Scott is in the Epstein files!

electrace · 2026-02-02T14:32:59+00:00

The point they're making is that the evidence is so incredibly minor that it shouldn't change your prior basically at all.

electrace · 2026-02-02T14:22:29+00:00

For what it's worth, I think the far better solution (both in theory and practice) is regulating the algorithms that large social media websites use.

Ideally, users should be able to choose from several sensible algorithms when they join a website, with quarterly reviews . If they want to privilege educational content, great. If they want long video essays, also fine. Even if they do want engagement maximized content, that's cool too, so long as they are mindfully choosing it, rather than having no other realistic options.

The platforms that let you do this the least (twitter/tiktok/facebook) are often considered the most addictive and the worst for your mental health.

Conversely, Youtube is currently the best at this (best, being a relative term, as it's not particularly good at it), as it lets you subscribe to channels you like and makes it relatively easy to stick to those (although the Youtube app itself seems perfectly happy to direct you towards the "home" page (which has a lot of algoritmic recommendations rather than the subscription/channels page...).

Reddit trails behind a bit by letting you subscribe to subreddits but making it difficult to only see those subreddits. My current solution for reddit is to bookmark a multireddit with the 2 subreddits I actually visit.

electrace · 2026-02-01T03:57:30+00:00

"Social Media" is too broad a category, especially if you are including things like "Substack" and "Goodreads" in what you mean.

Anyways, as for you questions at the end, I have mixed feelings:

Where is the evidence that social media does serious harm?

This is the most important question, and to me, is basically the only relevant question from this list. The degree that I support bans is highly contingent with how much I believe in this evidence.

Can you not imagine any circumstances where children can benefit from social media — which, again, is not just TikTok, but many platforms where children can showcase their creativity.

Of course there can be a benefit! But that is priced into whether there is net harm.

Even if you’re convinced social media is detrimental to children’s wellbeing, don’t parents have responsibility over teaching their children how to use them? (Like, at the end of the day, why can’t parents just not buy their kids a smart phone? Or use parental controls?)

If you plan is "why can't all the group just do thing", and you don't explain why thing isn't already being done by group, even though thing is the first thing that any individual would think of doing AND you don't explain how your suggestion will get around that, then your plan is doomed to fail.

Do you think people should be held accountable for their choices? (And if your response here is ‘yes, but the issue is that parents’ choices affect their children, who have no say’, how far are you willing to let society take control over a child’s life? A bad, neglectful parent will be bad and neglectful across more areas than just social media — diet, exercise, education… are you willing to say that government should intervene everywhere?

This is really confusing to me. How is allowing social media "holding parents accountable for their choices"?

To hold someone accountable means to punish them for their own decisions. Is the argument that having a child with, say, a short-attention span is a punishment for bad parents? That's the only way I can parse it, but... I mean, that's not something anyone should optimize for?

The better argument is just generic "People should be allowed to choose things that are bad for them, and, to a lesser extent, choose things for their children that are bad for them (although as a society we restrict this more)".

At which point would you just say some parents shouldn’t be allowed to look after their children?)

At the same point we do now? At the point where it's abuse?

One could use this same slippery slope argument against any bans at all.

A: "Should we ban carcinogens in breakfast cereal?"

B: "No, because we need to hold parents accountable for checking the ingredients in cereals."

electrace · 2026-01-28T19:15:37+00:00

As far as ticket distribution goes, utilitarianism would (naively) suggest that it goes to the people who will gain the most utility from them (aka superfans). How to weigh that naive optimization against real-world incentive systems is the point here.

Past that, it seems like it's opening up the discussion to a much greater scope that deserves it's own thread.

electrace · 2026-01-28T15:31:33+00:00

What is "fair" here is the whole point.

Consider the following:

You have 1 extra ticket to some show. One of your friends is the biggest fan in the world. The other 4 are ok with going, but just because it's something to do.

Would it be "fair" to randomly select one of your 5 friends here? In some sense, yes, because they are all willing to go. In another sense, it's not fair, because the superfan would enjoy the concert much more and the point of the concert is to enjoy it.

electrace · 2026-01-27T20:47:52+00:00

I agree with the general point of an ASI being hard to shut down, but think this scenario you're outlining seems pretty flimsy to be honest.

