It was remarkable. They did not challenge his suggestion that Trump was blameless wrt E Jean Carrol. Or that the capitol is a public building so some of the people there (during a riot) were just wandering around and not rioters.
November 11, 2025 at 2:45 PM
It was remarkable. They did not challenge his suggestion that Trump was blameless wrt E Jean Carrol. Or that the capitol is a public building so some of the people there (during a riot) were just wandering around and not rioters.
c) First order, it doesn't matter: Whatever happens, 1 faithful is getting murdered. Second order, maybe you get a bit more information if you restrict the traitors' options, but it's more useful to think about the specific people getting shields and their value conditional on being faithful.
October 25, 2025 at 11:17 PM
c) First order, it doesn't matter: Whatever happens, 1 faithful is getting murdered. Second order, maybe you get a bit more information if you restrict the traitors' options, but it's more useful to think about the specific people getting shields and their value conditional on being faithful.
b) Both of them. One night after another. As soon as possible. Banishing 1 traitor at the cost of 1 faithful is much better than the expected value of random guessing (or what was realised). At the beginning of the game, it was still good even if you think that big dog was only 50% to be true.
October 25, 2025 at 11:17 PM
b) Both of them. One night after another. As soon as possible. Banishing 1 traitor at the cost of 1 faithful is much better than the expected value of random guessing (or what was realised). At the beginning of the game, it was still good even if you think that big dog was only 50% to be true.
Answers:
a) Your utility curve is pretty flat, so maximise expected value, which is to put everything on A.
It's a common fallacy to think the answer is different if each opportunity to win money is a bit different.
If the stdev is small compared to end-of-game prize fund EV, just maximise EV.
a) Your utility curve is pretty flat, so maximise expected value, which is to put everything on A.
It's a common fallacy to think the answer is different if each opportunity to win money is a bit different.
If the stdev is small compared to end-of-game prize fund EV, just maximise EV.
October 25, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Answers:
a) Your utility curve is pretty flat, so maximise expected value, which is to put everything on A.
It's a common fallacy to think the answer is different if each opportunity to win money is a bit different.
If the stdev is small compared to end-of-game prize fund EV, just maximise EV.
a) Your utility curve is pretty flat, so maximise expected value, which is to put everything on A.
It's a common fallacy to think the answer is different if each opportunity to win money is a bit different.
If the stdev is small compared to end-of-game prize fund EV, just maximise EV.
This feels more like a competence thing than a probity thing. They were stupid to make the promise, but now they've realised that they were wrong, isn't it better to update than to blindly stick to a stupid policy?
October 25, 2025 at 5:22 PM
This feels more like a competence thing than a probity thing. They were stupid to make the promise, but now they've realised that they were wrong, isn't it better to update than to blindly stick to a stupid policy?
Don't know the basis of the claim, but 2B tax revenue on 400B per year of Swiss equity trading is unlikely. Sounds like maybe they think the govt is collecting 0.5% stamp on all this?
October 6, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Don't know the basis of the claim, but 2B tax revenue on 400B per year of Swiss equity trading is unlikely. Sounds like maybe they think the govt is collecting 0.5% stamp on all this?
There are all kinds of interesting ways that we could create real incentives for private investment to provide clean water that would allow them to be properly entrepreneurial. Guaranteeing a revenue stream while excusing them their obligations is not one.
October 2, 2025 at 4:15 PM
There are all kinds of interesting ways that we could create real incentives for private investment to provide clean water that would allow them to be properly entrepreneurial. Guaranteeing a revenue stream while excusing them their obligations is not one.
And if this discourages lenders and investors from exploiting asinine policies where we shift debt off the state books by pretending that it doesn't have an last resort obligation to provide clean water, then that is a *good thing*.
October 2, 2025 at 4:15 PM
And if this discourages lenders and investors from exploiting asinine policies where we shift debt off the state books by pretending that it doesn't have an last resort obligation to provide clean water, then that is a *good thing*.
Property taxes should be annual and based on land value (to encourage development). Stamp duty should be abolished. Let old people defer the taxes until death via a lien against property (that's transferable to not discourage downsizing).
September 21, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Property taxes should be annual and based on land value (to encourage development). Stamp duty should be abolished. Let old people defer the taxes until death via a lien against property (that's transferable to not discourage downsizing).
A proper digital national ID could stop all employment in the grey economy (i.e. everyone pays taxes, people without employment authorisation can't work).
A stupid national ID would result in databases of "social security numbers" that could be stolen and then used for fraud, like in the US.
A stupid national ID would result in databases of "social security numbers" that could be stolen and then used for fraud, like in the US.
September 21, 2025 at 1:59 PM
A proper digital national ID could stop all employment in the grey economy (i.e. everyone pays taxes, people without employment authorisation can't work).
A stupid national ID would result in databases of "social security numbers" that could be stolen and then used for fraud, like in the US.
A stupid national ID would result in databases of "social security numbers" that could be stolen and then used for fraud, like in the US.
A minimal and sensible adjustment to the triple lock would be to base it on multi-year inflation, e.g. each year, pensions should rise to a level that mean that they have increased by at least the increase in wages (similarly prices) over the past 5 years. We could still call this the triple lock.
September 21, 2025 at 1:59 PM
A minimal and sensible adjustment to the triple lock would be to base it on multi-year inflation, e.g. each year, pensions should rise to a level that mean that they have increased by at least the increase in wages (similarly prices) over the past 5 years. We could still call this the triple lock.
PR gives more power to political parties. What do you do when the party you like puts someone you don't like near the top of its list? (e.g. Truss, Rees-Mogg, Kendal, Corbyn). Preference voting, e.g. AV or STV allows us to vote for or against actual people, *and* get a more proportional result.
August 23, 2025 at 7:53 AM
PR gives more power to political parties. What do you do when the party you like puts someone you don't like near the top of its list? (e.g. Truss, Rees-Mogg, Kendal, Corbyn). Preference voting, e.g. AV or STV allows us to vote for or against actual people, *and* get a more proportional result.