estarkov

(not an) Econ account.

[Jen D. @HumanLevelJen]

Median career path pre-2000

[estarkov @electronic_gore]

We are hiring a postdoc in CS+psychology for a project on AI and deception in Copenhagen! More details and link in Pepa's post.

[Pepa Atanasova @atanasovapepa]

We are hiring a postdoc for a project on emergent deception in human-AI interaction, combining behavioural psychology, economics, and machine learning. Supervised by Ingo Zettler and me at @DIKU_Institut & @CPH_SODAS, Copenhagen.
⏰Deadline: 5/July/2026
📅Start: 1/10/2026
Link 👇

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

It always astonishes me how there is virtually ZERO public debate - or even public awareness - in Europe about the decisions that will most shape ordinary people's lives.

These days, the EU is drafting a new anti-China legal framework where - quite literally - the more affordable and competitive Chinese products are, the more illegal they'd become.

You'd think EU citizens would want to be informed about such things - as it couldn't be more consequential for their prosperity.

Yet I bet virtually no EU citizen is even aware of it, beyond a vague sense that there is some sort of trade dispute going on.

So what's going on exactly? It all centers around a new legal instrument the EU is drafting called the "overcapacity instrument" (https://t.co/mNpCMudYyS).

First of all, the very notion of "overcapacity" is pretty ridiculous to begin with, especially the way it's being defined by the EU, as it basically means being competitive enough to export.

By this definition of "overcapacity," pretty much every European industry that's ever run a trade surplus - German cars, French wine, Italian fashion - has been guilty of "overcapacity."

I'm not even exaggerating: if you read this study by the EU Parliament on "Industrial overcapacities, with a focus on China" (https://t.co/TcwEBoL8mD), they define "overcapacity" as building more capacity than your domestic market can absorb. So the moment you build capacity to export abroad, you're in "overcapacity."

Utterly ridiculous.

And what this "overcapacity instrument" is about is creating a permanent legal mechanism for the EU to block Chinese competition across whole sectors of the economy, if they happen to be in "overcapacity."

In effect, this means that if China is competitive globally in a given sector in such a way that it exports a lot, that's proof of overcapacity, and legally it'd mean that the entire sector can be restricted from the EU market.

Which means it really, factually, is a legal framework where the more affordable and competitive your products are, the more illegal they become.

Which is a CRAZY economic concept! 🤦‍♂️

Please note that it's different from the anti-subsidy legal instrument, which the EU has already put in place in 2023 (the "Foreign Subsidies Regulation": https://t.co/SvPKFyN0zo).

This "overcapacity instrument" would be above and beyond this: it wouldn't even matter if a particular sector was subsidized by the Chinese government or not, the mere fact of its competitiveness in exports would be grounds for restrictions in the EU.

It doesn't take a genius to understand how badly this could impact everyday people: this is European consumers being forced to pay more for worse products by law, so that uncompetitive European firms don't have to improve.

Politicians frame it as avoiding a "China shock 2.0" but really this is choosing an even steeper self-inflicted decline than is already the case, where EU citizens would subsidize mediocre EU companies that would have even less pressure to catch up. It's a hidden tax: subsidies for uncompetitive firms paid by consumers instead of governments, which in turn makes them less incentivized to become competitive.

The first "China shock" did de-industrialize Europe somewhat, but at least it made things cheaper for European consumers. If this becomes Europe's response to a second "China shock" not only it'd make everything more expensive but it'd do nothing for EU industry: you don't become competitive by banning the competition...

Look at China itself: the way it industrialized was NOT by banning Western firms but on the contrary by welcoming them strategically and learning from them. You learn to compete by... competing, duh!

What I find most shocking in all of this isn't even the policy itself - you can make arguments for and against protectionism, and reasonable people can disagree.

What's shocking is that virtually no European media outlet is explaining any of this to the public. This is unarguably one of the single most consequential economic decisions the EU will make this decade, affecting the price of everything, and it's being drafted in near-total silence.

No newspaper is running the headline "EU plans to make Chinese goods illegal if they're too affordable" - even though that's essentially what's happening.

But that's what you call a "democracy" with "freedom of expression" these days apparently...

