Russia changes nuclear policy: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-us-atacms-missiles-1.7387124?cmp=rss

This guy @Gigacasting is a legend. An absolute boss. Any idea if this guy will ever be back?

@Gigacasting

Prigozhin predicted, that russia can easily strike its own territory if ukrainians come close.

https://youtu.be/9TubZEyB2rk?si=vPKHYnTc1DjrJuyo

How will this market resolve if Russia strikes Kursk region (for example town Sudža, which is now fully controlled by Ukraine) with a tactical nuke?

This market is glitched.

Payout under the order book shows 23332 shares, but max payout in holders book 23323.

And when i try to sell, it says i have only 8 shares, and that the % would not move

I see you with 23332 in both places, and last transaction a couple minutes before your comment you bought 8 shares, which is the difference between 23332 and 23323 (allowing for rounding/truncation). Sometimes there's a lag between the various pages/interfaces updating to the most recent data, including the "sell" panel. Usually fixes after a refresh, or a few minutes, or clearing caches, or sometimes the discrepancies last through a weekend or more no matter what you try. Has it fixed now?

Another thing to note if/when you sell is, you have 2365 loan on 3012 spent, so when you sell the proceeds would first go towards paying off that loan, and since the position seems to be underwater it's possible your balance would decrease after selling.

It works now, thanks for explanation.

I did not plan to sell, I wanted to see the thing that I called corrected percentage (reflects weight of my presence on this market)

Corrected percentage*: 0.8%

It seems they will reopen Novaja Zemlia nuclear test area.

Just so people feel the "corrected persentage": if i sell, then the market goes to 1.1%

@Gigacasting does this resolve no in 2029 or keep getting extended

@JonathanRay when do you think it could definitively resolve No if not in 2029? When "Russia" does not exist anymore? What if it reappears as a state 50 years later and then nukes something called Ukraine?

Questions without end date are meaningless.

@KongoLandwalker @Gigacasting has created markets with no end date before

Will Russia nuke Ukraine? 12%

Will Russia kill 1000 with nuclear? 13%

https://manifold.markets/ScroogeMcDuck/will-russia-kill-1000-people-before-f45c8d20ac87?r=S29uZ29MYW5kd2Fsa2Vy

Will Russia kill 1,000+ people before 2026 with nuclear strikes?

13% chance. Mini-series: North Korea before 2024 North Korea before 2025 North Korea before 2026 Russia before 2024 Russia before 2025 Russia before 2026 United States before 2024 United States before 2025 United States before 2026

I am going to hit negative profits because of this market. But I still think it will pay off in 2027

Is blowing the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant considered nuking Ukraine? (Imo it should)

@NahuelYazbek In my mind it's not.

I support the policy of having NATO-countries doing direct air strikes and that sort of stuff on the Russian military if this happens (and telling Russia in advance that this would be the response). But nonetheless I wouldn't think of it as "nuking Ukraine".

But if there is widespread disagreement on this, one option would be to mark this market as "unresolved" (if that was to happen).

@NahuelYazbek I understand nuking as using nuclear weapons in combat. I would also exclude dirty bombs without explosion. @Gigacasting can you clarify?

@NahuelYazbek I think that "nuking" is successful detonation of sth designed to create a nuclear explosion. According to my definition neither dirty bombs nor nuclear plant sabotages are "nuking".

@TorBarstad But if the consequences are basically the same, why shouldn’t it be considered the same?

@NahuelYazbek I would argue that it is important to stick to the meaning of the word how people usually understand it. The question is not "will Ukraine be polluted by radiation" or similar, which would mean we care about the consequences, not the event. It is whether Russia will nuke Ukraine, which (as I understand the word) means nuclear explosion.

But if the consequences are basically the same, why shouldn’t it be considered the same?

I’d argue that the firebombing of Tokyo was similarly destructive as the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (if not worse). But I still wouldn’t describe what was done there as “nuking Tokyo”.

I agree with Irigi that it’s preferable to “stick to the meaning of the word how people usually understand it”.

That aside, let me say some words about whether the consequences would be roughly the same (TLDR: no, I don’t think they would be).

I guess the consequences of dropping nuclear bombs may vary quite a bit (how big is it? how populated is the area where it’s dropped, and what kinds of building/geography is there in the area?). But the important consequences have to do with:

• The explosion/heat/blastwave

• Radiation

Even if blowing up a nuclear plant has comparable consequences in terms of radiation, it doesn’t have comparable consequences in terms of explosion/heat/blastwave.

Chernobyl had similar consequences to a nuclear bomb (if not worse) in terms of the radiation side of it. As to the number of deaths caused long-term from Chernobyl, it’s not clear how many there were - probably at least a few thousand deaths, but not as many as many people would think.

As to blowing up the Zaporizhia power plant, it’s not clear to me what the consequences would be in terms of radiation. 

I’m not an expert on this, but it’s not clear to me that blowing up this power plant would have consequences that are comparable to Chernobyl in terms of radiation. Maybe if I had more expertise, I’d be more confident one way or the other. I lean towards guessing that the consequences in terms of radiation would be modest, but I could be wrong about that.

So, Prigozhin calmed down with his one-day war, and I can start buying again.

This is part of a combination market: https://manifold.markets/ChristopherKing/russia-coupnuke-combination-market?r=Q2hyaXN0b3BoZXJLaW5n