Commoditizing your supply chain is an important strategy to ensure you don't lose profits. This could just be a good outcome of competition.

Would appreciate a citation/source for this please.

I don't know the current law and if what type of deportation it prescribes, but a few key questions are: (1) is the law being applied correctly? (2) is the law the one that "the people" want? and (3) if "the people" don't want the current laws, how do they change them?

I would suggest considering the parallel between these prank calls and the civil disobedience that Rosa Parks and many others performed in the Civil Rights era. We might get to different answers, but I hope we can agree on the questions.

This looks like a creative re-telling of a story from ~6 years ago, which pleasantly linked to a good explanation of how algorithmic pricing leads to these oddities.

Can any corporate finance experts explain why companies would do this? Should we buy that they're just being generous/trying to foster goodwill?

This feels like a joke. This is a joke right? Because the value proposition, besides creating controversy, doesn't make sense. It seems like they're offering to solve information asymmetries, when supply differs from demand. But this creates new problems.

Landlords Now need to figure out when to close their auction to get the maximal volume of the best tenants paying the best prices. How do I even think about that?

Renters need to figure out on which rentals to bid. It seems like bids are binding - are they not? Is there conditional bidding and Rentberry is solving so complex logic problem? Or combinatoric bidding where renters can win only one item?

I'm somewhat new to the industry, but my understanding is that there aren't copyright protections for fonts. So that won't work. However there is trademark protections, and the standard there is confusion.

If consumers think Googe and Google are affiliated then Googe might be in trouble.

I'm an economist; I recently finished my PhD and am now working in the tech industry.

I am hugely in favor of UBI. I think of it in 3 ways:

Is it doable?
Yes, of course. Existing social programs are very costly, and this will replace many of them. Furthermore, there are a lot of profits that have been created by technology in the last 50 years. And yet work weeks have increased, and many people have a lower quality of life than before. You might ask why this is. I'll give you a hint: the answer isn't population growth.

What is the cost?
Social disruption in the short term. Probably a cost to some or many very wealthy individuals. New regulations are required, but these may be less in total than existing regulations.

What is the benefit?
Many. Increased social stability. A simpler social safety net for one. A promise that each individual will be better off as technology improves and jobs may be destroyed.

That last piece I believe to be very important. The looming driverless car revolution has highlighted the risk of technology: jobs lost there have no promise of replacements.

I don't want to condone or condemn these actions, but it just seems like a low-hanging fruit. If someone could do their job much more effectively at such a low cost (who reads the ToS anyways), is it surprising that they'd do this?

Please check your source on this, I do not think you can conclude that based on game theory, or even a reasonable application of game theory. Alternatively, how do you reach this conclusion?

I wonder about that. Terrorism is considered an uninsurable risk and so not often covered.

It's not impossible to know the impact, see regression discontinuity for an example. The issue is effectiveness. Do we want to save some people now and learn less, or save lots of people later but risk some now?

As an economist, I want to reiterate that point.

That said, I wouldn't take the article at face value. Look at how they describe 'unaccepted research practice.' Playing devil's advocate, splitting research into smaller publishable piece makes sense if you want to get it out as quickly as possible. Or their statement about checking the contents of work cited? Do they mean ensuring that works cited are correct? Because that's ridiculous, no one can do that. Or do they mean glancing at the work cited? Because that's equally ridiculous.

It's a little more complicated than that. The issue is match quality between workers and firms. Match quality increases over a worker's tenure at a firm (as they learn the systems / practices / whatever). To better model the issue you'll want to include training costs and long term contracts.

For example, it won't work out if a firm trains workers and then those workers just find better jobs, so one solution is long term contracts. Long term contracts may be forbidden, so firms need other ways to retain workers who they've spent a lot of money to train. Anti-poaching rules may be another solution.

I'm not saying implicit anti-poaching agreements are good, but it's not a black and white issue.

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic, I'll assume you're not. Yes, that's true, rationality (complete and transitive preferences) is different from what they're testing. They're saying inconsistent without providing a baseline. The example I gave is one equating rationality to having a monotonic marginal utility for wealth gains, which is a pretty weak assumption as economics goes, I think it's weaker than the example given in the news article, which is an argument for prospect theory.