, connect via email or twitter to chat about Nebraska, South Dakota, Arizona, Michigan, or your favorite state (yoram@standupeconomist.com, @standupecon), or sign up for overall updates and see comedy videos at https://standupeconomist.com/videos/.

Inline links: Yoram Bauman, on track, Bryan Caplan, CleanTheDarnAir.org, yoram@standupeconomist.com, @standupecon, https://standupeconomist.com/videos/

2017 presidential election1 mentions across 1 issues

2017 presidential election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between August 12, 2021 and August 12, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "Macron and Le Pen during the 2017 presidential election". It most often appears alongside Amazon, Apple, Biden.

Reference entry: 2017 presidential election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: August 12, 2021
Last seen: August 12, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Contra Hanania On Partisanship August 12, 2021

Amazon 1 shared issues
Apple 1 shared issues
Biden 1 shared issues
Brahmin Left Vs. Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages In 21 Western Democracies 1948-2020 1 shared issues
Capital And Ideology 1 shared issues

Source context

August 12, 2021 · Original source

The difficult question – a question that I am unable to fully answer in the present paper – is to understand where this evolution comes from, and whether this is a stable equilibrium or not. To the extent that high education commands high income in the long-run, one might argue that a “multiple-elite” party system is inherently unstable. That is, one might expect that the gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% income voters will also come structurally positive in the future, just like the gap in left vote between top 10% and bottom 90% education voters. If this was to happen, this would correspond to a complete realignment of the party system: the former “left” (which used to be associated to low-income, low-education voters) would now be associated to high-income, high-education voters; whereas the former “right” (which used to be associated to high-income, high-education voters) would now be associated to low-income, low-education voters. In effect, such a party system would have little to do with the “left” vs “right” party system of the 1950s-1960s. Maybe it should better be described as an opposition with the “globalists” (high-income, high-education) and the “nativists” (low-income, low-education). This is roughly the way in which the new political actors themselves [in France] – e.g. Macron and Le Pen during the 2017 presidential election – tend to describe what they perceive to be the central political cleavage of our time (and indeed the second round of the French presidential election of 2017 is a perfect illustration of this). It is unclear however at this stage whether this complete realignment will take place.

2017 US eclipse1 mentions across 1 issues

2017 US eclipse is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between October 01, 2025 and October 01, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "another after the 2017 US eclipse found 113". It most often appears alongside 1910s Portugal, 1999 British eclipse, A Ordem.

Reference entry: 2017 US eclipse
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: October 01, 2025
Last seen: October 01, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know October 01, 2025

1910s Portugal 1 shared issues
1999 British eclipse 1 shared issues
A Ordem 1 shared issues
Abraham Lincoln 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues

Source context

The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know

October 01, 2025 · Original source

Scientists have tried to measure the number of extra retinopathy cases presenting at eye clinics after major eclipses. A survey after the 1999 British eclipse found 70 patients, all of whom made full recoveries after six months; another after the 2017 US eclipse found 113. If 154 million Americans viewed the 2017 eclipse, and only 74% used proper eclipse glasses, that suggests that 40 million people viewed the eclipse without glasses. Suppose that 3/4 of those people were at least slightly responsible - they only took short glances, or they only looked during full totality. That’s still 10 million people irresponsibly staring directly at the sun. Only ~100 of these made it to a clinic to report eye damage, for a 1/100,000 injury rate. This paper on a UK eclipse goes into more detail about the exposure times: The time spent looking at the eclipse was reported to be seconds (less than 1 min) in 39% of cases. In a quarter of cases the time spent looking at the eclipse was minutes (range 1-45 min). The duration of exposure in the remaining percentage of cases was unspecified. Taken seriously, this is pretty surprising. If there were a simple dose-response relationship between sun-staring and damage, we would expect everyone with damage to have stared longer than a certain threshold. But in fact, we get a wide variety of doses, with some people reporting damage after ~10 seconds, and others taking 45 minutes. My very weak guess here is that claims like “I stared for three minutes” hide a lot of diversity. Many people who stare at the sun for a long time and get eye damage will feel stupid and claim that they stared for a shorter time. Other people who say they stared for a long time will actually have taken short “breaks”, or even made involuntary microsaccades that shift the sunlight onto a different part of the retina. Everyone will be blinking at some rate which might be faster or slower. And different people will have pupils that contract different amounts in response to light. Finally, we previously discussed how the sun seemed to have been filtered by clouds during the Fatima miracle. This seems to be a common feature - it was also a cloudy/rainy day at Ghiaie, Benin City, Necedah, Lubbock, and the Medjugorje examples we have good videos of. Cloud filters do not make it absolutely safe to stare at the sun, and experts explicitly say not to let your guard down in situations like these. But GPT estimates they decrease solar radiation by a factor of 4 - 20x, and might push time-to-damage more towards the forty-five minutes side of the window. Out of ten million estimated irresponsible eclipse viewers, only a hundred (1/100,000) came to medical attention. Out of a million Medjugorge pilgrims per year, only about ten (1/100,000) have come to medical attention. I don’t know why these numbers are so low, and I still don’t recommend staring at the sun. But it doesn’t seem completely implausible that the 70,000 people at Fatima could do it for ten minutes on a cloudy day and not cause a medically-noticeable mass blindness epidemic. 5.1: reddit.com/r/sungazing August Messeen stared at the sun for a little while, and only saw mildly interesting minor phenomena; I said we needed to find someone dumber and more masochistic than he was. The great 19th century psychophysicists like Joseph Plateau and Gustav Fechner stared at the sun for a medium while, and also didn’t see very much. Can we find people even dumber and more masochistic than they were? This is the 21st century, we have the Internet, and the answer to this kind of question is always “yes”. Sungazing is an ancient spiritual practice which, like most ancient spiritual practices, was invented by a 1900s quack doctor. According to its practitioners, staring at the sun for long periods heals your eyesight, improves your health, and confers spiritual benefits. The r/sungazing subreddit is a veritable Athens of our times, with its 2,039 readers boldly exploring the important spiritual questions surrounding the technique: There are guides to sungazing safely; the most important rule seems to be to only gaze around sunrise/sunset, and only for a very short period of time. I don’t know whether these rules actually make sungazing safe - the posts above suggest no - but it doesn’t matter; many users proudly ignore them. Sungazing Redditors often say they do their sungazing at high noon, or for extreme durations: Have any of these Buddhas-of-our-age noticed unusual phenomena similar to those reported at Fatima? Here are some selections from r/sungazing and some associated subreddits: (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) Most of these come from one topic in the forum, Sun Turned Purple? There are hundreds of other topics about optimal sungazing times, lists of benefits, and (of course) various people who got severe eye damage, and none of these people ever mentioned the color-changing swirling sun until this one topic, where one person says “has anyone else ever seen this?” and dozens of people agree that they have. Does that mean that lots of people might have seen it, and it’s just too weird to talk about? These comments show some clear resemblances to the Fatima account. They talk about a swirling motion and color changes8. Many focus on purple in particular, but that might just be primed by the topic name. Also, compare to Jose Garrett’s account of Fatima: Everything had the color of an amethyst: the sky, the air, everything and everybody. A little oak nearby was casting a heavy purple shadow on the ground. Still, the pattern of occurrences is confusing. Some of these people sungaze every day, but say they’ve only seen this once or twice. Others say they see it every time, and still others say they saw it the very first time they started sungazing. It seems like there must be plenty of variability - both between people (in their tendency to see it) and between times (in whether conditions are optimal to cause it). It’s still not obvious why some experienced sungazers go years without seeing it or never see it at all, but all 70,000 people at Fatima saw it immediately the first time they looked. This is our most promising lead yet, but still not perfect. Let’s move on. 5.2: Visual Release Hallucinations Some people at Fatima, Heroldsbach, and Lubbock saw things beyond just the spinning sun - complex visions of the cross, the Virgin, or other holy symbols. These confound optical/hallucinatory explanations and Dalleur-style “objective miracle” explanations alike. They seem to demand some sort of prophetic vision. Is there any way to reconcile them with a scientific/materialist story? Visual release hallucinations are a class of complex hallucinations caused by visual loss, common in cataracts and macular degeneration. The brain, denied useful input, takes a cue from chatbots and exam-takers and simply makes things up. Wikipedia describes the symptoms: Complex hallucinations may depict silent, non-interactive figures, whether multitudes of people, animals, or surreal objects, that appear life-like, as well as highly detailed landscapes or objects. The most common hallucination is of faces or cartoons. If anything, this paragraph undersells the weirdness of this condition: in its most famous variant, Charles Bonnet Syndrome, the hallucinatory content is specifically elves, fairies, and leprechauns (yes, they are dressed exactly how you would expect elves, fairies, and leprechauns to be dressed). Why elves, fairies, and leprechauns? There is no consensus theory. We know that humans have hyperactive agent detection - we see faces in the clouds, interpret dark trees as menacing giants, and imagine storms as punishment from wrathful gods. If whatever “noise” produces Charles Bonnet hallucinations is too small to resolve into a full-sized figure, maybe the brain resolves it into a tiny figure, and then - groping for a top-down prior to constrain what a tiny figure should look like - settles on elves or fairies or leprechauns. In a typical case, the condition does not affect reasoning, and patients are able to infer that their hallucinations cannot be real. In an atypical case, you get this website by someone who believes that their Charles Bonnet syndrome gives them special access to a non-material reality. If CBS patients can see leprechauns, can their hallucinations be shaped by other cultural archetypes - like religious beliefs? Unsurprisingly, yes. Here is an example of a CBS sufferer seeing the Devil. Here is an example of auditory CBS (maybe cheating?) centering around religious hymns. We cannot invoke CBS itself to explain visions associated with the dancing sun, because it typically develops months to years after visual loss (although there are scattered examples of it appearing on timescales as short as ten minutes). And most people who see the dancing sun see it quickly, before severe retinal damage has had a chance to occur, and without any long-term visual abnormalities. We would have to posit an entirely new kind of visual release hallucination, previously unknown to science, in which the temporary bedazzlement of staring at the sun counts as the sort of visual release that makes the brain start confabulating. Also, I haven’t made a formal study of the testimonies, but I don’t think every single person who sees the Virgin Mary at a Marian apparition has been staring at the sun. Some people just see her on the ground nearby. But of all the places to find supplemental evidence, I was able to get one story from Robert (father of Charles) Darwin’s book on his sungazing experiments: Benvenuto Celini , an Italian artist, a man of strong abilities, relates, that having passed the whole night on a distant mountain with some companions and a conjurer, and performed many ceremonies to raise the devil, on their return in the morning to Home, and looking up when the sun began to rise, they saw numerous devils run on the tops of the houses, as they passed along; so much were the spectra of their weakened eyes magnified by fear, and made subservient to the purposes of fraud or superstition. And another from, of all places, Facebook: (source) The swirling, colorful sun sounds like the miracle of Fatima. The “tree of life symbol” might be a Purkinje tree, an established entoptic phenomenon. As for the rest, your guess is as good as mine. For what it’s worth, evangelical Christians warn that Demons Enter By Sungazing. This could just be the evangelical Christian tendency to worry about demons being associated with every unusual spiritual practice. But those figures walking out of the lake will haunt my dreams. 6: And I Say, It’s All Right Here’s the most sensible story I can generate for the Sun Miracle of Fatima: There is some previously unknown optical illusion that potentially causes the sun to appear to change colors and spin. This phenomenon is rare and inconsistent, and usually appears only after someone has stared at the sun a very long time. This explains why it’s only reported in the wild by a few weird Redditors who stare at the sun on purpose every day. The appearance of this illusion is somehow modulated by cloud cover. In normal conditions (bright day, no clouds) it’s almost impossible to summon without long periods of sungazing. But when the sun is half-hidden by translucent clouds, the illusion happens much faster. This explains why the Fatima, Ghiaie, Benin City, Necedah, and Lubbock miracles - as well as some of the most impressive Medjugorje cases - all happened just after rain stopped and the clouds were just starting to clear. It also explains why Fatima witnesses say that the sun was “covered in gauze” or “blocked by smoked glass” or “had a diaphanous veil” or “looked like it was seen through a window”. It’s also why, during the most impressive instances of the miracle, people say they can stare at the sun without it being too bright or hurting their eyes. But like koro, the illusion is also modulated by expectations and social priming. Paying attention to the sun, expecting something weird to be there, is much more likely to generate the illusion than catching a casually glance of it. This explains why it is most common during Marian apparitions and other Catholic events full of people familiar with Fatima, and only very occasionally appears to weird Redditors who aren’t specifically looking for it. It also explains why Professors Messeen and Stöckl (who were specifically thinking about Fatima at the time) got better results than earlier scientists (who were observing without preconceptions). At Fatima, the basic illusion, the meteorologic conditions, and the social priming all came together to a point where 80%+ of the pilgrims saw the phenomenon quickly enough that they neither stopped looking nor perceived it as taking unreasonably long. The conditions lasted ten minutes, during which time the sun peeked out from behind the clouds three times; to people who had been staring at the (veiled) sun with their pupils dilated, this looked like the sun suddenly flaring up monstrously large and hurling itself towards Earth (and speculatively, maybe something similar is responsible for the changes in the Filipino video). A small number of mentally susceptible people, already in a vulnerable state because of this apparent miracle, influenced by a process similar to visual release hallucinations, saw additional visions, like the Virgin Mary or the Cross. Some distant witnesses remembered that someone had prophecied a nearby miracle for that day. Because they were not so distant as to have totally different meteorologic conditions, when they looked up at the sky trying to catch the miracle, they saw it too. After the miracle ended, the people who saw it were primed to see it again for the next few weeks - partly because they were looking at the sun expectantly, and partly because they were in a susceptible frame of mind (cf discussion of delusional parasitosis here, panic attacks here, or chronic pain here) - explaining Garrett’s claim that “now everyone sees [the sparkling rotations of the sun] many days and many times”. Even thinking about the miracle served as a form of priming, so further Marian devotions in Fatima and elsewhere became hotspots for miraculous activity. This theory avoids some of the pitfalls of its component parts: I previously said that entoptic phenomena / hallucinations / illusions couldn’t explain the miracle, because normal sungazers don’t report it. This new theory adds modulation by meteorologic conditions and social priming. Absent these factors, the miracle will only occur for a small fraction of sungazers after many minutes spent gazing (producing the scattered Reddit reports). Given these factors, it can occur en masse.

