behavioural economics has been very successful in the past decades because it found fault in the narrow description of the rational man
I understand that ergodicity economics want to relax the narrow ergodicity hypothesis in economics to show as rational some of those decisions that for behavioural economics where biased and irrational
Chris Sacca the legendary early investor of Uber, Twitter, Instagram, Stripe, Kickstarter claims he no lo ger investing in tech, he will invest only in envirnment, democracy and justice
Ramez Namm is a former Microsoft whio gained fame as a science fiction writer. He is a staunch bliever that clean technology has legs to run on its own. He tours the world, lecturing fund managers on how they should invest for money not for morals
there’s things so specific that you never get to know them and if you do you are not able to retrieve unless you have noted down its name or some keyword
“neural networks applied to computed molecular fingerprints or expert-crafted descriptors and graph convolutional neural networks that construct a learned molecular representation by operating on the graph structure of the molecule.”
from here https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00237
more AI and drug discovery though
ripensando a CD Gon startup 10 anni fa mi accorgo di come il 2010 fosse “wired” quanto il 2020 si sente davvero “tired”. Rovistando tra i file di quell’anno qualcosa mi ha fatto pensare ai social media manager.
Stupid indeed
sharing is actually maximizing profit https://www.farmersfable.org/ a cartoon that show how sharing to reduce fluctuation leave both parties better off (on a random walk)
Homo Ergodicus https://glandfried.github.io/post/homoergodicus/
“Multiplicative process offers a concrete physical advantage in favor of cooperative behavior”
Also, Warren Buffet’s 3 rules in light of ergodicity (St. Peterburg’s Paradox explained) https://sinaas.blogspot.com/2020/02/warren-buffetts-rules-nr-12-and-3-in.html
Michael Moritz of Sequoia, this strucks me as wise and fundamentally true, the way I would do it.
But then I think “Investors want B’s, baby!” Altman and blitzscalers would not agree
this is the 3d https://twitter.com/KateClarkTweets/status/1227654788856201216
what FFers have gone tru is a kill zone set up by big tech, just discovered, someone had the same experience at Picasa
“Back in the early days of digital photography, I used a website called Picasa to organize and share my photos. It was like a whole new world opened up to me — suddenly I could get feedback from much more experienced and skilled photographers halfway around the world, discover their work and find visual inspiration. But by the time I started using it, Google had already acquired the company. During the next few years, the app seemed to stagnate — there were rumors that Google was starving it of resources, and users drifted away. In 2016 Picasa was killed off for good, and anyone who still had photos there had them moved to Google Photos — a site I have never heard of anyone using.”
“without models, there are no data. I’m not talking about the difference between “raw” and “cooked” data. I mean this literally. Today, no collection of signals or observations—even from satellites, which can “see” the whole planet—becomes global in time and space without first passing through a series of data models.”
“Paul N. Edwards – A Vast Machine_ Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming”
” A reanalysis project involves reprocessing observational data spanning an extended historical period using a consistent modern analysis system, to produce a dataset that can be used for meteorological and climatological studies.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reanalysis
“You have probably heard the common deniers’ complaint that climate scientists adapt models when new data comes in. That is supposedly unscientific because, here it comes (..) But the deniers’ argument merely demonstrates they know even less about scientific methodology than particle physicists. Revising a hypothesis when new data comes in is perfectly fine. In fact, it is what you expect good scientists to do.”
Central banks have a problem, they can’t create inflation. ECB is the worst plagued by that.
So the Chief Economist Lane suggests to add real estate costs to CPI and pump up inflation accordingly, real estate markets are in a bull run Philip Lane, the ECB’s chief economist, has been even more specific. “We at the ECB would agree that there should be more weight on housing,” Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/why-your-housing-costs-matter-to-christine-lagarde-and-the-ecb Copyright © BloombergQuint
ECB Chief Lagarde does not mention inflation at all but only green. Decarbonization would be a great way to add some inflation to the system
A carbon tax is more or less an oil shock where the surplus stay in the domestic economic rather than flying to Saudi Arabia. Carbon tax would make great financial sense if the target is higher inflation (of course it will shock the economy, reallocate resources among economic sectors, offer various option on how to redistribute the increased taxes imagine a carbon dividend for example) So a green oil shock would serve many purposes and open up many dimensions of public policy
Green QE story https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/12/17/1576593138000/Green-QE-is-about-more-than-buying-climate-friendly-bonds/
1500-Pound Goat 