I find that quite staggering. GLM is open weights

GLM 5.2 is better, also cheaper, and almost as fast.

So essentially, a big L for Google. Combine this with them not being able to produce a frontier model this generation... hmm implications

When you Robot folds your clothes but it's kinda wrinkly and sloppy but you accept it anyway because it's easier than precisely folded and pressed clothes.

Are you … alright?

An equilibrium for a given game is - depending on the equilibrium concept (bummer, even more conditions) - is a stable outcome of some sort with usually no claims as to how it would actually be reached.

By that, you can already see that this is not really an actual theory of an empiric situation, but rather a mathematical model of a certain solution structure.

If you were to write this paper today as an economist and your goal was to claim that is actually, really holds in reality, then you'd not only have to produce the theory but you'd also have to build some sort of empirical model that you can estimate with somewhat plausible identification conditions and structure, or be able to show it in a (pseudo-)experiment setup that is believable enough. Suffice to say that there are very few such claims made on reality in modern microeconomics (that is to say, Game Theory by and large)

As it turns out, these sort of mathematical models have quite a bit of value in a normative setup, say if you go and design a market or an auction. Less so as a theory to explain all of reality.

I think in Coase's time, it was easier to write a 6 page paper from your bathtub and claim something about the world. Wasn't there an xkcd comic like this?

If you want to make Game Theory collide with reality, the actual convergence to an equilibrium is only one of many venues where there is a large divide. Other assumptions of these models - from rational behavior to uniform prior assumptions - are equally problematic.

Game Theory models are nevertheless very helpful because they require you to actually lay out your assumptions or - when you observe something else - reason about "what else is going on" in any of these areas. As it turns out (as another person has said), it is also immensely helpful when designing mechanism (i.e. games) like a Steam store or an ad auction, which is why tech companies hire quite a few Game Theorists.

The issue if, of course, that marginal revolution overstates the contribution of a single empirical study here.

Of course everyone is aware that the original model doesn't hold in reality. The contribution of showing this in the ebook market is... not zero, but certainly not the implied "We killed the theory!!!!"

Instead, there are decades of papers poking holes in the Coase model and producing ideas as to why the conjecture doesn't hold. In my mind, these are the more interesting contributions. The authors mention two, but I think far more tangible are time preferences, time horizon limits, pertubations, non-uniform prior assumptions and bounded rationality.

Big topic early 2020s

Shit now i have to cancel my account

Finally! Electronic sound is fine if it is the actual sound of the car instead of some fake recording of a v8

Yeah! What a mystery. What could make people install omarchy or pop os over debian, arch or gentoo?

What could possibly be the reason

Linux should be hard and shitty and it should break all the time! What is this newfound obsession with distros that just works and have some great setups and defaults.

Where do we end up if you can just close your laptop lid or copy paste with the same key or or or if even… gasp… the theme is automatically applied across all apps?

DHH? More like literal devil.

No sir! Let me write a blogpost post haste!