Google AI PM; Foundation board member
Surely a poll would be better -- easier for people to answer, less risky of bias.
It's pro-social to get vaccinated now, for the following reasons:
Those two factors make it clear that getting a shot now will more likely decrease (marginally) the time to diversion of significant supply to other places that need it more.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Tony Hoare by way of Donald Knuth.
See also: https://m.xkcd.com/1691/
If you buy from a retailer, you are paying in time as well as money. This is a good deal for people who have relatively more time than money. If you buy from a scalper, you are substituting money for the time component, which is good for people who value their time more highly.
Therefore scalpers are shifting supply from people who have more time to people who have more money. This is likely moving supply from middle class people to rich(er) people.
If you're in the set of people with more time than money, which is most people, I can see being upset. It arguably substantially increases time to PS5 because you weren't previously competing with someone like me who doesn't have time to spare to track inventory and call around, but has plenty of money. It's removing consumers from a pool that they weren't in yet.
I wonder how it would be received if we applied the same reasoning to humans and animals.
Humans might (and in fact do) undergo a lot of suffering. If we could identify people who are likely to suffer high amounts of suffering, then should we put in sentience throttling so that they don't feel it? Seems very Brave New World.
How about with animals? If we could somehow breed chickens that are identical to current ones except that they don't feel pain or suffering, would that make factory farming ethical? Here the answer might be yes, though I'm not sure the animal rights crowd would agree.
I think some markets are basically efficient and very difficult to beat. The public stock market is one. I'm not convinced by the AI example basically due to priors -- we've seen many many people claim to be able to beat the public markets without special information, with evidence that seems much more convincing than this, and they are on average wrong. So I don't think at least this argument overcomes my priors.
However less liquid markets are for sure beatable. The prediction markets around the election are one. Crypto is another -- I personally have done well not just investing in crypto but by co-founding a hedge fund that has actively traded crypto for 3 years, many trades per day, making a trading profit (earning alpha) on 1081/1093 days. (And the losing days were all very small, each well below a day's average profits.)
I also sit on an investment committee for an endowment and see what returns can look like in private markets where it's possible to have a high informational advantage and turn that into outsized returns.
So to me, the EMH is mostly true for highly liquid highly accessible markets. But for illiquid, less accessible, lower information markets, there is money to be made for people willing to put in the effort.
Whether it's worth the opportunity cost is also another question, it's not like it's hard to make money lots of ways if you are motivated and smart. Crypto is a fun hobby for me, like poker used to be, and I like to make money from my hobbies. Not everyone wants to spend their free time looking for EV in weird places.
I'm sure there are some hard cases wrt free trade, but we could move a long way towards much more free trade without worrying too much about the corner cases (i.e. allow tariffs on those cases).
Here's a list of things that I think would not be controversial among economists and relevant experts but nonetheless seem very unlikely to happen any time soon:
I don't think there's a single explanation for why none of those policies seems likely to happen, though at least there's substantial movement on the drug legalization front recently.
I took a class based on Getting More and it was interesting and useful. This was offered by the company so I can't comment on general classes. There's evidently an online course based on the material, no idea if it's more useful than just reading the book.
I like GM more than e.g. the Carnegie book because it's just usefully framed as "understand what the other person wants and try to get it for them" which is like 90% of being a good negotiator, assuming you know what you want as well.
It's too cumbersome and only addresses part of the issue. Kelly more or less assumes that you make a bet, it gets resolved, now you can make the next bet. But in poker, with multiple streets, you have to think about a sequence of bets based on some distribution of opponent actions and new information.
Also with Kelly you don't usually have to think about how the size of your bet influences your likelihood to win, but in poker the amount that you bluff both changes the probability of the bluff being successful (people call less when you bet more) but also the amount you lose if you're wrong. Or if you value bet (meaning you want to get called) then if you bet more they call less but you win more when they call. Again, vanilla Kelly doesn't really work.
I imagine it could be extended, but instead people have built more specialized frameworks for thinking about it that combine game theory with various stats/probability tools like Kelly.
The Math of Poker, written by a couple of friends of mine, might be a fun read if you're interested. It probably won't help you to become a better poker player, but the math is good fun.