I made something like this in like 2007 called Apocalypse Feed. It took in a few factors and aggregated them into a 0-to-100 number that updated and published over RSS. First it pinged debian mirrors around the world and made a map based on mirror city's lat/long: green for online, red for offline. If there was a cluster of red, that part of the world was considered gone. Then it checked space weather data and nearest asteroid, increasing the value if it was looking bad. It scraped news headlines looking for key words like zombie, pandemic, virus, war, bomb, etc. These fed into a pie graph showing what "type" of apocalypse was most likely at any given time.
It was all fun and games until my VPS host banned me for pinging too many people every few mins.
By definition it's a bit of a lagging indicator, unless we assume that all these folks have better access to inside information than the rest of us. Given that I was well aware of, for example, the likelihood of a Covid pandemic well before a bunch of rich people flew to New Zealand, it seems likely that CNN is gonna be a better gauge.
decker 9 hours ago [-]
Fun idea of a metric, but if I'm reading this correctly, we get roughly one apocalypse warning per year?
> Level 5 is calibrated so only the highest daily peak in the trailing year should exceed it.
quantumleaper 4 hours ago [-]
My bet is it's the day of the Super Bowl or the Las Vegas Grand Prix.
pkaeding 4 hours ago [-]
So, if you see a 5, you are probably fine. If it gets up to 6 or 7, maybe start worrying.
roxolotl 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah came here to say the same thing. While last year might have been a bit chaotic, this as well, I highly doubt we were as close as it is possible to come to nuclear apocalypse without getting one. This seems like a completely useless metric.
Rygian 9 hours ago [-]
I'll ask the obvious: wouldn't the aircraft just take to the skies directly, without bothering with the formality of setting their transponder, if they were knowingly escaping an apocalypse scenario?
stouset 4 hours ago [-]
There’s no formality. For planes with ADS-B out, it’s on when the plane is on (barring it being explicitly disabled by yanking the fuse).
Plus transponders are really convenient when you’re trying not to crash into other air traffic. Particularly in a scenario where you might be expecting ATC to be unavailable or abandoning their posts.
V99 1 hours ago [-]
They wouldn't have to set anything. The transponder on almost any modern plane defaults to automatically on, either immediately or at takeoff. With Mode C (reporting altitude) or S (& reporting more) and squawking 1200 (VFR).
PeterisP 7 hours ago [-]
AFAIK the transponder kind of turns itself on when powering on the plane, you'd have to explicitly disable it but then you'd have weird discussions with the airport tower guiding you to a free timeslot on the runway which would just delay your takeoff, since ignoring the airport tower is a good way to not get off the ground at all because you'll accidentally be hit by some other plane.
6 hours ago [-]
pc86 6 hours ago [-]
99.99% of airports do not have "timeslots on the runway." Most airports in the US have no tower whatsoever.
pkaeding 4 hours ago [-]
But I bet if you filter for airports that business jets park at, the percentage of airports without towers is much lower than the overall average.
esseph 9 hours ago [-]
Don't want to get shot down?
tgrowazay 7 hours ago [-]
You won’t get shot down for merely taking off without a transponder.
Worst case scenario a fighter jet will be scrambled to investigate.
But in apocalypse scenario, chances are the fighter jets will be busy with tasks other than enforcing FAA rules.
esseph 6 hours ago [-]
> But in apocalypse scenario, chances are the fighter jets will be busy with tasks other than enforcing FAA rules.
Depending on the type of event, they very well could be scrambling to shoot down unidentified aircraft.
Fog of war sucks, and friendly fire still happens often.
8 hours ago [-]
wat10000 8 hours ago [-]
Colliding with other planes is going to impede your escape plan, so it would still be a good idea to turn the thing on. No further action needs to be taken for the ADS-B output to be correct, it works once it's powered on.
walrus01 8 hours ago [-]
In a theoretical scenario of the billionaire class of the world having some kind of "advance warning" of the apocalypse, they'd be taking to the air in the hours or several days prior to a total disaster happening. Meaning this would be done while the local governments were ostensibly still functioning, in which case you can't just have your private jet depart without active ADS-B and in-the-clear voice traffic for ground, and air traffic control coordination.
