To answer the question about the 3-sided die: the question is flawed for 2 reasons.
First, the way you phrased it, you know the information a priori. It's like me learning that the car isn't behind door #1 before I choose. In that case, I have a 50/50 chance on the other doors.
But what if you didn't tell me before? This introduces our second problem. Let's say I roll the die and you hide it under a cup. I tell you I chose side A and you tell me A is physically impossible and ask me if I want to switch. Well of course I want to switch ... but I didn't learn any more information about sides B and C. It's a 50/50 toss-up. In terms of the game show, you basically just opened the constant's door.
A critical element of the original problem is when the information is learned and knowing that the contestant's door will not be opened. It is what allows the phrasing from zaksoup above.
"Mr. Moy’s past work, however, that makes his presence among us interesting."
I don't know why. He was Director of the US Mint: he printed coins. It's a manufacturing business. It has nothing to do with monetary policy, fiscal policy or law as far as I know.
If the Secretary of the Treasury said something ... well, then we'd have a story.
My sister just released a game early access on Steam[1] called "The Counting Kingdom"[2]. It targets the U.S. core math curriculum for 6-8 year olds.
The idea is that by embedding mathematics into the core mechanics of the gameplay – instead of having it simply be a hurdle players have to get by before they get to further gaming (e.g. a popup quiz) – will allow players to consistently reinforce, grow, and retain their learning without necessarily consciously thinking about learning. It's learning through play.
I think the notion has legs, but I think it will really take a strong effort between game developers and educators alike.
I suppose if your estimator is biased and not consistent -- due to some sort of omitted variable -- you can end up with "significant" estimates that are completely removed from reality. Great explanation at http://eranraviv.com/blog/bias-vs-consistency/.
Absolutely true, but consider what log utility also creates a decision rule that leads to growth-rate optimization under multiplicative bets.
You may find these notes from Ole Peters interesting https://ergodicityeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ergo...