Nick Huntington-Klein

The magic format I am worst at by a decent margin is cube. I don't know why but I never manage to *get it* no matter which cube Also whenever I play online I make really awful misplays I would never make on paper Anyway it's good you don't need that solid a record to make arena power cube free

i have no interest in wading into the chart wars because it seems to me like there is some very real and valid pain that has found arguing about misunderstood economic statistics to be an outlet. whether they are technically wrong is not the issue and is a response that could never be accepted

well too bad bub because you have my sympathies and also please for gods sake knock it off

i have no interest in wading into the chart wars because it seems to me like there is some very real and valid pain that has found arguing about misunderstood economic statistics to be an outlet. whether they are technically wrong is not the issue and is a response that could never be accepted

decided to start a thread that i will come back and add to whenever i hear a song and i'm like 'oh damn that's really good' www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dryd...

Sometimes you get a referee report back and you're just like "huh I guess you're right, this paper does kinda blow"

It's that time again, and there's a slight change!!! GPT-6: Fails Gemini 3.1-pro: Fails Opus 6: **Success**! I asked it twice and it was right both times, both in terms of calculating who wins and the chain of logic that works out why Opus 6 is the first model that has ever succeeded on this task.

Sorry I mean Opus *5*. Got confused after writing GPT6

It's that time again, and there's a slight change!!! GPT-6: Fails Gemini 3.1-pro: Fails Opus 6: **Success**! I asked it twice and it was right both times, both in terms of calculating who wins and the chain of logic that works out why Opus 6 is the first model that has ever succeeded on this task.

i have an op-ed in the actual newspaper next week on a topic that positions me against an opinion i'd call "nextdoor/facebook-typical". how many angry emails should i prepare for

i am still on facebook for the purposes of sharing baby photos with family and man there is not an algorithm on this planet less able to figure out what i want to see. like not even malicious, just incompetent.

every time i log in: - right-wing culture war stuff - christian vs atheist "debates" in the form of extremely smug memes - people whose politics i agree with but who post exclusively about people who send them mean comments - inflation pregnancy vore fetish pages??? as in all three combined

my daughter's 7th birthday happened recently and every child, without any prior coordination, knew all the words to two different Zara Larsson songs. you may use this as a barometer of your in-touchness

this is in the US where apparently she has never had a top 10 hit

i am a drinker of actual alcohol but my experiences with non-alcoholic drinks allows me to summarize: old NA beer brands: awful new NA beer brands: really shockingly good any NA that's not beer: it's not bad or anything but also it's just extremely expensive juice.

yeah lemme just pay $4/can for "non-alcoholic wine" that somehow tastes exactly like a slightly less sweet grape juice and not at all like wine, or $50 for a bottle of "non-alcoholic scotch" which is, like, some herb water i guess that has nothing to do with whiskey

One of my empirical-work econ takes is that I think academia should be *more* open to publishing work based on best-we-can-do weak data, as long as there's really no other way to address the question and that work is very clear about what it can and can't actually say.

But the number of useful more-signal-than-noise papers I've skipped bc I know that R2 will peace out between the part of the paper where it becomes clear there's a gap and the part where I take the gap seriously is a lot.

One of my empirical-work econ takes is that I think academia should be *more* open to publishing work based on best-we-can-do weak data, as long as there's really no other way to address the question and that work is very clear about what it can and can't actually say.

Like we don't need a weak entry on what the returns to education are. But there are a ton of questions where something suggestive or with iffy identification would be a clear plus relative to what we have. But this is very hard to publish. Lampposts and lost keys and all that.

This episode is interesting as it's about a research group explicitly trying dozens to hundreds of quasi experiments, progressing only with the ones that "work", backing them up with a bunch of robustness tests, and then extrapolating a lot from the results. podcastaddict.com/freakonomics...

Feels very old school and not in a good way. The robustness tests are tempting though!