2019 survey1 mentions across 1 issues

2019 survey is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 01, 2021 and April 01, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "I chose the 2019 survey which collected data from 8,171 people". It most often appears alongside cellular automaton theory of fashion, Donald Trump, Geneva Conventions.

Reference entry: 2019 survey
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 01, 2021
Last seen: April 01, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Ambidexterity And Cognitive Closure April 01, 2021

cellular automaton theory of fashion 1 shared issues
Donald Trump 1 shared issues
Geneva Conventions 1 shared issues
high need for cognitive closure 1 shared issues
Kentucky 1 shared issues

Source context

Ambidexterity And Cognitive Closure

April 01, 2021 · Original source

I was really suspicious of all of this, so I decided to see if I could replicate these results on data from previous SSC Surveys. I chose the 2019 survey, which collected data from 8,171 people and included a question on handedness.

Inline links: the 2019 survey

20201 mentions across 1 issues

2020 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 27, 2024 and June 27, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023)". It most often appears alongside 2016, 2023, 2024 US election.

Reference entry: 2020
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 27, 2024
Last seen: June 27, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

My 2024 Presidential Debate June 27, 2024

2016 1 shared issues
2023 1 shared issues
2024 US election 1 shared issues
Alexander 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues

Source context

Prediction Markets Suggest Replacing Biden

June 27, 2024 · Original source

Alexander: Hello and welcome to the first Presidential debate of 2024. Based on the remarkable popularity of the previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023), I’ve been asked to come here again and help the American people learn more about the our two candidates - President Joseph Biden, and former president Donald J. Trump. This debate will be broadcast live to select viewers, and I’ll also post a transcript on my blog.

Inline links: 2016, 2020, 2023

Trump: — oh, that’s absolutely true. You can read my social media posts for the full story, but I think there are just too many loose ends. Like, 2020 was the year we were all under COVID lockdown. How could we have had an election? People would have had to go out to caucuses, to polling places. It just doesn’t make sense.

People say “But Donald, I remember voting for you!” Yeah, you voted for me in 2016. Or “No, I remember voting for Joe Biden”. But Joe was on the ballot as Barack Obama’s vice-president in 2012. Or “I remember voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary, I was devastated when he lost.” That was 2016 too! If there was really an election in 2020, why can’t people remember anything about it that isn’t just a rehash of a previous election cycle?

2020 debates1 mentions across 1 issues

2020 debates is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 02, 2024 and July 02, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "Before the 2020 debates, they were excited that this was when they could finally prove once and for all that Biden was senile". It most often appears alongside Babylon Bee, Bernie, Betfair.

Reference entry: 2020 debates
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 02, 2024
Last seen: July 02, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Prediction Markets Suggest Replacing Biden July 02, 2024

Babylon Bee 1 shared issues
Bernie 1 shared issues
Betfair 1 shared issues
Biden 1 shared issues
Castro 1 shared issues

