Human migration (under various situations / stresses like famines) has been studied in economics, sociology, etc..
There are also studies about generational poverty, medical literature on helping people recover from traumatic conditions, etc..
Not to read any bad intent in your comment, but there also have been studies about social darwinism that have a long track record of problems. I think people do still do studies about genetic inheritance etc., but it's probably impossible to draw society-level conclusions without data.
The Oversight Board has overturned Meta’s original decision to remove a Facebook post comparing the Russian army in Ukraine to Nazis and quoting a poem that calls for the killing of fascists
My understanding is that Alameda was a market maker, which should have less exposure to down / upswings.
What kind of bets was Alameda making? Why would it need so much leverage?
I understand why loaning money to Alameda could be rationalized a risky, but not sketchy move (if Alameda posted collateral, paid reasonable terms like anyone else would, etc.).
I wonder how many CIA employees work at any of the top 20 US companies. Ex-CIA employees probably also work at every tech / industrial / health / oil company in decent numbers?
I think we have to tolerate a certain amount of irrationality from shareholders.
If you bought a $100k home which then dipped to $80k during Covid, would you accept an unsolicited bid of $90k?
It's reasonable for some people to take the bid, since you could arguably buy another comparable house for $80k and pocket the $10k difference, but I think a lot of other people would reasonably choose not to.
(I'm not totally sure if this logic scales to board rooms / billions of dollars, but curious to hear thoughts.)
Theoretically, the main point here is that Facebook has an independent fact checker program, and some of those fact checkers rated Russian media posts (which would lead to a big scary overlay and a reduction in views)
I'd guess they would have used some other excuse to block Facebook sooner than later anyways though.
I don't think I've gotten an actual misinformation / hate speech / etc. recommendation from Youtube, Facebook, or Tiktok.
On Facebook, I see potentially divisive posts from friends with very different political views. The difference with TikTok is that those friends don't post content.
I think if you explicitly seek out problematic content you can end in a rabbit hole on any large algorithmic app.
It's obviously super hazy, but it's worth clarifying that being developed in the lab != originating from the lab.
From what I've heard on Chinese social media, there are a bunch of plausible sounding theories.
For a lot of jobs in China, it's expected that there's moderate incompetence or grift.
For example, say the lab has a bunch of extra animal samples (mice, bats, w/e). Someone in the cleaning staff could make a few extra $ by selling those samples to a wholesaler at the local wetmarket (to be turned into dogfood, etc.); maybe they only meant to sell the clean samples, but got things mixed up.
this is off topic, but medical training (at least in the US) is unfortunately about as dysfunctional as you describe.
there's are years of inefficient labor from students, residents, fellows, and junior doctors on procedures they'll never do again (because they relatively cheap)
Matt Jackson is one of the most respected game theorists at probably the best game theory department in the US.
His goal is just pretty different. He's presenting the mathematical / intuitive foundation that underly more advanced models (probably for the purposes of academic classes).
A lot of commonly understood stuff you mention (like reputation) is hard to define in the rational math of game theory, especially when you start layering real-world complexity like incomplete information.
See Kreps Milgrom Roberts Wilson (1981) for a fun example from two recent Nobel Prize winners on how hard this gets (and why it's useful to understand Matt Jackson's intro if you want to get into academic / theory stuff)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022053182...
Various regulators probably wouldn't let Apple use 5G components produced outside of a [TBD democratic ally of the US]