The US government's official stance on the spreading drones is that "there is no evidence they pose a threat." So, are they telling the truth, or, is the statement carefully worded to only be true about the drones themselves?
This market will resolve to YES if one hundred or more people are killed in an incident related to the "drones." Such disasters may include:
The drones themselves deploy weapons and kill people
The drones are searching for something bad that causes casualties
The drones are from an adversary who declares war or they cause retaliation
The drones create panic and riots
Otherwise, if time expires, it will resolve to NO.
Update 2024-15-12 (PST): - A disaster will count as YES if it involves casualties from people interfering with aircraft they believe to be drones (e.g. shooting at them, pointing lasers at them), even if the aircraft were not actually drones (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2024-16-12 (PST): Casualties includes both deaths and injuries, but must occur in one distinct single incident to qualify for YES resolution. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000
3.00@EMcNeill No, but it would have to be in one distinct single incident, as indicated by the words "an incident."
Sad to have to ask, but @SteveSokolowski how'd you resolve in case of an aviation accident not caused by the drones, but by people interfering (pointing lasers, shooting guns at them etc.) with aircraft they believe to be drones?
@lxgr That would have to be YES, because the drones were indirectly responsible, just as if a mass panic ensues.
@TheAllMemeingEye A typical cargo flight would be 2-3 crew and sometimes a couple of passengers; I don't know if that's true of Fedex in particular.
Of course if you're counting for "is it a disaster" purposes you have to consider people on the ground as well, of whom there are many more.