Source context

July 02, 2024 · Original source

Maybe Democrats are the wrong people to ask - they’re already going to vote Biden, so you want someone who’s more attractive to independents. Of course, in a normal primary it would be Democrats making the decision. But if elites are going to do something behind closed doors, maybe they should take advantage and choose the candidate most likely to win, for once. I think these polls are the strongest objection to the prediction markets’ verdict. You could make an argument where prediction market users are mostly educated liberal white males, and even though they’re incentivized to honestly determine what ordinary people think, they’re too out-of-touch with ordinary people to do so effectively. Or they might be over-fixating on “voters don’t like Biden’s senility” without considering that, even if voters didn’t know Biden was currently senile before Thursday, they probably guessed that he would become senile sometime in his four-year term, and had basically accepted that his aides would do the hard work. Maybe they prefer a well-known likeable incumbent over an unknown quantity (and the unknown quantity’s potential new/weird aides), even if the well-known likeable incumbent is senile. Maybe elites know more than we do about how hard it is to inject a new candidate at the last moment, how dangerous it is to have someone who hasn’t been thoroughly vetted for scandals, et cetera. Still, for now I trust the prediction markets. I think replacing Biden would add ~10 prcentage points to the Democrats’ chance of victory. At the end of this post, I’ll list the prediction markets I’m using as sources. But before then, a brief interlude of: Fuzzy Subjective Human Factors I Am Not Really Qualified To Talk About Many people on Twitter are asking “how could anyone possibly have been stupid enough to not realize that Biden was senile?” I was that stupid. I didn’t say it openly, because I’m at least smart enough to have a high threshold for giving my opinion on political things I don’t know much about. But I thought it in my heart. So in case the people asking “how could anyone have been that stupid?” actually want an explanation, here’s my former reasoning. Republicans have been accusing Biden of being senile (and the Democrats of hiding it) for at least five years now. Before the 2020 debates, they were excited that this was when they could finally prove once and for all that Biden was senile. Then Biden did fine, and they retreated to “well he’s senile but they have some secret drug they’re giving him, just during debates, that makes him look fine”. Notice this is from 2020; according to polls, he did win the debate that year (source) I think a lot about experimental cognitive enhancement drugs, and I can say with confidence that nothing like that exists. Stimulants can help people with mild dementia be more active and motivated, but they don’t really improve cognition directly, and they can’t make a demented person temporarily lucid. Still, for the past four years, every time Biden was going to do something - a press conference, a State of the Union, whatever - the Republicans would say “ha, this time is going to be the proof that he’s senile!” And then he would always do fine, and they would retreat back to “I guess he used the secret drug this time too”. The satire site Babylon Bee had some funny articles about this: Babylon Bee, after Biden gave a good State of the Union speech earlier this year. Meanwhile, the Democrats were spreading the alternate narrative that Trump was senile. This one has gotten less press, because I don’t know how many people really believed it. But it came up occasionally, along with out-of-context video snippets where Trump said or did something dumb or meandering. Of course, anybody with a presidential candidate’s level of public exposure will have a few gaffes. Even if they don’t, you can always deceptively crop something so it looks like they did. Wait, why is a psychoanalyst getting quoted as a top expert in dementia? (source) I didn’t know you could diagnose someone via Change.org petition, but 2544 people who claim to be licensed professionals can’t be wrong! So with the constant attempts to prove that both candidates were senile, the constant demonstration by both candidates that they weren’t, and the constant retreat into conspiracy theories of “I guess he used the magic drug again but we’ll get him next time!”, I just tuned out this entire category of thing. And I guess I kept it tuned out longer than I should have, whoops. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Even if liars are saying something for their usual liar reasons, it can still be true. For twenty years, people spread false rumors that Castro was on his deathbed, but this didn’t make Castro immortal. In the same way, I should have figured out that even if I couldn’t trust any particular claim that Biden was senile, the prior for an 81 year old becoming senile was still high. But I guess I assumed that if he was becoming senile, some Democratic elites would have secret knowledge about it, and they couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to deny it while also scheduling him for a debate where it would inevitably come out. So I figured the Democratic elites who were closest to him thought he was doing well, and I trusted them more than the people who had been wrong every time for the past five years. I’m still confused what those elites were thinking. Reading the news coverage for the past few days (including some video clips from a post-debate rally where he seemed noticeably better) it seems like some combination of: He has good days and bad days, and they were hoping this would be a good day.

Inline links: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qt9P!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa11d1a27-cfc2-4708-9db1-e344b391ac9a_1288x758.png, source, think a lot about experimental cognitive enhancement drugs, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!shq2!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F92d67bb2-5940-44ba-ad21-df822276280a_781x829.png, Babylon Bee, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!2y5u!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa986c7ac-16c2-4987-b520-8f6ddf9ad13d_757x690.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!SN0G!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6068601f-0eef-4a1c-b885-19f5712decf1_751x668.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!vL01!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcb26c689-1e81-422b-9493-ae44cac59125_858x814.png, source, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!6ssu!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F760276bb-2f91-4545-bbf5-d3f9fe911de7_975x654.png, Change.org petition, Reversed stupidity is not intelligence

2020 presidential election1 mentions across 1 issues

2020 presidential election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 05, 2021 and April 05, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "At least half of states send every voter a mail-in ballot in 2020 presidential election". It most often appears alongside Adversarial Collaboration Contest, Alaska, Bay Area.

Reference entry: 2020 presidential election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 05, 2021
Last seen: April 05, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

2020 Predictions: Calibration Results April 05, 2021

Adversarial Collaboration Contest 1 shared issues
Alaska 1 shared issues
Bay Area 1 shared issues
Biden 1 shared issues
Bitcoin 1 shared issues

Source context

2020 Predictions: Calibration Results

April 05, 2021 · Original source

CORONAVIRUS: 1. Bay Area lockdown (eg restaurants closed) will be extended beyond June 15: 60% 2. …until Election Day: 10% 3. Fewer than 100,000 US coronavirus deaths: 10% 4. Fewer than 300,000 US coronavirus deaths: 50% 5. Fewer than 3 million US coronavirus deaths: 90% 6. US has highest official death toll of any country: 80% 7. US has highest death toll as per expert guesses of real numbers: 70% 8. NYC widely considered worst-hit US city: 90% 9. China’s (official) case number goes from its current 82,000 to 100,000 by the end of the year: 70% 10. A coronavirus vaccine has been approved for general use and given to at least 10,000 people somewhere in the First World: 50% 11. Best scientific consensus ends up being that hydroxychloroquine was significantly effective: 20% 12. I personally will get coronavirus (as per my best guess if I had it; positive test not needed): 30% 13. Someone I am close to (housemate or close family member) will get coronavirus: 60% 14. General consensus is that we (April 2020 US) were overreacting: 50% 15. General consensus is that we (April 2020 US) were underreacting: 20% 16. General consensus is that summer made coronavirus significantly less dangerous: 70% 17. …and there is a catastrophic (50K+ US deaths, or more major lockdowns, after at least a month without these things) second wave in autumn: 30% 18. I personally am back to working not-at-home: 90% 19. At least half of states send every voter a mail-in ballot in 2020 presidential election: 20% 20. PredictIt is uncertain (less than 95% sure) who won the presidential election for more than 24 hours after Election Day. 20%

Inline links: 3. Fewer than 100,000 US coronavirus deaths: 10%

2020 primary1 mentions across 1 issues

2020 primary is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 20, 2023 and February 20, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "main contender against Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primary". It most often appears alongside 2020 election, 23andme, ACTION TRANSFORMERS.

Reference entry: 2020 primary
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 20, 2023
Last seen: February 20, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Grading My 2018 Predictions For 2023 February 20, 2023

2020 election 1 shared issues
23andme 1 shared issues
ACTION TRANSFORMERS 1 shared issues
Age of Miracles and Wonders 1 shared issues
Air BnB 1 shared issues

Source context

Grading My 2018 Predictions For 2023

February 20, 2023 · Original source

On the other hand, everyone will have underestimated the extent of crisis in the Democratic Party. The worst-case scenario is Kamala Harris rising to the main contender against Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primary. Bernie attacks her and her followers as against true progressive values, bringing up her work defending overcrowded California prisons as a useful source of unpaid labor. Harris supporters attack Bernie as a sexist white man trying to keep a woman of color down (wait until the prison thing gets described as “slavery”). Everything that happened in 2016 between Clinton and Sanders looks like mild teasing between friends in comparison. If non-Sanderites rally around Booker or Warren instead, the result will be slightly less apocalyptic but still much worse than anyone expects. The only plausible way I can see for the Dems to avoid this is if Sanders dies or becomes too sick to run before 2020. This could tear apart the Democratic Party in the long-term, but in the short term it doesn’t even mean they won’t win the election – it will just mean a bunch of people who loathe each other temporarily hold their nose and vote against Trump.

2020 SSC nootropics survey1 mentions across 1 issues

2020 SSC nootropics survey is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 28, 2021 and April 28, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "Thanks to the 852 of you who took the 2020 SSC nootropics survey". It most often appears alongside 852, BuyModa, CosmicNootropic.

Reference entry: 2020 SSC nootropics survey
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 28, 2021
Last seen: April 28, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Nootropics Survey 2020 Results April 28, 2021

852 1 shared issues
BuyModa 1 shared issues
CosmicNootropic 1 shared issues
Dynamax 1 shared issues
etifoxene 1 shared issues

Source context

Nootropics Survey 2020 Results

April 28, 2021 · Original source

Thanks to the 852 of you who took the 2020 SSC nootropics survey.

20211 mentions across 1 issues

2021 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 01, 2021 and February 01, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "cause more than 10M infections globally by the end of 2021". It most often appears alongside Alex Azar, Anthony Fauci, Augur.

Reference entry: 2021
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 01, 2021
Last seen: February 01, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Metaculus Monday February 01, 2021

Alex Azar 1 shared issues
Anthony Fauci 1 shared issues
Augur 1 shared issues
Brexit 1 shared issues
CDC 1 shared issues

Source context

Metaculus Monday

February 01, 2021 · Original source

Late last year, when coronavirus had already killed 285,000 Americans, Metaculus asked users to predict how many would be dead by the end of 2021. The guesses started at about 500,000. But as cases rose further through December and January, the guesses rose too, until now they're averaging almost 690,000 people.

Inline links: asked users to predict

Right now 440,000 people have died, so Metaculus expects another 250,000. Right now 3,500 people die of COVID daily. If that death rate continued, we'd be past their estimate for December by April. But it's reasonable to expect deaths to decrease as winter turns to spring, more people get vaccinated, and the usual control system causing people to lock down tighter as deaths rise kicks in. Still, I notice that every day their estimate rises slightly. Seems suspicious. I'm betting my fake Internet points on something a little higher, maybe 750,000, with a long tail in case of variants that can reinfect the already infected, or if so many people refuse vaccination that we don't have herd immunity for the danger period in winter 2021.

Apparently Anthony Fauci said "as early as April", former HHS secretary Alex Azar said "March or early April", and former FDA chief Scott Gottleib says "heading into fall 2021". Metaculus users fall in the middle at May 19. This doesn't seem to have changed too drastically since the question opened in December. I don't think I disagree too strongly here.

2022 ACX Forecasting contest1 mentions across 1 issues

2022 ACX Forecasting contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between April 20, 2023 and April 20, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "winner of the 2022 ACX Forecasting contest". It most often appears alongside 15 minute cities, 200 Concrete Problems In AI Interpretability, AB 835.

