Nick Huntington-Klein
@nickchk.com
Econ prof at Seattle University. Book The Effect http://theeffectbook.net out now! Substack https://nickchk.substack.com/ Twitter @nickchk
otherwise how would we know this site was real
November 11, 2025 at 8:57 PM
otherwise how would we know this site was real
Favorite deck of all time was tight sight although it was only relevant for one set before being way outclassed by storm
November 6, 2025 at 12:08 AM
Favorite deck of all time was tight sight although it was only relevant for one set before being way outclassed by storm
I dunno what you mean about simplifying though. Every card has like eight lines of text these days!
November 5, 2025 at 11:59 PM
I dunno what you mean about simplifying though. Every card has like eight lines of text these days!
The heavily creature favored development isn't my favorite but tbh most people like it way more than an environment with enginey combos and land destruction which is what I love haha. I mostly play pauper these days which is in a great place.
November 5, 2025 at 11:58 PM
The heavily creature favored development isn't my favorite but tbh most people like it way more than an environment with enginey combos and land destruction which is what I love haha. I mostly play pauper these days which is in a great place.
That makes sense. Although in this particular cube just curving out tends to work reeeeal good actually, especially in r/w
November 5, 2025 at 9:37 PM
That makes sense. Although in this particular cube just curving out tends to work reeeeal good actually, especially in r/w
4. i still find planeswalkers annoying generally, even on my side of the board. i think they make the game worse
5. in an all too predictable irony, the only deck i've drafted that was truly nuts was also the only one i didn't break even on! mox ruby, bombadiers, tinker, minsc and boo -> 1-3???
5. in an all too predictable irony, the only deck i've drafted that was truly nuts was also the only one i didn't break even on! mox ruby, bombadiers, tinker, minsc and boo -> 1-3???
November 5, 2025 at 9:06 PM
4. i still find planeswalkers annoying generally, even on my side of the board. i think they make the game worse
5. in an all too predictable irony, the only deck i've drafted that was truly nuts was also the only one i didn't break even on! mox ruby, bombadiers, tinker, minsc and boo -> 1-3???
5. in an all too predictable irony, the only deck i've drafted that was truly nuts was also the only one i didn't break even on! mox ruby, bombadiers, tinker, minsc and boo -> 1-3???
I do understand that the available sunscreens are different (and better) in AU so we'll have plenty to explore.
November 4, 2025 at 12:08 AM
I do understand that the available sunscreens are different (and better) in AU so we'll have plenty to explore.
Oh yes definitely bracing myself for sunscreen as a daily ritual
November 3, 2025 at 11:54 PM
Oh yes definitely bracing myself for sunscreen as a daily ritual
I was a pretty uniquely good fit for the listing, so maybe! At the very least the university needs to make a case that local Australians were properly considered, and if they can't then I won't get a visa.
November 3, 2025 at 11:45 PM
I was a pretty uniquely good fit for the listing, so maybe! At the very least the university needs to make a case that local Australians were properly considered, and if they can't then I won't get a visa.
Absolutely! I'll have to get down to Melbourne at some point.
November 3, 2025 at 11:06 PM
Absolutely! I'll have to get down to Melbourne at some point.
Many thanks to @econemilia.bsky.social who answered some Australian econ market questions while I was revving up the job hunt.
November 3, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Many thanks to @econemilia.bsky.social who answered some Australian econ market questions while I was revving up the job hunt.
You can guess the motivation. In any case thanks to Seattle U for a wonderful six years.
I recognize that many of you are far away in Melbourne/Sydney, but hoping I can manage to connect with some of the Australian econ people I see on here at some point!
I recognize that many of you are far away in Melbourne/Sydney, but hoping I can manage to connect with some of the Australian econ people I see on here at some point!
November 3, 2025 at 8:57 PM
You can guess the motivation. In any case thanks to Seattle U for a wonderful six years.
I recognize that many of you are far away in Melbourne/Sydney, but hoping I can manage to connect with some of the Australian econ people I see on here at some point!
I recognize that many of you are far away in Melbourne/Sydney, but hoping I can manage to connect with some of the Australian econ people I see on here at some point!
Although maybe it could show bias if you just make an asymmetric Galton and then produce masks of different shapes.
November 3, 2025 at 7:22 PM
Although maybe it could show bias if you just make an asymmetric Galton and then produce masks of different shapes.
I think it would be more intuitive to *not* drill holes and instead put a mask on the board. Add a cover-up plate that blocks view of everything but the selected values. This makes clear that the other values *exist* we just can't see them and it skews our understanding. This doesn't solve bias tho.
November 3, 2025 at 7:21 PM
I think it would be more intuitive to *not* drill holes and instead put a mask on the board. Add a cover-up plate that blocks view of everything but the selected values. This makes clear that the other values *exist* we just can't see them and it skews our understanding. This doesn't solve bias tho.
While the nyt article doesn't bring it up, the book being discussed does address the body of work that the post claims it does not
October 27, 2025 at 10:07 AM
While the nyt article doesn't bring it up, the book being discussed does address the body of work that the post claims it does not
Yes that's more or less what we're doing. We tried to credit everyone but in general journals we submit to have been asking us to bundle up most authors into a bucket.
October 23, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Yes that's more or less what we're doing. We tried to credit everyone but in general journals we submit to have been asking us to bundle up most authors into a bucket.
Most of the time when I have this reaction it's because I can tell from the abstract that the methods are bad. Not every editor is a methods person!
October 22, 2025 at 6:00 AM
Most of the time when I have this reaction it's because I can tell from the abstract that the methods are bad. Not every editor is a methods person!
Wouldn't an editor likely disregard a review that was like "I could tell it wasn't getting better"
October 22, 2025 at 4:54 AM
Wouldn't an editor likely disregard a review that was like "I could tell it wasn't getting better"
and you open it up and there's that moment where you think "i shouldn't pre-judge, maybe the paper is actually fine" and it never is
October 21, 2025 at 11:06 PM
and you open it up and there's that moment where you think "i shouldn't pre-judge, maybe the paper is actually fine" and it never is