So, if I have a central conceit (that widget usage causes some sort of effect over time), and I have 300 models, and only one of them works, I get to preserve my central conceit.

And if that last model fails, I just build another model, to preserve that central conceit.

If that's true, why do I need a model at all? Why can't I just insist that my central conceit is true, and avoid all the work of trying to build more and more models when old ones fail?

Forget the climate models, find me a single economic model that is accurate. Ever. In the history of everything.

I can predict the position of the sun and stars and moon to a high degree of precision for the next thousand years. But that doesn't mean I can predict the economic consequences of those positions with any accuracy.

Welcome to complex systems.

Are there differences between the models?

If so, which one is the fully aligned one with the climate?

What did the other models get wrong that doesn't invalidate their central claim?

If the last model standing misaligns, will you change your opinion, or look for another model?

...but seriously, how many of you actually read the cited article?

And out of that group, how many understood it?

And out of that group, how many believed it?

And out of that group, how many could tell you why they believed it?

Now, it's quite possible that either opinion lines up with reality, but was that because you did due diligence, or was it because you're just lucky?

It can take a while, but you can generally spot psychopaths. They have tells, and even if they're 99% truthful in their statements, you can pick up that you should never trust them.

The problem with LLMs is that they behave just like psychopaths, but they don't have any emotional valence - they will give you a correct answer with the exact same tone and confidence as they give you an incorrect answer.

You can never drop your guard when using an LLM.

Uh oh. You triggered the big pharma dudes with mod points.

One day, our institutions will earn back their credibility. Today, is obviously not that day.

"Free love" during the "sexual revolution" was about rejecting traditional, non-governmental, morals and prohibitions on sexual activity. It wasn't just "sex the government doesn't explicitly sanction in the institution of contract marriage", it was "sex without regard to consequences".

Sexual activity has inherent consequences, including physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. Pretending that you can have sex "free" from consequences is one of the great lies of the 1900s.

Moving people's place of work more than some fairly short distance - like 50km or 100km, constitutes constructive dismissal, and will legally trigger severance - which us usually 1 month pay for each complete year of service. Any employer offering less than that usually gets slapped down hard if it makes it to court.
Of course most states in the US have next to 0 worker protection of any kind (along with no health care). It never ceases to amaze me that anyone thinks a Canadian would want to have Canada join with the US. Why would we would give up health care, worker protections (including paid maternity/paternity leave), with virtually no mass shootings and so on??? In exchange for being governed by a bunch of fascists. Even most Democrats south of the border would be considered radical right-wing nutjobs up here.

(Always talk to a good and experienced employment lawyer if you get laid off or dismissed for any reason)

So, in your estimation, there's a certain amount of "currency" that creates a superior experience...watching a tape delay and avoiding spoilers might be okay if it's 24=48 hours before you get back to your DVR, but 24-48 years is too far removed in time to feel anything "real". Call it the half-life decay of camaraderie, perhaps.

My bet is that if you start the season, even 48 years late, and watch it in order for the teams that you're excited about, you probably get the narrative arc even decades removed, but you may be right about there being a certain "liveness" that would only really work if you had a in person watch party of dozens of friends binging the 1982 season of the Lakers.

I'm definitely open to the ratio of "turbonerds" versus "superfans" being skewed one way or another.

My assertion is this - for a large portion of people, who either never saw the games in the first place, or saw them so long ago they've forgotten them, watching taped shows from the 80's and 90's would be just as exciting as watching a live game today.

So, doesn't that cost get passed through to the consumer?

I'm hung up on blaming them for the costs, but not crediting them for the benefits.

If they're held liable for whatever glacier disaster happened, are they also credited for the days that were pleasantly warm thanks to their influence?

I wonder how the Germans expect to hold countries like India and China accountable for their emissions.

Or the Pacific Ocean. Who gets to sue the Pacific Ocean for all the CO2 outgassing it does?

...there are enough good sports games over the past 50 years that have been videoed that a fan could spend the rest of their life watching and not finish.

Once every Celtic's and Laker's game from the 1980s and 90s is available on a torrent, nobody is ever going to have to watch live basketball again.

Everybody thinks that. They just disagree on who is killing us.

And in a complex system, deriving any sort of clean idea of what is causal and what is symptomatic is an argument over what Godel might have called "unprovable truths".

Epistemic humility is just too rare, I think.

How about finding a single reliable economic model, ever?

There is no such thing as an accurate economic prediction model over any significant period of time.

Welcome to complex systems.