Scott examines prediction markets on Anthropic's Pentagon troubles (minimal impact expected), the 2026 midterms (Democratic wins likely despite voting law concerns), groundhog weather predictions (mostly broken clocks), Iran conflict outcomes (under 50% regime change), and introduces MNX, a new AI-focused futures exchange. Longer summary

Scott analyzes several recent prediction market stories. First, he examines how Anthropic's stock price barely changed after the Pentagon declared it a 'supply chain risk', because markets predict the company will win on appeal and the designation only affects a small portion of their business while generating positive publicity. He then discusses the 2026 midterms, where Democrats are favored to win but various Republican voting law changes could create chaos, though markets suggest turnout won't be significantly affected. The post includes a statistical analysis of groundhog weather predictions, showing Staten Island Chuck's high accuracy is likely due to consistently predicting spring. He covers prediction markets about the Iran conflict, including regime change odds and potential casualties. Finally, he announces MNX, a new cryptocurrency-based futures exchange focused on AI-related hedging markets, and shares miscellaneous prediction market news including Substack's partnership with Polymarket. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that, contrary to his reputation as an isolationist, Trump's statements suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions than Clinton, who represents a more predictable foreign policy approach. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines claims that Trump is an isolationist and safer choice than Clinton regarding foreign policy. He argues that Trump's statements and past positions suggest he may be more likely to engage in military interventions. Alexander analyzes Trump's statements on ISIS, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, finding many hawkish positions. He discusses Trump's criticism of NATO and international trade agreements, suggesting this could destabilize the post-WWII peace. Alexander then examines Clinton's positions, arguing they are more moderate and predictable. He concludes that while Clinton's foreign policy isn't perfect, she represents a lower-variance, more stable choice compared to the unpredictability of Trump's potential actions. Shorter summary