Reference entry: 2022 ACX Forecasting contest
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: April 20, 2023
Last seen: April 20, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Links For April 2023 April 20, 2023

15 minute cities 1 shared issues
200 Concrete Problems In AI Interpretability 1 shared issues
AB 835 1 shared issues
Africa 1 shared issues
Alex Lee 1 shared issues

Source context

Links For April 2023

April 20, 2023 · Original source

16: The Extended IQ Classification (Classified) 17: Eliezer in TIME Magazine. Related: 18: Related: interview with Ryan Kupyn, winner of the 2022 ACX Forecasting contest, on forecasting AGI: 19: Related: Geoffrey Hinton, probably the most accomplished AI scientist in the world, says that “until quite recently, I thought it was going to be like 20 to 50 years before we have general purpose AI, and now I think it may be 20 years or less”. Also that AI wiping out humanity is “not inconceivable . . . that’s all I’ll say”. 20: Related: you’ve probably all seen this by now, but Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter. 30,000 people - including deep learning pioneer Yoshua Bengio, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Gary Marcus, and MIRI director Nate Soares - have signed a letter calling for a six month pause on training AIs bigger than GPT-4. Many people have made fun of this, noting that nobody has an argument for why a six month delay would help anything. And an additional reason for eye-rolling: training AIs larger than GPT-4 is extremely expensive and hard, the most likely people to do it within a six month timespan are OpenAI themselves, and they’ve announced they’re taking a break and not planning on doing this, so the letter is demanding a stop to something which probably won’t happen anyway. I think it’s intended be a compromise between many people all vaguely against current levels of AI progress for different reasons (Scott Aaronson says - I can’t tell how seriously - that some are AI researchers who want to be able to publish papers on the current generation of AI without them becoming obsolete halfway through peer review), most of them are thinking of it as mood-affiliation-y “let’s make noise and show lots of people are worried about AI and want action”, and “a six month pause” was a sufficiently vague proposal that it didn’t prevent any of these people from signing. You could have done just as well with a letter saying “AI BAD”, except that people would have taken it less seriously. Less cynically, FLI (the group behind the letter) has put out a list of concrete policy proposals they would like people to discuss during the pause. [update: here’s Max Tegmark from FLI explaining what he hopes to achieve with the letter/pause] The alignment community always figured their concerns sounded too weird for normal people to care about, that politics was a lost cause, and that our best hope lay in technical research. They also hoped that sometime in the future there would be a “fire alarm” - something would happen to get people and policy-makers’ attention - and then the political route would open up. I think we always imagined this as some AI-initiated disaster destroying a city or something. I personally am pretty surprised it was just “GPT-4 got released and was very good”. Still, that is what happened, and I’m updating. In fact, I’ve updated so far that I’m starting to worry that the problem won’t be building a political coalition against unsafe AI, the problem will be not overshooting and banning all AI forever. I’m against this: I think society’s current track is toward other existential risks or dystopia, that AI could kill everybody but could also create post-scarcity and an end to most of our current problems, and that at some point (not yet!) the risk of continuing the current path indefinitely becomes worse than the risk of just going with AI and seeing what happens. In my ideal world, we would take ten or twenty years to go really slowly with AI, pouring lots of resources into alignment the whole time - but eventually, we would take the plunge. Everything I’ve said on this topic in the has been about giving us that breathing room and those resources. Still, I also want to make sure we don’t totally kill AI the way we’ve killed (to various degrees) nuclear power, supersonic flight, and genetic engineering. I’m still trying to calibrate what that means I should be doing, but I have a lot of respect for everyone on all sides. Except the people making terrible arguments (you know who you are!) 21: I’m not sure what this means in real life or why this would have changed, but congratulations to Peter Thiel, I guess: 22: This month in institution design: The Pear Ring is a distinctive ring you can wear to signal that you’re single and interested in people introducing themselves or flirting with you. Good idea in a vacuum, but I’m worried about the two usual banes of things like this - how do you build up a critical mass who understand the signal, and how do you prevent negative selection (even if it’s just “selection for weird people who like weird institution design things”?) Also, this is one of the rare cases where a startup is selling a practical product and I’d prefer a subscription-based Internet Of Things monstrosity - surely it would be even better if you spotted someone wearing the ring and then you could use your smartphone to call up their dating profile. 23: A few years ago I wrote Trump: A Setback For Trumpism, about how after Trump was elected, support for most of his policies (including immigration restrictions) fell. A new paper confirms that this is a general pattern whenever right-wing populists win an election. I continue to be interested in why this is true for right-wing populists in particular. 24: 200 Concrete Problems In AI Interpretability. “You can note which you're working on, and reach out to other people doing the same.” 25: Some good discussion of Nayib Bukele’s apparently successful anti-gang crackdown in El Salvador: Richard Hanania presents evidence that it’s not just a “deal with the gangs”, it’s a real crackdown that should be embarrassing to other countries that choose not to do this.

Inline links: The Extended IQ Classification (Classified), Eliezer in TIME Magazine, says that, Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter, says, a list of concrete policy proposals they would like people to discuss during the pause, here’s Max Tegmark, https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1642205821256736768, Pear Ring, Trump: A Setback For Trumpism, A new paper confirms, why this is true for right-wing populists in particular, 200 Concrete Problems In AI Interpretability, Richard Hanania

2022 contest1 mentions across 1 issues

2022 contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 31, 2023 and January 31, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "folded into the 2022 contest". It most often appears alongside American Civics Exchange, CFTC, Commodity Exchange Act.

Reference entry: 2022 contest
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 31, 2023
Last seen: January 31, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

2023 January 31, 2023

American Civics Exchange 1 shared issues
CFTC 1 shared issues
Commodity Exchange Act 1 shared issues
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1 shared issues
Congress 1 shared issues

Source context

2023

January 31, 2023 · Original source

The CFTC says that prediction markets are a kind of gaming, and therefore the default is that they’re banned. Read the full article if you want to learn more, or hear about how you should contact your representative to change this. From The Department Of “Probably Not A Superforecaster” One goal of forecasting technology is to incentivize good predictions and create accountability for bad ones. Meanwhile, here’s former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev: I don’t think he’s being completely serious, but if it’s a joke then I don’t get it. None Dare Call It . . . CONSPIRACY! We’ve previously talked about prediction markets as solutions to misinformation and conspiracy theories. What happens if you skip all the intermediate deconfusion steps and just try to predict if misinformation is true? I guess you get this. It’s pretty limited, since it can only predict the chance the conspiracy will be discovered; a conspiracy theorist might agree that there’s only a 3% chance we will get proof of this in the next few years. When I first looked into this a few weeks ago, a few conspiracy-related prediction markets gave pretty high predictions, because people weren’t sure if the market creators would resolve them honestly, which naturally pushes the price towards 50. I can see this going badly if someone who doesn’t know this failure mode posts one of them on social media as “proof” that prediction markets support their conspiracy theory. But right now the worst example I can find is still only 11%. Also a good sign: the lizardman prediction market is within 1 pp of the Lizardman Constant. My 2022 Calibration Most of my 2022 predictions got folded into the 2022 contest, but not all of them, so I still need to score the remainder. Of my 50% predictions, 5 were right and 5 wrong, for a score of 50% Of my 60% predictions, 17 were right and 11 wrong, for a score of 61% Of my 70% predictions, 17 were right and 10 wrong, for a score of 63% Of my 80% predictions, 26 were right and 9 wrong, for a score of 74% Of my 90% predictions, 11 were right and 4 wrong, for a score of 73% Of my 95% predictions, 10 were right and 0 wrong, for a score of 100% Of my 99% predictions, 4 were right and 0 wrong, for a score of 100% Some real overconfidence this year, especially at 90. Nothing like that last year, so it might be coincidence. I’ll try to average these all out sometime for a better read. Scandal Markets Revisited In November, just after the FTX collapse, we talked about scandal markets - markets that might predict whether some person or group was secretly doing something terrible. With such a market in place, people could either avoid associating with them (if it was high) or prove that they were blameless and couldn’t possibly have known (if it was low). Since then, several things have happened that have made me less optimistic about these: A (as far as I know) good person who is not involved in any scandals asked to have their scandal market taken down, because people were citing the existence of the market as evidence that they were suspected of wrongdoing.

Inline links: is still only 11%, the lizardman prediction market, Lizardman Constant, my 2022 predictions, the 2022 contest, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!dnCM!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3823a22b-5fa6-4351-b75e-113ba430b285_479x344.png, scandal markets

2022 Winter Olympics1 mentions across 1 issues

2022 Winter Olympics is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 01, 2022 and February 01, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "Norway will win the most medals at the 2022 Winter Olympics". It most often appears alongside 538, Academy Awards, ACX.

