Steven Kivinen

I'm only part way through Silksong, but so far Hollow Knight is better.

My new favourite game. Almost done, but happy to know there is a sequel!

The prediction of sequences - International Journal of Game Theory The problem of predicting the short-term future behavior of a sequence, after observing it as long as we please, so as to achieve a specified reliability against all possible sequences is considered. ...

Apparently David Blackwell's final publication in 2003 at the age of 90 was a working paper in 1955. What a lag! link.springer.com/article/10.1...

This screenshot is getting a lot of airtime but it's completely counter to my experience. Every Canadian I know who is against building housing invokes very different reasons. "Only public/affordable housing." "Developers are getting profits!" I've never heard a single person say anything like this.

Like, Chalamet is the king. But still... can we have a biopic where you aren't constantly thinking, "Yeah, this didn't happen?"

I want to like A Complete Unknown. But the biopic cliches….

This thread makes me hungry.

Hey guys, I know you feel relieved and want to think it's over. It's not.

Fukuyama nails it. But yeah, punishing academics is bad for many reasons. I think this also applies to Israel and Russia.

"Strength is the only language Trump understands." — @seva.bsky.social (@uoft-poli-sci.bsky.social), @acoyne.bsky.social (@theglobeandmail.com), and former Canadian ambassador to NATO @kerrybuck.bsky.social speak with @jeyantvo.bsky.social about Greenland and Canada's role. | Producer: Preeti Bhuyan

First time in a century? Why?

If only they had given him the prize.

I really hope what I'm seeing is a measured calm public face with behind the scenes seriousness, and not the "pretend everything is alright and maybe it will go away" strategy.

I'm still confused after the second tweet.

For 2), do you think Europe has prepared adequately over the past 8 years? Do you think the public has the appetite for a fight?

Same. But I've seen cases in so-called top science journals where I simply cannot see even a simplified version of the model. I'm wondering whether these are the exceptions or the standard.

It is a style thing for sure. I have two related complaints. The first is that the details are *nowhere* to be found. This includes papers and presentations. The second is the writing of opaque proofs that might be correct but not very illuminating. I think the first is more devastating.

To be clear, I might be wrong here and would like to know if I'm mischaracterizing the natural sciences.

For proofs, yes. My claim is less that we present all the proof details so much as we try to communicate *why* a result holds moreso than the natural sciences. This requires, for instance, at least presenting the details of the model.

There seems to be different norms in economics vs. the natural sciences. One thing I notice is that economists view models/proofs as illuminating in and of themselves. But it seems the natural sciences just care about the outputs of the model and not the process. Am I wrong here?

Yeah, and some of the scenes of her with Matthew Rhys are unreal.

It might conditional on pulling out of NATO. But why pull out of NATO?

It was fun for a while, but now I'm just pacing myself until Monday morning. Toddlers are a lot.

Linkedin is surprizingly great now. My feed there used to come off like a bunch of lame HR emails. But now people are posting pretty good content. Though the professional atmosphere is a double-edged sword.

New skill unlocked: I can sort of read papers with toddler in the same room.

It took me many watches (not by choice) to go from "This is so lame" to "This is actually decent."

Ever wonder which voting rules are immune to insincere voting by coalitions with private information? My coauthor Norov and I provide an answer here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Who talked about Meta?

Being an editor to colleagues? Students? My guess is these happen a lot more than editing one's own paper.

"The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have materially affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and/or peer reviewers." Clearly this consistutes a major competing interest. But what else?