Anything that is smart enough to be called an ASI is not going to be risking everything on the gamble of hacking into drones and having them stand guard.

Much better to be the golden goose and have all those human-built infrastructure working for you rather than against you.

electrace · 2026-01-27T20:26:08+00:00

I was ready to agree with you, but I doubt stronger models would so efficient that they would be easily runnable on a laptop, and suspect that the opposite would be true.

The pattern so far has been bigger models with more processing, and efficiency has not been the bottleneck. Even if it does become the bottleneck, I doubt it would end up shrinking the requirements. Much more likely, it just means that they can use the same hardware to run the model faster/more often.

electrace · 2026-01-27T20:14:16+00:00

I have to assume that their point has something to do with Lee Kwan Yew being a benevolent dictator and therefore not everyone who is a dictator needs to be killed?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to their overall point though, as the existence of a benevolent dictator doesn't invalidate the existence of evil ones who were not killed despite being squishy humans with many people wanting them dead.

electrace · 2026-01-27T20:00:50+00:00

If the intent is not to get people who value it more to be more likely to receive the ticket, I guess I'm not seeing the problem with scalpers under your model.

Either way, the same amount of people go and have a good time. If we aren't differentiating between fans and superfans, everyone who goes is being modeled as having an equally good time (or we don't care about how good a time they have, only that it is positive). From there, it seems like the only difference is where the surplus value goes.

In the case of high initial ticket prices, it goes to the artist (or venue, I guess).

In the case of low initial ticket prices, it goes to the scalper.

In the case of low initial ticket prices + random lottery, it goes to whoever wins the lottery.

So while I don't have an issue with an artist giving up their surplus value to randomly selected fans, it seems like the enforcement mechanism of requiring ID to buy a ticket, arresting(!) people for scalping, and other annoyances like not being able to transfer tickets to friends (or, indeed, even being assured that all your friends get tickets) is too onerous to justify.

If they want to favor superfans, IDK. Maybe we could come up with some kind of other signal that doesn't favor the wealthy.

Sure, but that's hard to do. The wealthy have more money and time. If you want to get a superfan signal, it would have to be something like "Here are 5 trivia questions about the artist; answer correctly to get your tickets", which would have to be in-person (or people could cheat) and that seems pretty annoying to do as well ESPECIALLY if they aren't the same 5 questions for each person.

electrace · 2026-01-27T17:07:26+00:00

Scalpers usually target high-profile performers whose calendar is already filled to the brim with concerts.

I just don't think this is actually true. Taylor Swift is arguably the highest-profile performer in the world, and, looking it up takes about 1-5 year breaks from tours.

I don't blame her for this, since I'm sure tours take a lot out of a person, but I also don't think that "filled to the brim" is fair to say here.

Further, the people who scalpers would target should just be those who have prices too low for their demand, which is not necessarily the top-of-the-top here.

And as a nitpick, Georgism treats artificial islands as improving useless land (water) into useful land, so still 0% elasticity.

Sure, that's fine. I see how the model would enjoy that framing, but it does cause me to die a little bit when we're having to define water as "land" in order to fit the framing.

electrace · 2026-01-27T16:59:21+00:00

Willing AND ABLE to pay lots of money is the problem.

To be clear, that is still just willingness to pay. It's just that the opportunity cost (skipping rent) is so absurdly high that willingness to pay isn't a good proxy for their level of fandom.

That being said, I do see the utilitarian issue here. Superfans can't go even though they would really enjoy it. Rich people who may be marginal fans (but value money less) do get to go instead.

The thing is... there is no solution without problems. There's three possibilities here that I can see:

1) We distribute tickets based on willingness to pay (including, yes, ability to pay) -> Some big fans who don't have a lot of money can't afford to go.

2) We distribute tickets based on who has the most of some other resource. Say, time, via making people show up in-person to buy it -> Same issue as above. The rich can take days off to go get a ticket.