Reference entry: 2022 Winter Olympics
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 01, 2022
Last seen: February 01, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Predictions For 2022 February 01, 2022

538 1 shared issues
Academy Awards 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
Addis Ababa 1 shared issues
Beijing Olympics 1 shared issues

Source context

Predictions For 2022

February 01, 2022 · Original source

VOX PREDICTIONS 1. Democrats will lose their majorities in the House and Senate (95%): SELL TO 90% 2. Inflation in the US will average under three percent (80%): HOLD 3. Unemployment in the US will fall below four percent by November (80%): SELL to 60% if they mean in November, otherwise hold 4. Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade (65%): SELL to 60% 5. Stephen Breyer will retire from the Supreme Court (55%): N/A 6. Emmanuel Macron will be reelected president of France (65%): HOLD 7. Jair Bolsonaro will be reelected president of Brazil (55%): SELL to 50% 8. Bongbong Marcos will be elected president of the Philippines (55%): BUY to 60% 9. Rebels will not capture Addis Ababa (55%): N/A 10. China will not reopen its borders in the first half of 2022 (80%): BUY to 90% 11. Chinese GDP will continue to grow for the first 3/4 of the year (95%): SELL to 90% 12. 20% of US kids between 0.5 and 5 years old will get at least one COVID vaccine by year's end (65%): HOLD 13. WHO will designate another Variant Of Concern by year's end (75%): HOLD 14. 12 billion COVID shots will be given out globally by 11/2022 (80%): HOLD 15. At least one country will have less than 10% of people vaccinated with two shots by 11/2022 (70%): BUY to 95% 16. A psychedelic drug will be decriminalized/legalized in at least one more US state (75%): HOLD 17. AI will discover a new drug promising enough for clinical trials (85%): HOLD 18. US govt will not renew the ban on funding gain-of-function research (60%): HOLD 19. The Biden administration will set the social cost of carbon at $100/ton or more (70%): HOLD 20. 2022 will be warmer than 2021 (80%): HOLD 21. Kenneth Branagh's Belfast will win Best Picture (55%): SELL to 30% 22. Norway will win the most medals at the 2022 Winter Olympics (60%): HOLD

2022-23 ACX Survey1 mentions across 1 issues

2022-23 ACX Survey is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between January 16, 2023 and January 16, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "This is your last chance to take the 2022-23 ACX Survey". It most often appears alongside Approval Voting, Astralcodexten, Australian government.

Reference entry: 2022-23 ACX Survey
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: January 16, 2023
Last seen: January 16, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 259 January 16, 2023

Approval Voting 1 shared issues
Astralcodexten 1 shared issues
Australian government 1 shared issues
Disaster Ready Fund 1 shared issues
Dr. Alice Evans 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 259

January 16, 2023 · Original source

1: This is your last chance to take the 2022-23 ACX Survey (estimated time 30 min), I will probably be closing it tomorrow or Tuesday.

Inline links: take the 2022-23 ACX Survey

20231 mentions across 1 issues

2023 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 27, 2024 and June 27, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023)". It most often appears alongside 2016, 2020, 2024 US election.

Reference entry: 2023
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 27, 2024
Last seen: June 27, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

My 2024 Presidential Debate June 27, 2024

2016 1 shared issues
2020 1 shared issues
2024 US election 1 shared issues
Alexander 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Dominion

June 27, 2024 · Original source

Alexander: Hello and welcome to the first Presidential debate of 2024. Based on the remarkable popularity of the previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023), I’ve been asked to come here again and help the American people learn more about the our two candidates - President Joseph Biden, and former president Donald J. Trump. This debate will be broadcast live to select viewers, and I’ll also post a transcript on my blog.

Inline links: 2016, 2020, 2023

2023 Forecasting Contest1 mentions across 1 issues

2023 Forecasting Contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between March 11, 2024 and March 11, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "Updates on the 2023 Forecasting Contest". It most often appears alongside #5 participant’s charity, ACX, Astralcodexten Com.

Reference entry: 2023 Forecasting Contest
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: March 11, 2024
Last seen: March 11, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 319 March 11, 2024

#5 participant’s charity 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
Astralcodexten Com 1 shared issues
Center For Effective Altruism 1 shared issues
Discord 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 319

March 11, 2024 · Original source

1: Updates on the 2023 Forecasting Contest:

Inline links: 2023 Forecasting Contest

2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set1 mentions across 1 issues

2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between December 16, 2022 and December 16, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "with a 50-question 2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set". It most often appears alongside ACX Survey, Blind Mode, EA forecasting community.

Reference entry: 2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: December 16, 2022
Last seen: December 16, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

2023 Prediction Contest December 16, 2022

ACX Survey 1 shared issues
Blind Mode 1 shared issues
EA forecasting community 1 shared issues
Eric 1 shared issues
February 1 1 shared issues

Source context

2023 Prediction Contest

December 16, 2022 · Original source

This year I’m making it official, with a 50-question 2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set. I hope that this can be used as a common standard to compare different forecasters and forecasting site (Manifold and Metaculus have already agreed to use it, and I’m hoping to get others). Also, I’d like to do an ACX Survey later this month, and this will let me try to correlate personality traits with forecasting accuracy.

2023 special1 mentions across 1 issues

2023 special is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 28, 2024 and June 28, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "Neal Brennan has a bit in his 2023 special". It most often appears alongside ACX grant winners, African Gray Parrot, Alex.

Reference entry: 2023 special
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 28, 2024
Last seen: June 28, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Dominion June 28, 2024

ACX grant winners 1 shared issues
African Gray Parrot 1 shared issues
Alex 1 shared issues
Alex the Parrot 1 shared issues
America 1 shared issues

Source context

June 28, 2024 · Original source

Comedian Neal Brennan has a bit in his 2023 special about how he doesn't like it when people ask him if his dog is a rescue.

Inline links: a bit in his 2023 special

2024 ACX survey1 mentions across 1 issues

2024 ACX survey is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between June 14, 2024 and June 14, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "So I asked about this on the 2022 and 2024 ACX surveys". It most often appears alongside 2022 ACX survey, ACX, ACX Survey.

Reference entry: 2024 ACX survey
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: June 14, 2024
Last seen: June 14, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Failure To Replicate Anti-Vaccine Poll June 14, 2024

2022 ACX survey 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
ACX Survey 1 shared issues
ACX Survey Results 1 shared issues
Donald Trump 1 shared issues

Source context

Failure To Replicate Anti-Vaccine Poll

June 14, 2024 · Original source

So I asked about this on the 2022 and 2024 ACX surveys. Both gave similar results, but I’m going to focus on the 2024 survey, since I did the most followup on it. Here “family” was defined on the question page as including “brother, sister, mother, father, child, aunt, uncle, grandparent, grandchild, niece, or nephew”. This is broader than Pollfish’s “member of your household” but narrower than Rasmussen’s “person you know”. Kirsch and I got similar results for knowing someone who died of COVID - 6.5% vs. 7.5%. But we got very different results for knowing someone who died from the vaccine: Kirsch’s 8.5% vs. my 0.6%. Why? As people love to point out, my survey is a nonrepresentative sample. But as I point out, it’s important to keep track of when that should vs. shouldn’t matter. No matter how weird my readers are, they’re not biologically invincible - they should have side effects at similar rates to anyone else. One possibility is that my readers are very pro-vaccine compared to the general population, so they interpret ambiguous cases in a more pro-vaccine way. I didn’t have a question about vaccine-related views, but it’s no secret that vaccine opponents are more often right-wing, so I looked at questions about politics. Conservatives in general were only slightly more likely (1%) to report vaccine deaths compared to liberals (0.4%). But I had a question where people ranked their support for Donald Trump. Trump supporters had much higher vaccine injury rates (7.5%) than moderates (1.3%) or opponents (0.3%). I couldn’t find much of an effect by gender, education level, or any of the other traditional demographic categories. This doesn’t quite explain the difference between my survey and the others, since my moderates had 1.3% side effect rate, and the Rasmussen moderates had 22%. But it does suggest that there’s room for political beliefs to alter perception of relatives’ vaccine deaths. II. All of this would be much clearer if we could get in there and ask the people who said their relatives died from vaccines what they meant. Most ACX Survey respondents gave me permission to email them. So I emailed the people who answered “yes” to that question and asked for their story. Some details: 5,981 people took the survey

2024 ballot measure1 mentions across 1 issues

2024 ballot measure is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between November 12, 2025 and November 12, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "A 2024 ballot measure ( Proposition 1 ) raised billions of dollars for homelessness relief". It most often appears alongside Alameda County, Bay Area, Berkeley.

Reference entry: 2024 ballot measure
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: November 12, 2025
Last seen: November 12, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

What Happened To SF Homelessness? November 12, 2025

Alameda County 1 shared issues
Bay Area 1 shared issues
Berkeley 1 shared issues
Breaking The Cycle 1 shared issues
California 1 shared issues

Source context

What Happened To SF Homelessness?

