There’s not really a clear distinction between these things, in my opinion. Problem solving (and intelligence?) is a mix of search and compression. We like solutions that are elegant (high compression, simple search). But often what appears elegant to some is harder to appreciate for those without the same background knowledge or even the same amount of mental bandwidth (if you’ve ever worked with someone simply much, much smarter than you, you may intuit this!).

> In markets, it can mean buyers and sellers aren’t being matched at the expected price/quantity.

That agency or free will exists outside of our subjective experience is an assumption; does any given theory need to explain agency, or is it sufficient to explain that we feel we have agency?

At 1000, the number of fried boards will be more predictable and therefore the risk to the business is lower, even if the long-run averages are the same.

This is a really interesting observation - can you expand on this a bit more, please? How did you first notice this distinction?

When, for example, learning a new concept in math or physics, what would outside-in look like vs inside out? Would you characterise neurotypical learning in one way or the other?

> _brief_ but enjoyable era

How could we possibly know that with any certainty?

I agree with you in principle - my impression (perhaps wrong - not an expert) was that there are additional data points supporting the idea of a consistent status quo.