If governments and airspace control have already collapsed, post tense, then of course anything goes.
patmcc 7 hours ago [-]
If they have 5 minutes, sure. If they have 5 hours, they'll follow procedure.
inatreecrown2 5 hours ago [-]
Why are almost all planes in the US? Is this a data problem or are only the US rich enough to fly private jets?
pkaeding 4 hours ago [-]
> The tracked set is built from FAA registry data
So I imagine planes in other countries exist, but the US FAA doesn't have data on them.
walrus01 2 hours ago [-]
You wouldn't need FAA ownership data and details on who/what owns what tail number to track "flying" or "not flying" status of the world's fleet of bombardier global 6000/7000/8000, dassault falcon 7x and similar, given open data from ads-b exchange.
palmotea 7 hours ago [-]
> In the event of an imminent nuclear apocalypse, we suspect that many people who have access to private jets will immediately take to the skies and escape city centers.
1. I think the logic behind this particular concept flawed. What's the flight time for an ICBM? 20 minutes if from Russia, and less than that from a submarine? I don't think a billionaire could get to his jet in time, unless he lives on an airstrip like John Travolta. Some might get some early notice if their country planned a first strike (but I doubt it, as loose-lips like that would probably give the enemy notice, too).
2. I think if nuclear war is actually immanent, your best bet of an early warning is an EAS National/Presidential alert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System), because I'd hope people with access to actual early-warning sensors would cause one to be sent (while they're getting ready for a second-strike attack). But, given the shambolic nature of post-Cold War government, that could be a foolish hope.
The more effective thing is probably something scanning a news feeds for world events that indicate a major crisis progressing up the escalation ladder. Stuff like conflicts involving nuclear powers, threats of nuclear weapon use, reports of unusual activity of emergency command and control aircraft (like going on alert), use of tactical nuclear weapons, etc.
tuatoru 7 hours ago [-]
Nuclear war is immanent to our civilisation and human nature, but perhaps not imminent.
nolroz 7 hours ago [-]
I mean - just take a look at all this speculative trading action around the Iran war. Trump is all about "his friends" presumably that means that many of them could get a heads up.
palmotea 7 hours ago [-]
If you're talking about nuclear war, I don't think you could expect Polymarket to pay out in the aftermath. So anyone betting on one would be pretty dumb.
iammrpayments 7 minutes ago [-]
You can currently bet on Jesus returning before 2027, which means they would also have a hard time paying you, and 4% are betting on yes.
lazyasciiart 7 hours ago [-]
But betting against one could pay off?
pkaeding 4 hours ago [-]
Betting against dumb people is often a good strategy.
snozolli 1 hours ago [-]
I think that GP is saying that recent betting market developments provide evidence that Trump or someone high up in the administration is tipping off others. Therefore, one might think that the 'in' crowd would be tipped off about an apocalyptic event, which would trigger this software. I don't think that GP was saying anything about betting on an apocalyptic event.
vaadu 3 hours ago [-]
Can you keep an eye on government planes that would be airborned if the SHTF?
E-4Bs, E-6s, VC-25As, C-32A, etc plus mass helo flights exiting DC.
Topic reminds me of the movie Miracle Mile.
3 hours ago [-]
kmoser 7 hours ago [-]
Pinging weather stations should be a good indicator. If you notice a bunch of contiguous ones no longer responding, or sending back huge temperature readings, there's a good chance a nuclear apocalypse is imminent. (Just ignore the few statistical outliers: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/23/europe/france-weather-sensor-...)
chromacity 7 hours ago [-]
> there's a good chance a nuclear apocalypse is imminent.
Or that an excavator took out some fiber.
voxadam 6 hours ago [-]
For network engineers is there really any difference between an excavator taking out your network and an actual apocalypse?
jandrewrogers 8 hours ago [-]
This has the same issue as many other types of event warning systems based on noisy, incomplete data.
The latency of constructing a semi-reliable warning signal from the data sources described significantly exceeds the latency of event onset. You can modify the algorithms to reduce latency but then the false positive rate skyrockets. Not what you want for an "apocalypse" early warning system.
