-0.156963
Relative Brier Score
Questions Forecasted
Scored Questions
30
Forecasts
6
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecasts | 3 | 19 | 179 | 55 | 716 |
Comments | 1 | 12 | 64 | 36 | 360 |
Questions Forecasted | 3 | 12 | 33 | 16 | 97 |
Upvotes on Comments By This User | 1 | 7 | 53 | 16 | 359 |
Definitions |






Star Commenter - Mar 2025

Why do you think you're right?
I am going considerably against conventional wisdom, and raising my forecast from 40% to 55%. CSIS issued a report today confiming what I have been suggesting in my previous forecasts:
"Russia is conducting an escalating and violent campaign of sabotage and subversion against European and U.S. targets in Europe led by Russian military intelligence (the GRU), according to a new CSIS database of Russian activity. The number of Russian attacks nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024. Russiaβs primary targets have included transportation, government, critical infrastructure, and industry, and its main weapons and tactics have included explosives, blunt or edged instruments (such as anchors), and electronic attack. Despite the increase in Russian attacks, Western countries have not developed an effective strategy to counter these attacks."
"The CSIS database included incidents where Russian cyber or electronic warfare attacks had an observable physical effect. These types of attacks are designed to disrupt critical infrastructure, such as power grids, water systems, and transportation networks that can lead to power outages, disruptions, or physical harm.
The CSIS report continues:
"The most significant finding from the data is that the number of Russian attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 (12 attacks) and 2024 (34 attacks), after quadrupling between 2022 (3 attacks) and 2023. As noted in more detail below, Russian agencies orchestrated attacks in 2024 against a wide range of targets, from critical infrastructure to transportation targets, using a variety of weapons and tactics, from explosives to blunt or edged weapons such as anchors."
"Russian agencies utilized electronic attack and cyber operations with physical effects against transportation targets. Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, and Poland all reported specific incidents of deliberate GPS signal jamming from Russia, which led to navigation errors, flight deviations, and communication breakdownsβendangering the lives of those on board. Several countries, such as Poland, also reported cyberattacks against transportation targets, such as rail lines. More broadly, Russian-linked actors conducted hundreds of cyberattacks against targets in Europe, the United States, and other regions to collect intelligence, deface websites, orchestrate a denial of service, and occasionally conduct sabotage, according to a broader CSIS database of cyber incidents between 2006 and 2025 where losses were greater than a million dollars."
βThis is an important tool that the Russians are using in coordination with their conventional war in Ukraine,β said Seth G. Jones, the author of the study and a former adviser to the U.S. military. βIt makes very little sense now for Russia to push troops across the border to the Baltic States or Finland. But their payback for these countries that are providing weapons is going after their companies, assassination plots against officials and threatening critical infrastructure.β
Bottom line: The CSIS report confirms Russian cyberr attacks against NATO member state energy or transportation infrastructure since the beginning of this question period. It confirms that Russian physical sabotage efforts against NATO member state infrastucture have had a kinetic effect. It does not confirm that all of the elements required for positive resolution occured in the same attack (cyber + kinetic effect). But given Russia's very active, ongoing campaign of sabotage of NATO infrastructure, including with offensive cyber tools, and given that we still have 13 months remaining in this question's resolution period, I believe there is a much higher than 50% chance of a future kinetic cyber attack against NATO energy or transporation infrastructure.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west#h2-the-issue
Why might you be wrong?
The only two scenarios I can imagine where Russia ends its aggressive physical, electronic, and cyber sabotage against NATO member state energy and transportation infrastructure are (1) NATO launches a significant kinetic response against Russian in response to Russia's ongoing sabotage efforts, which persuades Putin to stop, or (3) Putin dies and his successor decides to suspend the sabotage campaign.
@404_NOT_FOUND It's great that you are asking good questions; red-teaming each other is an important element of sharpening our assumptions and forecasts, so I really appreciate it.
You are 100% correct that Russia tries to conceal its involvement in it physical and cyber sabotage efforts, including by working through Russian cyber criminal proxies. But NATO member states have developed very strong cyber defense, detection, ntelligence, and attribution tools. If a cyber attack were to cause physical, kinetic damage against energy or transportation infrastructure in a NATO country (especially a frontline country like Poland or the baltics) I'm confident those countries would use all tools available to identify the origin; they would start with the assumption it was a Russian government attack. So I included in my forecast a high degree of probability that a NATO member state would be able to accurately attribute a Russian cyber attack to Russia.
Regarding the Norwegian intel assessment that Russia is deterred to some degree by the risk of a NATO member state invoking Article V, I disagree with that Norwegin intel analyst. Russia knows that if Poland or Lithuania were to invoke Art V following a kinetic Russian cyber attack against their infrastructure, there is no gauarantee that other NATO member states would act on it. Invoking Art V is a political decision. The attacked state can request its activation but each NATO member ultimately decides for itself how to respond. There is no binding requirement for military action. Art V allows members to respond "as it deems necessary," which could range from issuing statements of support to deploying troops or military assets. Anything short of a full Russian military incursion into NATO territory would probably not trigger NATO consensus to respond militarily, in my opinion. Russia knows this, which is why it feels the latiude to act so aggressivelty with its sabotage efforts, and why I believe those sabotage efforts will continue. But I will also give more consideration to the possbility that Russia might be able to successfully conceal its role in a kinetic cyber attack.




Why do you think you're right?
I'm upping my forecast slightly to 12%, in anticipation of the volatility that will result from Trump's April 2 announcement of global tarriffs. It's still unclear whether Trump plans to levy individual tariff rates on all US trading partners; put tariffs on only some countries; or apply a universal tariff (perhaps as high as 20%) on all imports. A 20% universal tariff combined with full retaliation from other nations on US goods would be a βworst-case scenarioβ for the US economy. But whatever the scope, both Apple and NVIDIA will be negatiovely impacted. Which one will be more so?
1. I think Apple's extensive reliance on Chinese manufacturing makes it more immediately vulnerable to tariffs on Chinese imports. The complexity and scale of Apple's supply chain mean that shifting production is a formidable task, potentially leading to higher consumer prices or squeezed profit margins in the short term.β
2. NVIDIA, while also affected by tariffs, appears to be taking aggressive steps to localize production and reduce exposure to international trade disputes. Its significant investments in U.S. manufacturing could mitigate some tariff impacts over time.β
3. Thus, I think in the short term Apple may be more negatively impacted by across-the-board U.S. tariffs on China and the EU due to its deep-rooted manufacturing ties with China and the challenges associated with rapidly altering its supply chain. NVIDIA's strategic investments in domestic manufacturing may position it to better navigate and potentially lessen the adverse effects of such tariffs in the longer term. As a result I am slightly raising my forecast to 12% that NVIDIA would overtake Apple in Market Cap as of 5/231/25. I may readjust after I see the scope of Trump's tarrifs tomorrow.
Why might you be wrong?
Apple's market cap lead over NVIDIA is holding stead at a whopping $400B. Even tariff-induced volatility and supply chain risk might not be enough for NVIDIA to overcome that market cap disparity