Collapsing further the probability distribution given this https://www.infer-pub.com/comments/109737 fro @PeterStamp
0.148
Relative Brier Score
1560
Forecasts
832
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecasts | 35 | 136 | 1678 | 1560 | 2635 |
Comments | 25 | 70 | 791 | 737 | 1162 |
Questions Forecasted | 16 | 58 | 134 | 112 | 171 |
Upvotes on Comments By This User | 38 | 112 | 872 | 832 | 1194 |
Definitions |




Narrowing probabilities.

Going down further due to Meta having gone without US Government support for detecting influence operations since July. So it is less likely than I had thought for a big reveal in the Q4 report.

Why do you think you're right?
The US Government has stopped assisting Meta with detecting influence operations.
Dateline 11-30-2023 The U.S. federal government has stopped warning some social networks about foreign disinformation campaigns on their platforms, reversing a years-long approach to preventing Russia and other actors from interfering in American politics.... Meta no longer receives notifications of global influence campaigns from the Biden administration, halting a prolonged partnership between the federal government and the world’s largest social media company, senior security officials said Wednesday.... Ben Nimmo, chief of global threat intelligence for Meta, said government officials stopped communicating foreign election interference threats to the company in July.
Why might you be wrong?
Too low: Meta might still detect and publicize such operations using its own resources.
Too high: Detecting malicious influence operations is time-consuming, requires expensive personnel, and many CPU cycles. Meta is unlikely to incur the additional expenses needed to compensate for losing this free support.
Also too high? The same legal threats that are deterring the US Government may also be deterring Meta. Lawyers also are expensive and fighting lawsuits is time-consuming.

Decreasing probability given the concise rationale by @ctsats here https://www.infer-pub.com/comments/110183


Influenced by @ctsats here https://www.infer-pub.com/comments/110179
Why do you think you're right?
Not another anti-clarification! Adding ships if "the Israeli government acknowledges as an Israeli vessel"? What does this even mean? Already we've seen "Israeli-linked" but not flagged ships attacked, but no Israeli government statement calling them "Israeli." So are we then forecasting a change in the policy of Israel's government? Or would a remark by Netanyahu suffice?
I ran this question to my yachtsman/USN Commander husband. He agreed that I shouldn't go all the way to zero not because of a hypothesized change in government policy, but rather because there always are captains who steer their vessels into easily foreseeable disasters. It could even be an Israeli yachtsman with a ten-mile range transponder, enough money to afford to traverse the Suez Canal, and handguns for self-defense, and out for adventure. It may even be more likely than the Israeli government acknowledging a non-flagged vessel as an Israeli vessel.
Why might you be wrong?
Too high: What if a hypothesized yacht's captain's Speedo-clad boyfriend heard the ship's radio reporting the attack on the Mason and demands that she set sail back to Haifa?
Too low: What if the hypothesized yacht's bikini-clad captain decides to show her boyfriend who's in charge and nevertheless sails into the jaws of the Houthis?