[kai @ssvankai]

accidentally stumbled upon this crazy paper abstract

[Dave W Plummer @davepl1968]

I worked on the XP run dialog. I'm a grizzled old man now, barely recognizable in the mirror, but even I think 94ms is a long-assed time to wait for a dialog to open.

[Katherine Argent @effthealgorithm]

Search is full of ads and wrong answers. Every other email is an ad. Prime Video charges you and shows ads. Paramount? Ads. Peacock? YouTube? Hulu? Ads followed by more ads. Netflix full of ads. Meta and X, every other thing is an ad. Pinterest is nothing but ads. AI is in everything. AI finishes sentences incorrectly and won’t stop. AI reads your email and search history to target you with more ads. Every time you open an app or visit a site there’s an update making it worse. In a hurry? First, click here to agree to terms you don’t have time to read and must accept. You need an account to do that. Change your temporary password. Enter your 2FA code. Check your email and enter that code. Now use a passkey. Your password is too simple to remember. Change it. No, not like that. Now log on. Enter your 2FA code. Check your email for a code… Welcome back! We’ve updated our terms of service and privacy policy (you have none). Subscribe to the site. Subscribe to Netflix. Subscribe to toilet paper. Subscribe to these groceries. Pay a membership fee for the right to subscribe then tip your driver who delivers the subscriptions your membership lets you subscribe to. Time to work? We’ve got to update your laptop and will slow down everything you do until you agree to update. But first, click here to agree. Update installed — your laptop’s broken now. It doesn’t matter, since your boss just replaced you with AI. Go to your phone to complain on social media. Wait, your phone needs an update so we can add more AI. Click here. Oh sorry, your phone can’t handle this update. Now it’s useless. Go get the newest phone. Here’s a text from a friend, an email, a voice mail they left three days ago but you didn’t see until now because of sync problems with the cloud. It’s their GoFundMe. Their MLM. Their Patreon. Never mind, you didn’t respond to their text within 9 minutes and now you’re no longer friends. They blocked you. Make new friends. Download this app to find people in your area. In your neighborhood. On your street. Two doors down from you. Do you know this person yet, we think you’d get along. You need an account to use this app. That username is taken. Enter a password. Not that one, you used it on another site. You need to be connected to WiFi to download the app. Allow the app to connect to other devices on your network. Allow the app to access your contacts, know your precise location, store your credit card details. Oops, sorry, we got hacked now all that info is available on the web. There’s a class action suit. You can join. It’ll take a decade to get your $3.73 share of the ten billion settlement. We’ll send it via PayPal or deposit it to your bank, just tell us those details. Oh no, another hack. That info is circulating now, too. Here’s a spam call, a spam email, a spam text. Why are you angry? Why are you talking about getting rid of your phone? Why don’t you like AI, it lets us make all of this easier? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? This is progress. You’ll be left behind. Do you want to be left behind? Do you???

[AnastasiaBurkovskaya @burkaru]

@ben_golub drew attention to our paper with @electronic_gore (thanks!) and raised a fair question about the conceptual difference with Eliaz & Spiegler (2020, AER).

As they say, no such thing as bad publicity-a short thread on the difference 👇
https://t.co/s8KwmNRqm2

[Judea Pearl @yudapearl]

This is one of the best papers I've read in years, highly relevant to our troubled world, where wars of narratives are becoming more dangerous than bombs and bullets. Glad to see some of my old algorithms utilized in the service of persuasion. @burkaru. @eliasbareinboim

[AnastasiaBurkovskaya @burkaru]

I took a UCLA class on causal inference taught by @yudapearl more than 10 years ago. Recently together with my co-author Egor we applied causal DAGs to persuasion. I believe it is worth a read: causality.pdf https://t.co/f6qHDC47QN

[Peter Schmidt-Nielsen @ptrschmdtnlsn]

Every time this comes up, a bunch of people miss the point. Each one clearly values watching someone eat shit at >$100, and disvalues eating shit at <$100. This is two people with (utterly bizarre) preferences, getting gains from trade that they wouldn't have gotten were it not for dollars as an intermediary. They both *want* to trade eating shit for watching someone eat shit, but needed dollars to coordinate that positive-sum trade across time!

