Thus the Financial Times today. “What are the chances of all human life being destroyed by a supervolcano?” the newspaper asks. “Or taken over by robots? A new report from Oxford University assesses the risks of apocalypse.” Although the title and the byline smacked of today’s date, as well as the fact that it also happens to be Friday, I could not but take a peek. The report comes from Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute and the Global Challenges Foundation, no less. Most of the challenges are accompanied by a probability assessment of their occurrence in the next hundred years, but the probabilities of a few of them are deemed impossible to assess by science today. And here is the list of challenges in the order in which they appear in the article: unknown consequences (sic), asteroid impact, artificial intelligence, supervolcano, ecological collapse, bad global governance, global system collapse, extreme climate change, nuclear war, global pandemic, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology. I was primarily interested in climate change, and the probability of an extreme version of it is assessed at 0.01 percent. I almost laughed when I saw the figure. As it happens, it is the same as that associated with synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Also, ecological collapse is declared to be one of the most complex risks in the study, and thus there is no probability assessment attached to it. I only waved my hand this time around. On top of everything, unknown unknowns are associated with the probability of 0.1 percent, which is the highest assessment of all. By the time I finished the article, I felt sorry for Oxford University, not to mention the Financial Times.