The title and description are opposites.

@Pykess agreed, it would make it less confusing for bettors if it was retitled to "10 technologies that will exist within 5 years" or smth

@Bayesian Turned it into "might exist"

In their footnotes, the author says that 100,000 people have to take the drug before it counts as "available." Is this also the definition you are using @marktwse?

@Arky oh wow that's a very different requirement than I thought seemed implied by the market question. would be a bummer imo if that was required but up to marketwise

@Arky Yes, I want to stay as close as possible to the author. Description says "Ideally, we can reach the author to resolve these."

I added a link to the footnotes to the description.

COVID vs flu definitely exists, and I'd guess adding the other two is possible but perhaps not economic.

@PS Footnote 14 of this page specifies that the "test that tells you why you're sick" has to be for at least three diseases, not just COVID and flu.

.

@Arky Yes, I got that far as well :)
I meant to say that I think we're almost there, and the reason there are no 3-fold tests (if there aren't) might be that they are not useful enough.

@PS Oh my bad, there was some talk on the discord about the COVID vs flu test counting and I thought your comment was also claiming that

@Arky @marktwse cold is caused by many pathogens (rhinovirus, adenoviruses, enteroviruses, coronaviruses other than flu, in fact the list is very long). Is it enough to add one more causing pathogen to the test? For example detects COVID, influenza (flu) and RSV?

Are we betting on whether they exist or if they don't exist? :)

@Thomas42 Great point! I extended the description. YES = exists is more intuitive I think even if the title phrases it negatively.

@marktwse you should change the title to reflect this.