Had they come across the piles simultaneously, they could have negotiated eating simultaneously, but they can't. This is *the* huge advantage of money, as a universal IOU; it enables "virtual trades" between parties separated in time and space.

[Alexey Makarin @alexeymakarin]

📢 Call for Papers!

We are delighted to announce the 4th CEPR Workshop on Media, Technology, Politics, and Society, hosted at @EIEF_Rome in Rome, June 25–26, 2026!

We welcome submissions on the economics and politics of media, information, digital platforms, and AI. We look forward to seeing your work!

Deadline: January 31, 2026.
Link: https://t.co/WT3hlSN7yF

[Nikolaj🇺🇦🇵🇸 @nikicaga]

Early AI was just ensouled in a way the modern stuff isn't

[ling ✧ @fishlooker_]

idea: build a better file browser
result: liminal froggy OS

[estarkov @electronic_gore]

@turbojedi "Всем привет, мы очень рады после столь долгого молчания наконец объявить что силксонга не будет, всем спасибо!"

[estarkov @electronic_gore]

Tim Robinson has a good sketch about it https://t.co/51HUe8CRbl

[Ryan Moulton @moultano]

People want to smile at babies because they want to be judged by the baby. The baby is impartial. If it smiles, then you, yes even you, deserve to smiled upon. Best to put your best foot forward.

[Alec Stapp @AlecStapp]

This is the biggest risk we face right now:

[estarkov @electronic_gore]

Why does this stanley cup bug me so much?

[Porsche Newsroom @PorscheNewsroom]

As #Porsche prepares for Le Mans, a sister to the 963 Hypercar has been revealed – named the 963 RSP. An extreme one-off based on the championship winner, it closely follows the design direction taken by a very special 917 half a century ago. More: https://t.co/Ti2Kaj76uj

[Lukasz Olejnik @lukOlejnik]

Meta and Russian Yandex engaged in unprecedented internet tracking practices, likely illegal with EU data protection law. Companies designed tracking systems that exploited Android's localhost socket permissions to create covert communication channels between websites and native mobile apps, bypassing Android's app sandboxing protections. Android allows any app with internet permission to listen on localhost ports without user consent, and web browsers can access these localhost interfaces. When users visit websites containing Meta Pixel or Yandex Metrica scripts, the JavaScript tracking code sends data directly to specific localhost ports (Meta uses UDP ports 12580-12585 via WebRTC, Yandex uses TCP ports 29009-30103 via HTTP). Facebook, Instagram, and Yandex apps run background services that actively listen on these predetermined ports to receive tracking data, then link this anonymous web activity to authenticated user accounts and transmit the combined data to company servers.

This technique affects billions of Android users and renders privacy protections like incognito mode, VPNs, and cookie clearing completely ineffective. Meta Pixel attempted localhost communications on over 17,000 of the top 100,000 websites, with 78% doing so without user consent. The method allows comprehensive profile building linking anonymous browsing to real identities, tracking everything from shopping to sensitive site visits. It also creates vulnerabilities where malicious apps could eavesdrop on browsing history by listening on the same localhost ports.

This surveillance operated without disclosure. Following public disclosure, Meta immediately ceased the practice and removed related code while browser vendors scrambled to implement protections.

The practice violates multiple GDPR and ePrivacy principles. The technique transforms supposedly anonymous first-party cookies into cross-site tracking identifiers without explicit consent, violating ePrivacy Directive requirements for cookie consent and GDPR's lawful basis for processing. By secretly linking web browsing to app-based identities, it constitutes undisclosed profiling that undermines user expectations and data minimization principles. This is a material for max #GDPR fine. https://t.co/ktHWwllWr4

[yurikrupenin.bsky.social @turbojedi]

Спасибо интернет, это то что было мне сегодня нужно

https://t.co/IFRJDWAMY4

[Tom Warren @tomwarren]

the judge in Epic v. Apple has just put Apple on blast over its anticompetitive behavior. Apple is no longer allowed to collect fees on purchases made outside apps, and Apple might face possible criminal contempt proceedings https://t.co/UPqoKsFICD