To mitigate this you need more data from more diverse sources and lower latency feeds.
PorterBHall 8 hours ago [-]
Is it the end of the world or just Davos?
knownjorbist 7 hours ago [-]
I'd like to see this site the week of the Superbowl.
Nevermark 2 hours ago [-]
Polymarkets? Bets in units of gold or canned goods, not currency.
beej71 8 hours ago [-]
There was a Sci-Fi book I read where this was a service provided to rich people. Basically you signed up for it, and you'd get a text when everything was about to go down. Time to drop everything and fly to your bunker.
andrewla 8 hours ago [-]
This seems like an area rife for a scam, like hurricane insurance or earthquake insurance. You pocket the money, and when disaster strikes, who is going to sue you when you do nothing? If there was a real bunker-worthy event then all your insurees have been devoured by zombies or dissolved by radioactive strings or whatever.
aorloff 8 hours ago [-]
On Polymarket, $60m has been wagered on "Will Jesus return before 2027"
Yeah, but Jesus is gonna place a big bet on himself just before he returns.
2ndorderthought 8 hours ago [-]
I'll definitely put money on that one around December for a quick return. Thanks for the tip
essefjo 6 hours ago [-]
Why wait till December? Aren't there higher returns the earlier you put money?
jfengel 5 hours ago [-]
Is it profitable? Current price for No is $.96. Making 4% in 8 months is better than most sure bets but less than the stock market on average.
ajross 5 hours ago [-]
Stock market's historical average is actually just about 4%/year after inflation. So it does beat it (absent fees), but just barely.
2ndorderthought 4 hours ago [-]
Barely above a high yield savings account I guess.
ajross 3 hours ago [-]
Historically, savings accounts do much worse than the stock market. People are spoiled from the last decade and don't remember what corrections or bear periods look like. Over time you get 4% over inflation. That's it.
2ndorderthought 4 hours ago [-]
Is that how it works? I don't gamble sorry. But this one I will gamble on, heavily
ashleyn 8 hours ago [-]
This is essentially the premise to Fallout, or at least the leadup to it.
jshier 7 hours ago [-]
Also Paradise on Hulu, or at least the setup there as well.
jjwiseman 6 hours ago [-]
This is more useful than every other "monitoring the situation" dashboard I've seen.
Do you think that rich people are on some sort of private 'end of the world' mailing list?
gyomu 8 hours ago [-]
No, but they have spent tens of millions of dollars on a go bag —> helicopter to private jet -> bunker in New Zealand preplanned route and you haven’t.
lostlogin 7 hours ago [-]
Good luck to them. Having Luxon or Peter crawl up their arse on arrival will have them wishing for a fiery death.
neilv 7 hours ago [-]
Good luck to the billionaires in a real collapse scenario, when their security and support staff can decide that the billionaires are counterproductive, and vote them out of the survival bunkers.
EdwardDiego 7 hours ago [-]
You didn't include the locals, we're not huge fans of being considered a liferaft by people who have actively worked to make the world worse. And we have a can do spirit (and earthmoving equipment...)
ares623 5 hours ago [-]
I suggest calling one of these bunkers Khazad Dum.
EdwardDiego 4 hours ago [-]
It would certainly align with Thiel's naming predilections...
ares623 5 hours ago [-]
A few months of some narrow strait of water in the other side of the world being closed off and New Zealand is about to collapse. And these billionaires think they can just sit back and relax in their bunkers here in an apocalypse scenario?
user2722 7 hours ago [-]
You clearly haven't read articles where they said they were pondering all their employees in those bunkers to have explosives in their neck...
CamperBob2 5 hours ago [-]
A few moments' thought will convince just about anyone that their best chances of survival will come from allying themselves with a strong, resource-rich leader, namely the one they already work for.
Immediately turning on such a leader would be a bad move, because you'd then have to fight all the other traitors for your share of the loot.
Ekaros 4 hours ago [-]
If I was a guard. Would I pick up my boss I see every week or some random dude I might have seen year or more ago once? Probably would go with the boss that I am hopefully reasonably friendly with. There really is quite a chain of command even in security.
bottlepalm 5 hours ago [-]
I don't care. And I guarantee you most wealthy people don't care either. A few eccentric wealthy people do and you think r/preppers is filled with the elite - it's not.