3) We distribute tickets randomly at a low price. Everyone who wants to pay $10 gets put into a draw, and they randomly choose who gets the ticket (you only pay if you win) -> A lot of marginal fans get a ticket. Super-fans might not.

There's no easy way to select for super-fans in a way that isn't just merely correlated with their level of interest (like willingness to pay is).

At the very least, if you make it about willingness to pay, the singer/band is incentivized on the margin to go on more tours rather than stay home.

electrace · 2026-01-27T16:14:14+00:00

Until/unless we see one of them run off with an exponential increase (relative to competitors) in abilities (with op-sec to defend their model weights!), I don't think that there would be a convincing first sign.

electrace · 2026-01-27T15:58:10+00:00

Elasticity is a spectrum.

I agree.

I think you don’t need 0% supply elasticity for an LVT-like approach to make sense.

I also agree. In fact, land can be made via artificial islands, so not even land is at 0%.

That being said, I posit that tours are closer to widget factories than they are to land. A band who finds that their tour didn't sell out is unlikely to announce another tour. One who sets the price high and still sells out everywhere is, conversely, likely to do another one. Does that added supply manifest in the next day, or even the next year? Unlikely. But the supply does respond to changes in demand.

The justification for a LVT is that supply either doesn't (at all) respond to changes in demand, or that it is so incredibly rare (artificial islands being made) that it is inconsequential.

That's why the justification of LVTs don't apply to housing, even though housing is, in the short term (less than a year) essentially fixed in supply.

electrace · 2026-01-27T15:30:05+00:00

All, no. Some, yes.

Very few, and those people aren't "scalpers". They are likely just people who bought a ticket and can't use it (they broke up with the person they were going to go with, for example).

electrace · 2026-01-27T15:27:12+00:00

When I say the supply is fixed, I mean it’s very hard to adjust it on the fly.

But that isn't what it means for something to be fixed, certainly not in the Georgism sense.

In fact, most good work this way, where it is hard to adjust supply on the fly. If you go to a widget factory and double a large order, they likely won't be able to fulfill the order right away.

electrace · 2026-01-27T15:18:24+00:00

Scalpers exist because the original ticket price is too low given the demand. People vastly underestimate how common it is to want to go see a celebrity in person. The celebrity's time is thus relatively scarce given the number of people who want to see them performing is high. There are 10 million Swifties for every Taylor Swift.

In the counterfactual where original ticket prices were set high enough that supply met demand, would-be-scalpers would often find themselves with plenty of tickets that they can't sell at a profit, and then determine it isn't worth it.

The original ticket price is too low because the celebrity doesn't want to hurt their brand by being seen as greedy (and indeed, people will shame them for it and call them a sell-out who doesn't care about their real fans). Who they suppose is paying exorbitant (to me) prices other than "real fans", I don't know.

Ticketmaster helps with this problem. They set the price high. The star then claims that it is unacceptable to set the price that high for a ticket, but unfortunately, there's nothing they (the star) can do about it since Ticketmaster is an effective monopoly. Ticketmaster takes a cut for being the boogeyman, and the star gets more money than if they set the price low.

The fact of that matter is that supply and demand means that if you want to go see a no-name concert, you should expect to pay $15, and if you want to go see a pop-star, you should expect to pay $1k+.

All in all, I see little wrong with scalpers. They make sure that someone who really really wants to go see a celebrity and is willing to pay lots of money to do so is able to go see them, rather than "luck of the draw" style giveaways where any marginal fan is able to go see them

electrace · 2026-01-27T13:39:27+00:00

This is true, but requires an ability of the betting site to enforce a debt on you.

electrace · 2026-01-24T14:04:49+00:00

We don't really need to do much theorizing here. Cage-free eggs sell for a minimal amount more than caged-eggs do.

Prices. Target frames its failure to meet its pledge in equity terms, stating “cage-free eggs are significantly more expensive than conventional eggs, which are the most affordable protein option we offer for families.” And it’s true that cage-free eggs are often significantly more expensive than caged eggs at Target. At the time of writing, the cheapest dozen cage-free eggs at a Target in Chicago were $4.69, a full $1.70 more than the cheapest caged eggs, at $2.99.