November 12, 2025 · Original source

From an earlier dataset: Governor Newsom takes the world’s most depressing victory lap (source). Why? Most sources credit improved funding or better local programs. But there was no major change in California homelessness funding during this time. HHAP and Project Homekey, Gavin Newsom’s two flagship homelessness initiatives, have been around for years without major changes in scale. A 2024 ballot measure (Proposition 1) raised billions of dollars for homelessness relief, but this is being spent on facilities that are still under construction. On the opposite side, there is widespread concern about next year, when Trump budget cuts will decrease operations funding. But for now, the budget remains at a plateau, neither significantly up nor down, unable to explain the turnaround. Might the clearing of tent encampments have encouraged the homeless to use shelters? Maybe, but sheltered homelessness only increased by a quarter of the amount that unsheltered homelessness declined, and most of that probably came from the construction of new shelters - it’s not like there were loads of unused beds for the tent denizens to take. So this can’t be very much of the effect. I think there are most likely two main causes. First, the clearing of tent encampments, and other enforcement, encouraged homeless people to hide. Hidden homeless people are harder to count than homeless people living in conspicuous tents. Therefore, the count is lower. Second, rents fell in most big California cities. Although unsheltered homeless usually can’t afford apartments at any rent, low rents still make it easier for friends and family members to house them. What brilliant policy victories caused this affordability win? Interestingly, the report suggests that the primary driver behind the falling rental prices in California is not an increase in housing supply, but rather a decrease in demand. In recent years, the Bay Area and Los Angeles have witnessed substantial population outflows and job losses, which have not yet been fully recovered. Moreover, California recorded the highest unemployment rate among all states in April 2024. Ah well, nevertheless. We don’t have this year’s numbers from San Francisco. But assuming it followed the state trend of -9%, this is probably too low for anyone to notice. If you’ve personally felt like there are fewer homeless people around, it’s probably because of the encampment cleanups and the subsequent tendency for them to lie low. Mayor Lurie’s Policies Probably Aren’t Primarily Responsible The strongest evidence for this is the same graph as before: The second strongest evidence is that approximately the same pattern has happened in every affected California city during this period, supporting the hypothesis that this is downstream of Grant’s Pass and other larger trends. But also, Lurie’s homelessness policy just isn’t that impressive. He ran on a platform of creating 1,500 extra shelter beds, which would have put a significant dent in the problem. But after creating 100 - 200, he admitted this was too hard and gave up. Otherwise, it sounds the same as every mayor’s Plan To End Homelessness - reorganize local services, fund street response teams, coordinate and streamline blah blah blah. Even the name - Breaking The Cycle - gives me deja vu. Didn’t Gavin Newsom call his homelessness plan that? No? Mayor Breed? Jerry Brown? Daenerys Targaryen? Mayor Lurie’s other big homelessness-related policy was getting tough on fentanyl - clearing up the open-air markets, cutting “harm reduction” programs that give free drug paraphernalia to users. To his credit, there are many fewer open-air drug markets now. As for drug-related deaths: …preliminary results look discouraging. Why? Some experts argue that the clearing of open-air markets shifts the dealer-addict relationship from an iterated game to a one-shot: since law enforcement prevents anyone from staying in the same place too long, addicts move from dealer to dealer, encouraging dealers to try exploitative strategies rather than cultivating repeat customers. Those exploitative strategies include toxic or spiked merchandise, hence the increased overdoses. Others argue that the harm reduction programs successfully reduced harm, and stopping them had the predictable effect. But it looks to me like things get worse slightly before Mayor Lurie took office, and that in any case the new regime is a return to form after an anomalous trough. This article argues that none of this has anything to do with local policy; some foreign countries successfully cracked down on fentanyl in 2024, raising prices and creating a shortage. Then in 2025 the traffickers recovered, and supply came back. Everyone Accuses Everyone Else Of Shipping Them Homeless People Look too closely into discussions of why homelessness is up or down in some particular city, and you’ll find dark murmurs about how they’re shipping problem individuals away, or getting duped by other cities doing the same to them. The Berkelians say SF has sent its homeless to Berkeley. The Oaklanders say no, to Oakland. The Sacramentans say Sacramento. And don’t forget the ones sent to other states! Meanwhile, former SF mayor Gavin Newsom has claimed that the majority of its own homeless people come from Texas (this is obviously false). Some of these claims make sense. San Francisco has three programs that bus its homeless people out of the city. Previously, they would only do this if social workers could prove the person had a family member willing to support them in the new city. More recently, they lowered this standard to “some connection” to the destination. But I don’t think this caused a large drop in SF homelessness, for three reasons. First, we have no evidence that any such drop in homeless numbers occurred - just a decrease in tent encampments and visible dysfunction. Second, the new lower-standards busing program only got about 100 people a year - pretty small compared to the scale of the problem. Third, the data above show general homelessness declines across California. If SF were exporting its homeless, you would expect other counties’ numbers to increase. Instead, it seems more likely that SF’s numbers are going down (if they are going down) for the same reason as everyone else’s. We’ll have more information next year, when Alameda County releases homelessness numbers. Alameda, which contains Oakland and Berkeley, is a natural export destination for San Francisco. So What Happened To Homelessness? This is a maximally boring story. There’s a natural tradeoff where governments can enforce laws against the homeless in ways that make them less visible and annoying, at the cost of making their lives harder, eg it can take away their tents. In the past, they didn’t do this, out of a combination of tender-heartedness and legal restrictions. After the homeless became extremely visible and annoying, voters felt less tender-hearted, and the courts lifted the legal restrictions. So cities took the tradeoff. This is the big effect that everyone noticed. At the same time, there were some small effects from increased funding, falling rents, drug market clearing, and busing programs. Realistically nobody would have noticed any of these; the big effect is from encampment clearing. Have we learned anything? I don’t think we learned the sort of thing we hoped we might learn, the lever we could push to solve everything with no downsides. But: I had previously thought there weren’t really any levers that could improve the problem at all, short of mass incarceration. I hadn’t considered that taking people’s tents and possessions would have such a strong aesthetic effect that most people would consider the problem solved from an annoyance/visibility perspective. I think my failure was some combination of 1: not realizing how much people hated tent encampments in particular, as opposed to (for example) weird people wandering the street in rags talking to themselves 2: not realizing how many options the homeless have for “lying low” when they really don’t want to be found (and therefore how elastic visible homelessness is with respect to legal crackdowns).

Inline links: source, Proposition 1, are harder to count, rents fell in most big California cities., still make it easier, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!3SWT!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F752f0794-bac0-4a44-8997-3fc897a231a6_805x462.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Mtf6!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdffe0a3b-7471-41d7-8998-1ea4631b663b_2027x2578.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!IP1D!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3dcf3fdb-3af0-4c26-b2c9-0525d4ab4800_807x615.png, the same, admitted this was too hard and gave up, Breaking The Cycle, Daenerys Targaryen, getting tough on fentanyl, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!g3SD!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1aaeff3b-8331-4d22-9ef2-e9c45edb7f60_767x495.png, preliminary results look discouraging, Some experts argue, to Berkeley, to Oakland, to other states, this is obviously false, has three programs

2024 book review contest1 mentions across 1 issues

2024 book review contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between July 26, 2024 and July 26, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest". It most often appears alongside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 2020 election, 9/11.

Reference entry: 2024 book review contest
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: July 26, 2024
Last seen: July 26, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

Your Book Review: Real Raw News July 26, 2024

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 1 shared issues
2020 election 1 shared issues
11 1 shared issues
11 trutherism 1 shared issues
Admiral Crandall 1 shared issues

Source context

Your Book Review: Real Raw News

July 26, 2024 · Original source

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I’ll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you’ve read them all, I’ll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked]

2024 contest1 mentions across 1 issues

2024 contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 16, 2025 and February 16, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "retrospective on the 2024 contest". It most often appears alongside 2025, ACX, Astralcodexten Com.

Reference entry: 2024 contest
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 16, 2025
Last seen: February 16, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 369 February 16, 2025

2025 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
Astralcodexten Com 1 shared issues
Biden administration 1 shared issues
Center For Educational Progress 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 369

February 16, 2025 · Original source

J is an equity options quant in London. He has a retrospective on the 2024 contest, along with his models/predictions for 2025, on his blog. He say he is "unknown enough that I actually enjoy getting emails from people at j@thedissonance.net", and is open to meeting new people in London or hearing about job opportunities in quant dev / research or software.

Inline links: retrospective on the 2024 contest, his models/predictions for 2025, blog

2024 elections1 mentions across 1 issues

2024 elections is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between October 18, 2022 and October 18, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "contracts that concern the 2024 elections". It most often appears alongside 5 U.S.C. §§ 558, 706, 538, Administrative Procedure Act.

Reference entry: 2024 elections
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: October 18, 2022
Last seen: October 18, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

22 October 18, 2022

5 U.S.C. §§ 558, 706 1 shared issues
538 1 shared issues
Administrative Procedure Act 1 shared issues
Alex Tabarrok 1 shared issues
Aristotle 1 shared issues