I think news of such an impeding scenario would probably percolate through their circles first, before the wider media.
petercooper 8 hours ago [-]
Bloomberg Terminal chat?
NunoSempere 9 hours ago [-]
I have something somewhat similar at <https://blog.sentinel-team.org/>, tracking events that could kill over a million people.
8 hours ago [-]
satisfice 3 hours ago [-]
Rich people will start using this to decide when to flee.
Google will use the popularity of this site as a leading indicator in its own index.
singpolyma3 8 hours ago [-]
in case of Apocalypse you think they're all filing flight plans?
prerok 8 hours ago [-]
If it's early enough, they would have to. And in case it's a false positive, they would be liable.
All this to say, I actually find the thing hillarious, though. If there's an actual apocalypse a plane will not save you.
jongjong 6 hours ago [-]
But what if they shut down the entire tracking system just before?
gambiting 8 hours ago [-]
>>we suspect that many people who have access to private jets will immediately take to the skies and escape city centers
Why would that be true? There would never be enough warning to get to the airport and take off anywhere, even if everything else was still working perfectly.
zombiwoof 52 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
tolerance 3 hours ago [-]
The fact that this had none of the visual tells of being a Claude-derived artifact is a relief.
Rendered at 04:32:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
It was all fun and games until my VPS host banned me for pinging too many people every few mins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110516084503/http://www.apocal...
> Level 5 is calibrated so only the highest daily peak in the trailing year should exceed it.
Plus transponders are really convenient when you’re trying not to crash into other air traffic. Particularly in a scenario where you might be expecting ATC to be unavailable or abandoning their posts.
Worst case scenario a fighter jet will be scrambled to investigate.
But in apocalypse scenario, chances are the fighter jets will be busy with tasks other than enforcing FAA rules.
Depending on the type of event, they very well could be scrambling to shoot down unidentified aircraft.
Fog of war sucks, and friendly fire still happens often.
If governments and airspace control have already collapsed, post tense, then of course anything goes.
So I imagine planes in other countries exist, but the US FAA doesn't have data on them.
1. I think the logic behind this particular concept flawed. What's the flight time for an ICBM? 20 minutes if from Russia, and less than that from a submarine? I don't think a billionaire could get to his jet in time, unless he lives on an airstrip like John Travolta. Some might get some early notice if their country planned a first strike (but I doubt it, as loose-lips like that would probably give the enemy notice, too).
2. I think if nuclear war is actually immanent, your best bet of an early warning is an EAS National/Presidential alert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System), because I'd hope people with access to actual early-warning sensors would cause one to be sent (while they're getting ready for a second-strike attack). But, given the shambolic nature of post-Cold War government, that could be a foolish hope.
The more effective thing is probably something scanning a news feeds for world events that indicate a major crisis progressing up the escalation ladder. Stuff like conflicts involving nuclear powers, threats of nuclear weapon use, reports of unusual activity of emergency command and control aircraft (like going on alert), use of tactical nuclear weapons, etc.
E-4Bs, E-6s, VC-25As, C-32A, etc plus mass helo flights exiting DC.
Topic reminds me of the movie Miracle Mile.
Or that an excavator took out some fiber.
The latency of constructing a semi-reliable warning signal from the data sources described significantly exceeds the latency of event onset. You can modify the algorithms to reduce latency but then the false positive rate skyrockets. Not what you want for an "apocalypse" early warning system.
To mitigate this you need more data from more diverse sources and lower latency feeds.
https://polymarket.com/event/will-jesus-christ-return-before...
Immediately turning on such a leader would be a bad move, because you'd then have to fight all the other traitors for your share of the loot.
Reminds me this this post from Reddit the other day from someone who believes AI is a conspiracy perpetuated by the rich people: https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/1syeppa/am_i_ov...
Google will use the popularity of this site as a leading indicator in its own index.
All this to say, I actually find the thing hillarious, though. If there's an actual apocalypse a plane will not save you.
Why would that be true? There would never be enough warning to get to the airport and take off anywhere, even if everything else was still working perfectly.