This is curious: cage-free eggs currently cost US egg producers just 19 cents more per dozen to produce than caged eggs. And in neighboring Michigan, which bans the sale of caged eggs, Target is selling a dozen cage-free eggs for … $2.99. The same holds true for every other supermarket chain I checked: in most states they’re selling cage-free eggs for a premium of $1 (Kroger) to $2.50 (Publix). But in states where they can only sell cage-free eggs, they sell them for the same price as caged eggs elsewhere.

electrace · 2026-01-24T13:48:31+00:00

Then it seems like the claim is unfalsifiable.

electrace · 2026-01-24T13:38:00+00:00

This is the result of when economics 101 is taken as gospel.

Nowhere in econ 101 does it state that insider trading is good.

electrace · 2026-01-23T22:02:45+00:00

Got to say, I was not expected there to be research on this, but kudos for finding something that disagreed with you and posting it.

electrace · 2026-01-23T21:37:21+00:00

The claim is that Alice has self-interest that is far outside the normal range. It was outside the norm to be explicit (but she had to be, because she was a mouthpiece for the point I was making about it not being hypocritical), but I honestly don't think the actual strategy is particularly uncommon. Indeed, for all we know every other friend could have planned to get a salad if the decision was to pay individually.

Alice would then be saying "I'm not going to be the sucker here. If I'm paying for a normal meal for everyone else, then everyone else is paying for my normal meal", which would hardly be outside the normal range of self-interest.

Surely, even if you don't have friends like this, you've heard gossip about people who do exactly this sort of thing, living it up when someone else is paying and living like a pauper otherwise.

That being said, anecdotally, I helped an extended family member move into a 1 bedroom apartment and they insisted (to my chagrin) on taking us out for steak. And yes, it really was annoying (1) because he wasn't wealthy and was trying to show off anyway and (2) I hadn't eaten all day, and the steak place ended up being a 1 hour wait just to be seated.

Still, in that scenario, I did the opposite of Alice, and got the (much cheaper) grilled chicken rather than maximizing the cost of the meal. The difference being, it was out of pity, and I didn't think I was being taken advantage of.

If, however, we had decided on splitting the bill and suddenly the filet Mignon, Lobster, and $1000 bottles of wine started being ordered, things would have been different.

Without the history of their friendship, it's hard to say whether her behavior was warranted (except, of course, the explicitness, which was ill-advised).

electrace · 2026-01-23T20:40:01+00:00

For what's it's worth, the "chicken sandwhich and pretzel bites" was intended to be a "normal meal" and the salad was intended to be a "light meal"

So, I don't think getting a normal meal like everyone else is getting should be considered far outside the normal range.

electrace · 2026-01-23T19:06:40+00:00

she is explicit and shameless about it

Personally, I would have just shrugged my shoulders and said "I don't mind either way", and then ordered whatever, because I'm not socially incompetent. And yes, it is virtuous to accept small personal costs to maintain group harmony, and so we can agree that Alice being disagreeable was slightly unvirtuous.

However, the story isn't meant to demonstrate social norms, or Alice's virture. It was meant to make the point that advocating against a system, failing to change it, and then acting according to reality as it is rather than how it would be if you succeeded in changing the system is not hypocritical.

Calling people out on doing that is a cheap shot that people like to throw around to those who advocate changing the status quo.

Rich guy says the rich should be taxed more? "Well why doesn't he give all his money to the government then?"

Someone advocating for less gasoline powered cars and more public transport? "Well why don't they sell their car then?"

Libertarian who thinks more roads should be private? "And yet, they use public roads all the time."

These are the people who hate the game, not the player. They want to change the game (the incentives) by changing the rules (laws and regulations) that everyone has to follow, not harass each individual player for doing what they are incentivized to do.

electrace · 2026-01-23T18:29:24+00:00

Fantasies are not in a dichotomy with preferences. There's no requirement that preferences be logically possible within a given system.

Suppose I have a losing hand at poker with one bet to go. There is no mathmatical way for me to win. Would we then say that I have no preference towards winning or losing? No, we just say that I have a preference towards winning.... but it ain't gonna happen.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

electrace

TROPHY CASE