HN user
Check out GameClub, for those old great games. They buy the rights from developers that don’t want to continue, then do the maintenance for newer versions of iOS and Android.
One shortcoming in economics is the inability to model cognitive costs. This is best visible in game theory - no model of cognitive costs has gained traction in the last few decades despite the desire for one.
The closest that I recall is representing strategies with finite state machine and having a preference for strategies requiring fewer states. A main difficulty there is mapping strategies to FSA.
I'm reminded of the rule of thumb: if a headline asks a yes/no question, the answer is almost always "no."
This is called a "compensating differential" (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_differential).
There's a decent body of literature in economics on this. This falls under labor economics.
Do you have a cite/example of a lecturer doing that on an exam? Are there any examples where that has been successful?
I had never heard of that happening! It would be extremely cool if it ever worked.
Approval voting doesn't have the failed track record in the US because it hasn't been used. But necessarily, it is flawed.
I don't know if it's better, but to say "this will solve all our problems" is wrong. Provably wrong. With math and everything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
Based on a quick skim, this is not a good paper. Computer scientists writing on economics is great, it's helpful to grow new ideas in the field. Unfortunately they sometimes use economic concepts imprecisely at detriment to their question, methodology, and results.
That's the case here. This paper posits a definition of efficiency, but does not explain why that definition is correct or how it relates to other efficiency measures.
A better proof of arbitrage opportunities in markets is Wah 2016, which identifies actual arbitrage opportunities in actual markets.
Separately, what does "Since P probably does not equal NP" mean as a probabilistic statement?
And what is the correct way to concisely and precisely write: "most people familiar with the P = NP problem believe with varying degrees of confidence that P is not equal to NP, but so far no proof exists."
I've heard anecdotally that negative health shocks can lead to terrible wealth loss as healthcare is very expensive.
Is relationship of the magnitude that could impact these results?
There are many sources to develop an understanding of game theory. To build mastery in game theory, check out Osborne and Rubinstein's text. The authors offer it as a free download (http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/books.html).
This is the text used by advanced graduate students, the material is explained precisely.