@jorgeapenas "Cynic: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honourable or unselfish reasons" pretty spot on for economics.

@jorgeapenas ...and you exceed it by twice as much by heating your apartment in the winter with natural gas. Flights still amount to a fairly low amount of carbon yet we fight against them like they're the spawn of Satan (don't get me wrong, we totally should, it just still doesn't get us close to the target). Yet, *very few* people who identify as "green" seem to be pro-nuclear.

@jorgeapenas I wonder what the distribution is (Europeans on average or the average European?) and how much of that 7.2 is the direct cause of German denuclearization.........

@jorgeapenas I know you were quoting; perhaps next time you'll not quote at all, quote something else, or quote critically.

In this case, "military response" is a euphemism, the kind that nazi apologists tend to use. I call it "terror" or "crime against humanity". This is the stuff that gets you hanged at Nürnberg. The rest of the article I call "whataboutism".

@jorgeapenas NOT a military response.

Games and the Treatment Convexity of Cancer, a new blog post by my Moffitt colleague Jeffrey West about their recent paper by him and @peterbayer

https://mathematical-oncology.org/blog/games-and-treatment-convexity.html

#MathOnco #Convexity #Antifragility

@jorgeapenas I think you hit the nail on the head. 'Evolutionary' can be seen as a subset of 'non-cooperative' in a way.

Maybe "common in non-cooperative", either omitting "static evolutionary" or highlighting it as an interesting special case.

In any case, my thoughts against what I think is a strange insistence on using 'classical', will need to be fleshed out properly and by no means do I want to make it a major topic of discussion of this paper. Will be in touch with proper feedback 😊

@jorgeapenas So far, it reads *very* nicely, many congratulations. You may not have yet heard my rants againts the terms 'classic/classical' game theory.

'Non-evolutionary' would include cooperative games (and I'm very pleased you didn't go for that term). The term most people are looking for instead of 'classical' is exactly, solely, 'non-cooperative'. It's what the field has been calling itself since von Neumann and Nash.

@jorgeapenas Looks really nice. 😋 It'll be a while for a proper reading and feedback but I already saw an instance of 'classic game theory'. It's 'non-cooperative' game theory! 😅

If you experience childhood socioeconomic deprivation, you are already in worse health shape by the time you are in your 20s. You can see this with really simple measures of physical state. New work from Gillian Pepper and colleagues: https://osf.io/48jqe/

@jorgeapenas ???

@jorgeapenas I have a habit of having a "motivating example" subsection of the introduction to try to set up the main intuition and shows what the model can do.

How to slow down scientific progress

"Leo Szilard—the physicist who first conceived of the nuclear chain reaction and who urged the US to undertake the Manhattan Project—also wrote fiction. His book of short stories, The Voice of the Dolphins, contains a story “The Mark Gable Foundation,” dated 1948."

You can see the full thing at this link, but I've also taken a screenshot of an excerpt. 😬 🤔 😢

https://rootsofprogress.org/szilard-on-slowing-science

2022 was a bad year for a lot of good people. If it wasn't for the extraordinary courage and sacrifice for a few good people, it would have been even worse for even more. I fear 2023 will have to be a bad year for some very bad people before we can dream of good years for good people.

One of the few things though that had a pretty good year was my Google Scholar account.

(just an attempt at a joke, NEVER judge researchers by their metrics)

Becoming the master of receiving the "I enjoyed reading the paper, BUT..." referee reports 😎

Hot take: I don't think 10-day reviewer deadlines should exist. I have adopted a policy of rejecting any such reviewer invitations (unless it's a SUPER good fit or doing a favor for a friend).

Yes, I know these deadlines are "soft". Still, the unspoken expectation is to honor deadlines and I have *serious* doubts that 10 days is enough for detailed feedback.

A 10-day deadline as a policy is an invitation for lazy and/or hasty reviewing and poor editorial decisions based on them.

Three chapters of a PhD dissertation be like

"We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. The manuscript has been improved tremendously after the revision process."

Acemoglu be like: I won't be active on Twitter anymore, but feel free to follow the AER or Econometrica for my weekly updates.