Source context

October 18, 2022 · Original source

Several additional plaintiffs I can’t find good information about You can find the complaint here. The plaintiffs write: The [CFTC’s action], without explanation or other indication of reasoned decisionmaking, without “written notice of the facts or conduct which may warrant” the Revocation, and without providing anyone “an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance” with the terms of No-Action Relief or other requirements, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. §§ 558, 706. Among other things, the Revocation is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and/or] otherwise not in accordance with law” and occurred “without observance of procedure required by law.” The Court should “hold unlawful and set aside” the Revocation, including its command that contracts that would otherwise turn on events occurring after February 2023 be prematurely liquidated. 5 U.S.C. § 706. The Court also should enter a preliminary and then permanent injunction against the prescriptions in the Revocation requiring the liquidation of contracts by February 2023, including contracts that concern the 2024 elections, well before they would ordinarily mature. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds kind of like they’re saying “the decision was bad, and the Administrative Procedure Act says regulators shouldn’t do bad things”. I am split between the part of me which hates government regulators doing bad things, and the part of me which feels like this is how you get a cover-your-ass-ocracy that never does anything at all without fifteen layers of paperwork and ten trillion dollars per action. Whatever. At least this time it’s in my favor. Of course there are prediction markets about it: Source: Insight Prediction Nuclear Warcasting, Part 2 Samotsvety Forecasting is a team made of top prediction market players and tournament winners, vaguely affiliated with effective altruism, who make predictions in the public interest. Earlier this year, they got attention for forecasting the risk of nuclear war - in particular, they said there was an a 0.01% per month chance of London getting nuked this spring. Since then, most of the fear has crystallized into a specific scenario. Suppose Russia is losing very badly in Ukraine. Putin, fearing a coup or revolution at home if he gives up, decides to use a tactical nuclear weapon, ie a “small” nuke more suited to winning battles than destroying cities. He nukes a Ukrainian battlefield position. The West is enraged at this violation of the nuclear taboo and feels like it needs to respond decisively - maybe by nuking something on Russia’s side, or through some other act of extreme escalation. Then Russia feels like they need to respond, and eventually it escalates to strikes on major cities and global nuclear war. There are reasons for doubt. Tactical nukes wouldn’t really be useful in Ukraine; the battle lines are too spread out and there’s no single place where a nuclear explosion could take out a substantial portion of Ukraine’s forces. In the past, nuclear powers have accepted lost wars gracefully rather than turning to nukes. And the Russians deny it, and saying this is all just Western propaganda intended to scare people. Amid this uncertainty, Samotsvety has published an update: now they are at 16% chance that “Russia uses any type of nuclear weapon in Ukraine in the next year”, and 0.02% per month of a strike on London. Although they didn’t mention it this time, they previously said the risk of a strike on San Francisco was a little over half that of London; I don’t know if that’s changed. See also Dan Keys’ comment here for some skepticism of Samotsvety’s process. Swift Centre is a lot like Samotsvety; they’re a collection of top forecasters brought together by EA to make important predictions. They also took a swing at the nuclear question, and said 9.1% chance of a hostile nuclear detonation in Europe in the next six months. They didn’t calculate the risk that this would spread to global war, but they did discuss how different scenarios would bring the risk up or down: One of my hopes for forecasting is that it eventually becomes so well-validated that decision-makers can take these kinds of considerations into account: “Should we sent ATACMS missiles to Ukraine? It would have such-and-such benefits, but also increase the risk of nuclear escalation by 3.6%, is it worth it?” We can’t directly compare Samotsvety and Swift because they’re predicting over different time periods. But assuming that there’s more risk in the next six months than in the six months after that, I think Samotsvety is a little higher but they’re not embarrassingly far off. Metaculus is a bit more optimistic than either, believing there’s only a 4% chance of detonation in Ukraine in 2023 and a 7% chance of any use in the next ~year. Max Tegmark is going much higher than anyone else and says 16% chance of global nuclear war. Kalshi Applies For Election Markets Kalshi is a regulated and fully-legal prediction market with good lobbyists and a compliance team. This means the CFTC probably won’t randomly shut them down one day. But it also means they can only create new markets with CFTC permission. In July, Kalshi asked the CFTC for permission to make midterm election prediction markets - specifically, which party will win control of the House and Senate. The CFTC has said they will make a decision by October 28 (which doesn’t leave much time for predicting to happen before the November 8 election, but I guess it sets a precedent). September was the Request For Comment period, when the CFTC solicited comments from stakeholders about what they should do. Kalshi tried really hard to get lots of people to send in positive assessments - I know this because of how many people asked me “why is the CEO of Kalshi emailing me about this thing?” Their strategy seems to have worked; among the people who wrote to the CFTC in support were: A managing director at JP Morgan

Inline links: additional plaintiffs, here, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!LaYa!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0aaec309-35d6-430d-aeaa-b7cab022f4d6_548x215.png, Insight Prediction, Samotsvety Forecasting, Earlier this year, accepted lost wars gracefully, published an update, comment here, Swift Centre, They also took a swing at the nuclear question, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!TczM!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F702c1236-47d9-4c60-9b99-ab9b2ca320e7_737x377.png, a 4% chance, a 7% chance, 16% chance, In July, they will make a decision by October 28, A managing director at JP Morgan

2024 presidential election1 mentions across 1 issues

2024 presidential election is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 20, 2024 and February 20, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "she’s currently losing the 2024 presidential election". It most often appears alongside Aella, AI, Astral Codex Ten.

Reference entry: 2024 presidential election
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 20, 2024
Last seen: February 20, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

24 February 20, 2024

Aella 1 shared issues
AI 1 shared issues
Astral Codex Ten 1 shared issues
Astralcodexten Com 1 shared issues
Augur 1 shared issues

Source context

February 20, 2024 · Original source

How many residents will live in Prospera, a new special economic zone in Honduras, on Jan 1, 2026? Answer: 600 (80% confidence interval 100-2,000) This seems like a good guess (except that my confidence interval would have included zero because there’s a 20%+ chance that it gets shut down). So overall its forecasts seem pretty impressive. But I was concerned by its reasoning even in some of the questions it got “right”. For example, the Nikki Haley question tried to get a base rate by asking what percent of elections Haley had won before, and found she had won 71% of them - these were mostly elections for South Carolina governor. You can see what the AI is trying to do - but it’s not going to work. Then it got confused and read a lot of news stories about how she’s currently losing the 2024 presidential election, and seemed to think they were about 2028. So either the AI only got a reasonable probability by coincidence, or it was testing many different strategies, throwing out the useless ones, and updating only on the useful ones, in a way that was kind of opaque to the casual reader. Still, if the company says it beats most human forecasters, this doesn’t seem totally impossible based on what I’ve seen. And that would be exciting! An AI that can generate probabilistic forecasts for any question seems like in some way a culmination of the rationalist project. And if you can make something like this work, it doesn’t sound too outlandish that you could apply the same AI to conditional forecasts, or to questions about the past and present (eg whether COVID was a lab leak). I would be most excited if at some point this graduated from its geopolitical focus and was able to answer questions on any topic (eg “what is the chance that Astral Codex Ten gains paid subscribers this year?”), maybe if the questioner gives it links or feeds it some of the appropriate information. FutureSearch is run by a team formerly from Metaculus, including former Metaculus CTO (and Google internal prediction market veteran) Dan Schwarz. They’re looking for potential clients and/or investors; if you’re interested, email hello@futuresearch.ai. Vitalik On AI Prediction Markets Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum-founder-turned-cryptocurrency-public-intellectual, has a blog post on The Promise And Challenge Of Crypto + AI Applications. One of them is a prediction market. He writes: Prediction markets have been a holy grail of epistemics technology for a long time; I was excited about using prediction markets as an input for governance ("futarchy") back in 2014, and played around with them extensively in the last election as well as more recently. But so far prediction markets have not taken off too much in practice, and there is a series of commonly given reasons why: the largest participants are often irrational, people with the right knowledge are not willing to take the time and bet unless a lot of money is involved, markets are often thin, etc. One response to this is to point to ongoing UX improvements in Polymarket or other new prediction markets, and hope that they will succeed where previous iterations have failed. After all, the story goes, people are willing to bet tens of billions on sports, so why wouldn't people throw in enough money betting on US elections or LK99 that it starts to make sense for the serious players to start coming in? But this argument must contend with the fact that, well, previous iterations have failed to get to this level of scale (at least compared to their proponents' dreams), and so it seems like you need something new to make prediction markets succeed. And so a different response is to point to one specific feature of prediction market ecosystems that we can expect to see in the 2020s that we did not see in the 2010s: the possibility of ubiquitous participation by AIs. AIs are willing to work for less than $1 per hour, and have the knowledge of an encyclopedia - and if that's not enough, they can even be integrated with real-time web search capability. If you make a market, and put up a liquidity subsidy of $50, humans will not care enough to bid, but thousands of AIs will easily swarm all over the question and make the best guess they can. The incentive to do a good job on any one question may be tiny, but the incentive to make an AI that makes good predictions in general may be in the millions. Note that potentially, you don't even need the humans to adjudicate most questions: you can use a multi-round dispute system similar to Augur or Kleros, where AIs would also be the ones participating in earlier rounds. Humans would only need to respond in those few cases where a series of escalations have taken place and large amounts of money have been committed by both sides. This is a powerful primitive, because once a "prediction market" can be made to work on such a microscopic scale, you can reuse the "prediction market" primitive for many other kinds of questions: Is this social media post acceptable under [terms of use]?

Inline links: FutureSearch, hello@futuresearch.ai, The Promise And Challenge Of Crypto + AI Applications, back in 2014, played around with them extensively, more recently, Polymarket, tens of billions on sports, LK99, Augur

2024: Bullish on Blue1 mentions across 1 issues

2024: Bullish on Blue is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between August 28, 2023 and August 28, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as "bet on “2024: Bullish on Blue”, which combines 205 different predictions about Democrats doing well". It most often appears alongside ACX forecasting contest, AI Advances by 2025, August 31.

Reference entry: 2024: Bullish on Blue
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: August 28, 2023
Last seen: August 28, 2023

Outbound links

Issue trail

23 August 28, 2023

ACX forecasting contest 1 shared issues
AI Advances by 2025 1 shared issues
August 31 1 shared issues
Center For The Study Of Partisanship And Ideology 1 shared issues
Considerations On Codecrafting 1 shared issues

Source context

August 28, 2023 · Original source

If you think the Democrats will do well in 2024, but you’re not sure which particular election they’ll do well in, you can bet on “2024: Bullish on Blue”, which combines 205 different predictions about Democrats doing well.

20251 mentions across 1 issues

2025 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 16, 2025 and February 16, 2025. The archive places it in contexts such as "models/predictions for 2025". It most often appears alongside 2024 contest, ACX, Astralcodexten Com.

Reference entry: 2025
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 16, 2025
Last seen: February 16, 2025

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 369 February 16, 2025

2024 contest 1 shared issues
ACX 1 shared issues
Astralcodexten Com 1 shared issues
Biden administration 1 shared issues
Center For Educational Progress 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 369

February 16, 2025 · Original source

J is an equity options quant in London. He has a retrospective on the 2024 contest, along with his models/predictions for 2025, on his blog. He say he is "unknown enough that I actually enjoy getting emails from people at j@thedissonance.net", and is open to meeting new people in London or hearing about job opportunities in quant dev / research or software.

Inline links: retrospective on the 2024 contest, his models/predictions for 2025, blog

2026 Billionaire Tax Act1 mentions across 1 issues

2026 Billionaire Tax Act is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between March 06, 2026 and March 06, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as "This year, the big story is the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a 5% wealth tax on California’s billionaires". It most often appears alongside ACX legal and economic analysis team, American Nursing Association, Bay Area Cities.

