@IsaacKing314 sounds like a reasonable approach would be to find all equilibria and then do a green light (in all equilibria this table should draw)/yellow light (in some eq this table should draw)/red light (in no eq...) thing
@ElliotLip@ben_golub@mattyglesias I think I would call nature flipping coins "how a stationary world looks to you if you're an uninformed expert," and I'd contend that nature's sequences that lead to varied predictions are non-stationary
@ElliotLip@ben_golub@mattyglesias I feel a bit confused by the Foster-Vohra setup, but maybe the question is: suppose you're playing one of these winning algorithms as the forecaster, and nature just flips coins every time. Are your predictions bunched around 0.5? (I would guess yes.)
@lugaricano Is this how macro people think of booms, or is the anecdote not meant to extend that far, or am I confused? Input from any macro folks welcome, I'm a clueless micro guy :)
@lugaricano This was fantastic, thanks for sharing.
Re the monetary shock: it seems that if we take the model seriously, booms are bad for the park (vendors are no longer selling at the profit maximizing price + are scrambling for staff + [presumably] some uninformed patrons don't show up)
@ShahMaht64 @cailinmeister Haha I mean something like this: https://t.co/tJRtwqj3bY but I wasn't sure if there was something in the philosophy literature
@Devin_G_Pope Not a basketball person but that 80 is interesting, seems like overshooting might be natural (in minute T-10 you start padding, then once you're at 10 a "natural" rebound comes along so you take it)