The original dictator game is that one person receives $100 and then has to choose how much of that to give to the other person, and the other person can refuse the offer, in which case neither player gets anything. The usual wisdom is that you should refuse unfair offers, which I'm implicitly disputing by adding a framing where refusing any offer seems bad.

Edit: wait, I'm mixing up the dictatorship game and the ultimatum game.

The modified dictator game ultimatum game:

You are walking on a sidewalk as you pass by another person. Suddenly the wind blows $100 from an unknown place into the face of the other person. The other person picks it up and continues walking.

Do you grab the $100 and rip it in pieces as punishment for them not giving you any?

Let's say Alice buys 100 shares of Microsoft stock for $100. Then Microsoft implements a new management style that makes them much more effective, doubling the stock price. For emphasis on the new price, Bob then buys 1 share of Microsoft stock for $2. Alice's shares are now worth $200, but the extra $100 doesn't seem to have come from someone's transactions. This $100 would conventionally be considered capital owned by Alice, but the actual substance of this capital is purely based on the new management style of Microsoft, rather than Microsoft's assets.

That may apply to bonds (am not familiar with that), but I don't think double entry accounting is used to decide the value of stocks?

The distributivity property is closely related to multiplication being repeated addition. If you break one of the numbers apart into a sum of 1s and then distribute over the sum, you get repeated addition.

When economists talk about “capital assets”, they mean things like roads, buildings and machines. When I read through a company’s annual reports, lots of their assets are instead things like stocks and bonds, short-term debt, and other “financial” assets - i.e. claims on other people’s stuff. In theory, for every financial asset, there’s a financial liability somewhere. For every bond asset, there’s some payer for whom that bond is a liability. Across the economy, they all add up to zero. What’s left is the economists’ notion of capital, the nonfinancial assets: the roads, buildings, machines and so forth.

Can't stocks be worth a lot due to the profitable positive interaction between different things the company owns and rents, rather than due to their individual value? I'd think companies like Microsoft are to a substantial degree valuable because they've hired employees who've learned to collaborate to manage the technology sold by Microsoft.

"Probabilities" are a mathematical construct that can be used to represent multiple things, but in Bayesianism the first option is the most common.

Which world gets to be real seems arbitrary.

It's the one observations come from.

Most possible worlds are lifeless, so we’d have to be really lucky to be alive.

Typically probabilistic models only represent a fragment of the world, and therefore might e.g. implicitly assume that all worlds are lived-in. The real world has life so it's ok to assume we're not in a lifeless world.

We have no information about the process that determines which world gets to be real, so how can we decide what the probability mass function p should be? 

Often you require need some additional properties, e.g. ergodicity or exchangeability, which might be justified by separation-of-scale and symmetry and stuff.

P represents your uncertainty over worlds, so there's no "right" P (except the one that assigns 100% to the real world, in a sense). You just gotta do your best.

My impression is that health problems reduce height but height also causes health problems (even in the normal range of height, e.g. higher cancer risk). I'd be surprised if height was causally healthy.

Putting it on bread and crackers seems like it dilutes it. Is it still good on its own?

By "gaygp victim", do you mean that you are gay and AGP? Or...?