Reference entry: 2026 Billionaire Tax Act
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: March 06, 2026
Last seen: March 06, 2026

Outbound links

Issue trail

SEIU Delenda Est March 06, 2026

ACX legal and economic analysis team 1 shared issues
American Nursing Association 1 shared issues
Bay Area Cities 1 shared issues
California 1 shared issues
California Medical Association 1 shared issues

Source context

SEIU Delenda Est

March 06, 2026 · Original source

This year, the big story is the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a 5% wealth tax on California’s billionaires. Your views on this will mostly be shaped by whether or not you like taxing the rich, but opponents have argued that it’s an especially poorly written proposal:

2026 contest1 mentions across 1 issues

2026 contest is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between February 02, 2026 and February 02, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as "You can follow along with the 2026 contest here, although it’s too late to participate". It most often appears alongside ACX, Andrew Clough, Astralcodexten Com.

Reference entry: 2026 contest
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: February 02, 2026
Last seen: February 02, 2026

Outbound links

Issue trail

Open Thread 419 February 02, 2026

ACX 1 shared issues
Andrew Clough 1 shared issues
Astralcodexten Com 1 shared issues
Daily Show 1 shared issues
EA organizations 1 shared issues

Source context

Open Thread 419

February 02, 2026 · Original source

All of these winners got approximately $100. And thanks again to Metaculus for making this happen. You can follow along with the 2026 contest here, although it’s too late to participate.

Inline links: here

2026 elections1 mentions across 1 issues

2026 elections is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between March 03, 2026 and March 03, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as "creating better prediction markets about the fairness of the 2026 elections". It most often appears alongside 2024 US election, Agent Economy Of The Future, Alan Cole.

Reference entry: 2026 elections
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: March 03, 2026
Last seen: March 03, 2026

Outbound links

Issue trail

Mantic Monday: Groundhog Day March 03, 2026

2024 US election 1 shared issues
Agent Economy Of The Future 1 shared issues
Alan Cole 1 shared issues
Alireza Arafi 1 shared issues
Amazon 1 shared issues

Source context

Mantic Monday: Groundhog Day

March 03, 2026 · Original source

I’m very interested in creating better prediction markets about the fairness of the 2026 elections. If anyone has ideas for how to do this, let me know.

20501 mentions across 1 issues

2050 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between March 21, 2024 and March 21, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as "People will land on Mars before 2050". It most often appears alongside 2024 election, AI, climatologists.

Reference entry: 2050
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: March 21, 2024
Last seen: March 21, 2024

Outbound links

Issue trail

In Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities March 21, 2024

2024 election 1 shared issues
AI 1 shared issues
climatologists 1 shared issues
ESA 1 shared issues
Freddie de Boer 1 shared issues

Source context

In Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities

March 21, 2024 · Original source

What is the probability that people will land on Mars before 2050?

What is the probability that AI will destroy humanity this century? The argument against: usually we use probability to represent an outcome from some well-behaved distribution. For example, if there are 400 white balls and 600 black balls in an urn, the probability of pulling out a white ball is 40%. If you pulled out 100 balls, close to 40 of them would be white. You can literally pull out the balls and do the experiment. In contrast, saying “there’s a 45% probability people will land on Mars before 2050” seems to come out of nowhere. How do you know? If you were to say “the probability humans will land on Mars is exactly 45.11782%”, you would sound like a loon. But how is saying that it’s 45% any better? With balls in an urn, the probability might very well be 45.11782%, and you can prove it. But with humanity landing on Mars, aren’t you just making this number up? Since people on social media have been talking about this again, let’s go over it one more depressing, fruitless time. 1. Probabilities Are Linguistically Convenient I think everyone agrees it’s meaningful and useful to say things like “Humanity probably won’t land on Mars before 2050”. That is, suppose NASA and ESA and SpaceX hire a team of experts to calculate whether they can make it to Mars by 2050. They examine all the evidence and find that going to Mars is much harder than anyone thinks, all the rockets that people plan to use for the task are fatally flawed, and it would take decades to invent better ones. They don’t come up with a mathematical model or form a distribution, they just intuitively notice all these things, and how they add up. When giving her report, the leader of the team says “We don’t think humanity can land on Mars before 2050.” This person hasn’t done anything wrong - it’s impossible to communicate useful information without doing something like this. How unlikely is it? Again, it seems like there might be different degrees of unlikelihood. For example, it might be that it’s pretty hard to make it to Mars by 2050, but with a strong effort and very good luck, we could manage it. Or it might be that it’s insane to even consider that we could make it to Mars by 2050, there are twenty unsolvable problems in the way and everyone who claims to be working on them is a total fraud. So probably the leader of the team should be allowed to say either “It’s pretty unlikely we can make it to Mars by 2050” or “It’s very unlikely we can make it to Mars by 2050.” Suppose she says “it’s very unlikely”. We might still want to know more information. It’s “very unlikely” humans can make it to Pluto by 2050, and also “very unlikely” we can make it to the Andromeda Galaxy by 2050, but these seem like different levels of unlikeliness. You can sort of imagine a scenario where everything goes right and we make it to Pluto, but the Andromeda Galaxy would require totally new science that suspends apparently ironclad physical law. So maybe we need at least two levels of “very unlikely” - one corresponding to the likelihood of getting to Pluto, and one corresponding to the likelihood of getting to Andromeda. We could call these “very unlikely” and “extraordinarily unlikely bordering on impossible”. How many terms like “slightly unlikely”, “very unlikely”, “extraordinarily unlikely”, etc do we need, and how will we make sure that everyone knows what they mean? It seems like having these terms is strictly worse than using a simple percent scale, where the leader of the Mars investigation team says “I think there’s about a 5% chance we can make it to Mars by 2050”. This is obviously clearer than “I think it’s unlikely” and prevents you from having to answer a bunch of followup questions. There are lots of people and space agencies who want to do different things if the chance of making it to Mars is 5% vs. 25%, and collapsing those both under “unlikely” or making people strain to figure out the meaning of “unlikely” vs. “very unlikely” and which one corresponds to 5% vs. 25% feels stupid, like deliberately introducing noise into your communication and asking people to solve a Twenty Questions game before they figure out your true opinion. To put it differently, saying “likely” vs. “unlikely” gives you two options. Saying “very likely”, “somewhat likely”, “somewhat unlikely”, and “very likely” gives you four options. Giving an integer percent probability gives you 100 options. Sometimes having 100 options helps you speak more clearly. A counterargument against doing this might be that it falsely introduces more precision than you can back up. But this isn’t true. Studies find that people who use probabilities often are well-calibrated - ie when they say something is 20% likely, it happens 20% of the time. Other studies find that when superforecasters give a very precise probability (like 23%) the extra digit adds information (ie the thing really does happen closer to 23% of the time than to 20% of the time). In this case, demanding that people stop using probability and go back to saying things like “I think it’s moderately likely” is crippling their ability to communicate clearly for no reason. 2. Probabilities Don’t Describe Your Level Of Information, And Don’t Have To Lots of people seem to think that naming a probability conveys something about how much information you have (eg “How can you say that about such a fuzzy and poorly-understood domain?”). Some people even demand that probabilities come with “meta-probabilities”, an abstruse philosophical concept that isn’t even well-defined outside of certain toy situations. I think it’s easy to prove that none of this is necessary. Consider the following: What’s the probability that a fair coin comes up heads?

Inline links: Other studies find

I don’t understand why you would want to do this. If you do, then fine, let’s call it shmrobability. My shmrobability that Joe Biden will be impeached is 17%, my shmrobability that humans will land on Mars before 2050 is 66%, and my shmrobability that AI will destroy all humans before 2100 is 20%, and you should treat all of these exactly like probability estimates, even though they aren’t.

400 AD1 mentions across 1 issues

400 AD is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2022 and May 04, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "400 AD, you get the Huns". It most often appears alongside 1000, 1200, 1400.

Reference entry: 400 AD
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2022
Last seen: May 04, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Every Bay Area House Party May 04, 2022

1000 1 shared issues
1200 1 shared issues
1400 1 shared issues
1650 1 shared issues
700 1 shared issues

Source context

May 04, 2022 · Original source

“Oh yeah. You look at history, and once every two hundred, three hundred years they get their act together, form a big confederation, and invade either China, the West, or both. It’s like clockwork. 400 AD, you get the Huns. 700, the Magyars. 1000, the first Turks start moving west. 1200, Genghis Khan, killed 10% of the world population. 1400, Tamerlane, killed another 5%. 1650, the Ming-Qing transition in China, also killed 5%. We’re more than 50 years overdue at this point.”

5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel1 mentions across 1 issues

5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 20, 2021 and May 20, 2021. The archive places it in contexts such as "Now you can play 5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel". It most often appears alongside AI X-Risk Research Podcast, Alignment Research Center, Amor.

Reference entry: 5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 20, 2021
Last seen: May 20, 2021

Outbound links

Issue trail

Links For May May 20, 2021

AI X-Risk Research Podcast 1 shared issues
Alignment Research Center 1 shared issues
Amor 1 shared issues
Andrew Yang 1 shared issues
Anki 1 shared issues

Source context

Links For May

May 20, 2021 · Original source

15: Tired of being outdone by all those politicians playing 4D chess? Now you can play 5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel.

Inline links: 5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel

7001 mentions across 1 issues

700 is a recurring event in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 1 times across 1 issues between May 04, 2022 and May 04, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as "700, the Magyars". It most often appears alongside 1000, 1200, 1400.

Reference entry: 700
Mention count: 1
Issue count: 1
First seen: May 04, 2022
Last seen: May 04, 2022

Outbound links

Issue trail

Every Bay Area House Party May 04, 2022

1000 1 shared issues
1200 1 shared issues
1400 1 shared issues
1650 1 shared issues
400 AD 1 shared issues

Source context