First, I'll admit, after rereading, a poor/uncharitable first read of your position. Sorry for that.

But I would still suggest your complaint is about some economist rather than economics as a study or analysis tool For example, "If anything, the value of labor goes UP, not down, with population! E.g. dense cities are engines of growth!" fits very well into economics of network effects. 

To the extent that the economists can only consider AI as capital that's a flawed view, I would agree. I would suggest it is, for economic application, probably best equated with "human capital" -- which is also something different than labor or capital in classic capital-labor dichotomy.

So, in the end I still see the main complaint you have is not really about economics but perhaps your experience is that economists (that you talk with) might be more prone to this blind spot/bias than others (not sure who that population might be). I don't see that you've really made the case that it was the study of economics that produced this situation. Which them suggests that we don't really have a good pointer to how to get less wrong on this front.

I'm not sure I agree with cousin_it's premise but lack any good knowledge to justify a strong disagreement. However, I would note that the 300 Spartans story might be read both ways, and perhaps at the same time. If 300 Spartans can fight off the entire Persian army seems to also suggest they are incredibly strong fighters with strong strategy and tactics.

I think one can make both cases and neither necessarily refutes the other.

Seems like this Underdog bias might be connected or interact with persecution complexes. 

Re the dumb thought. I've forgotten the author, but as a teenager I was a big SciFi fan (still am actually) and read a short story with exactly this theme. Basically it was the recognition that at some point quantity >= quality. I want to say (have not fact checked myself though) that this was pretty much the USSR's approach to fighting Germany in WWII -- crappy tanks but lots of them.

(Side note, I think for whatever reason, too long a peacetime, more interest in profit than protection, the USA particularly seems to have forgotten that the stuff you use to wage a war are largely all consumables. The non consumable is the industrial base. Clearly there is a minimum cost of producing something that can do the job but much more than that is sub optimal. I am somewhat over simplifying but this also seems to be a fair characterization of where the USA-China naval relationship might be.)

Back to ICBMs, Foreign Affairs had a piece about AI's potential impact on nuclear deterrence in general but did mention the fixed location of ICBM silos as a problem (long known and why everyone has mobile platforms). They might be considered a prime target for a first strike but the reality is they are easily monitored so the mobile platforms are the big deterrents and probably more interesting problem to solve in terms of obsoleting. But perhaps the ICBM platforms, fixed or mobile, shift to a different type role. Pure kinetic (I believe Russia did that with one of the ballistic warheads with pretty devastating results in Ukraine about a year ago) or rather than all the MIRV decoys for the armed MIRV decoys and other function for other delivery vehicles. I suspect the intercept problem with a nuclear warhead is a bit different from that of just a big mass of something dense. 

So maybe perhaps obsolescence in their current function but not for some repurposed role.

Probably very true on one level (but the young need some of that type of random experience to even learn what they want or who they want to be or be with). 

But I'm not sure that is relevant for John's question, but perhaps have taken his query incorrectly and it's not about just meeting someone new for some unspecified level of commitment, e.g., just a short-term hookup, but is asking about where to meet his next long-term partner.

I've not done this myself* (my clubbing days were long ago now) but a few approaches:

1. If you live somewhere where some areas specialize in nightlife -- bars, clubs, restaurants and even cool street scene -- then just be a tourist there for a bit. You'll see/find something that seems to fit for you.
2. Used to be "City Papers" that tended to focus on social life and what was happening during the week/month for people to learn about. So you'd hear about live music or popular DJs and where they were playing.
3. 2a. More current take I assume would be online versions of this.
4. Social apps that are about meetups (One is called that) but I suspect even FB has something along these lines, which have group you can join or are open to the public that talk about what activities, where and when the get together is occurs. So will specifically state they are NOT about any hookup possibility but other are about meeting others for more than the specific activity (activity is more about the introduction and something to so rather than the whole reason for going).
5. Last, you might check for any pub crawls going on. Some of the stops will be good clubs to check-out and even sometimes joining the crawl will offer opportunities. Particularly true if you're good at joining in with some new group of strangers -- very good social skills required as the group needs to want you to join.

* Well, I have used Meetups for getting together with others but that was language based for learning and practicing so anyone that seemed more interested in meeting and other activities were discouraged or kicked out if overly obvious.

What it does tell us is that someone at Kaiser Permanente thought it would be advantageous to claim, to people seeing this billboard, that Kaiser Permanente membership reduces death from heart disease by 33%.

Is that what is does tell us? The sign doesn't make the claim you suggest -- it doesn't claim it's reducing the deaths from heart disease, it states it's 33% less likely to be "premature" -- which is probably a weaselly term here. But it clearly is not making any claims about reducing deaths from heart disease.

You seem to be projecting the conclusion that the claim/expected interpretation is that membership reduces the deaths by 33%. But I don't know how you're concluding that the marketing team thought that would be the general interpretation by those seeing the sign. 

While I would not be incline to take an billboard ad at face value, a more reasonable take seems to me that claiming that even with heard disease KP's members are less likely to die earlier than expect that other with other healthcare providers. That may be a provable and true claim or it might be more "puffing" and everyone will play with just how "premature" is going to be measured.

Whether or not it's corporate stupidity, I think that might be a separate question but understanding exactly what results such an ad is supposed to be producing will matter a lot here. Plus, there is the old adage about no one every going bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer -- and I suspect that might go double in the case of medical/healthcare consumption.

Yes, the 80s would have been when the Iraq-Iran war happened, which I mention, so I don't quite understand the link to the wiki. Maybe you're emphasizing the "Very likely never existed." but that was more about the claims used for the invasion that Iraq currently had large and dangerous stockpiles on hand at the time. None were found so either they didn't really exist then or were well hidden/could be quickly dismantled without a trace. I suspect the former would be more likely -- though there is a lot of empty space and finding needles in haystacks is hard. 

I'm one of those here that remember seeing the news loop of the plane hitting the tower and the building collapsing. 

It was a defining moment and I think fixed in everyone's mind the required response (other than it wasn't quite clear who the target should be), just a Pearl Harbor was with WWII.

To some extent the "lies about WMD" is a bit of a misdirection/political spin. It is true that no stockpiles of biologic, chemical or development of nuclear weapons were ever found. Very likely never existed. But we can say the same about Iran today. At one point we could have said the same about North Korea. We do know that Iraq developed, stockpiled and used chemical (and I think some biological) weapons in the Iraq-Iran war. We also know they had a nuclear program (which I don't think was monitored by the UN until after the war and Iraq was forced to dismantle it). So I think concerns about WMD were quite legitimate even if not quite current state reality.

And yes, Kerry nearly won and the whole "where are the WMD" (including using the old Wendy's commercial "Where's the beaf?" line) was frequently mentioned after the war and in the campaigns.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the potential for some emergence of AI related policy stances with regard to any AI moment of realization as it were (something hits the AI fan). On that I might be more inclined to point to Higg's Crisis and Leviathan line of thinking. Yes, we'll see certain policy positions elevated but how beneficial that ultimate proves I'm less sure.