Wednesday assorted links



6. While it is true that south indian muslims are likelier to wear Sari than many Punjabi Hindus, it is also true that controlling for region, Muslim sari usage is significantly lower than Hindu sari usage. Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand (which collectively account for nearly 20% of Indian population clearly show high Hindu saree usage and low Muslim saree usage.

Not sure why the author is denying something that comes out so clearly in his chart, by blithely saying "apart from the 6 states in the fourth quadrant"


That wasn't me.

Because I was too busy sucking my man's dick while he plays 2K.


Y'all thought I meant MY Man's dick! LMAO!



Pray Othello, it is in the deigning that the sovereign All mighty is inspired, and the Djinns bespoken.

Things have changed a lot over even over the past couple of decades. Forget saris, the headscarf seems to be the most popular garb for Muslim women in the south these days (if Bangalore is an indicator.) Twenty years ago, I can't recall seeing a single headscarf. I guess this is the Saudi effect.

Sure. We have seen significant radicalization of the Muslim population in India in the past 2-3 decades.

But yes, making a note of that attracts the Hindu nationalist or worse hindu bigot label.

Who's dick was I sucking? If you think it was my man's dick you'd be surprised.


The criticisms of AlphaZero seem accurate. Nevertheless, it seems likely but not definite that there is a real breakthrough there. The problem is that Google, like IBM in the Deep Blue era, has no real incentive to play along with the typical rules of research and make AlphaZero available to the public so that these results are reproducible.

I think it is still an open question whether neural networks or traditional alpha-beta is a superior approach to chess. In particular, with Google's superior resources, far more engineering time has gone into the development of AlphaZero than any of the competitors like Stockfish. Perhaps if all of that effort had been sunk into traditional chess algorithm development, that too could have crushed Stockfish.

My hope is that we will see open source chess programs built on neural networks. If those do not become stronger than Stockfish over time, it is essentially a failure of reproducibility.

What does it mean to have an open source neural network program? You can get 10-1000x benefit in neural network processing power by running on custom hardware (which everyone is working on but with lots of different solutions). That doesn't translate to open source / open standard use or reproducibility any time soon.

Open source software that would run using the GPU services of one of the cloud providers, like AWS or Google Cloud itself. TPUs are somewhat more efficient than GPUs but not 10x I don't think, more like 2-4x maybe. That seems like it should be close enough that open source neural networks would be able to defeat Stockfish, if these results hold up.

Note that on the inference side deepmind said that they were using, IIRC 4 TPUs. Assuming Moore's laws gives decent returns that means (by your numbers) that a modern GPU should be able to run something AlphaZero on your desktop in something like 5 years.

In particular, with Google’s superior resources, far more engineering time has gone into the development of AlphaZero than any of the competitors like Stockfish

I'd guess that this probably isn't true - Stockfish has been in development since 2004, and I don't think the AlphaZero team within DeepMind was that big.

Also, it doesn't seem like it's the most relevant comparison. There has a whole competitive ecosystem of chess programs like Stockfish, which have been refined over the past 20-30 years to include better and better chess heuristics and so on. Each competitor has benefited from the rest of the ecosystem as a source of challenges and ideas. Whereas AlphaZero basically didn't draw on that body of knowledge at all, and barely incorporated chess-specific engineering. Most of the work went into the architecture which can be used on various games, so being good at chess involved relatively little marginal effort (and if you divvy up the general-purpose effort evenly between go, chess, and shogi then that still reduces it into 1/3).

Yeah, you may be right. It's hard to say because we can't see how DeepMind allocates its resources. Superficially looking at the code base, it seems like Stockfish has far less resources put into it than an average Google engineering team, though.

Either way, my hope is that it does prove the neural network approach is superior, and that some group in the open source world is able to demonstrate it in an open way.

Not sure if the "neural network" thing is not simply a Shannon B type forward pruning alpha-beta algorithm where the algorithm ranks the variations of the chess tree according to tens of thousands of flexible rules rather than the traditional fixed set of hard-coded rules (such as "rooks behind pawns", "centralize knights", etc).

In other words, as I've said before, it could be that Alpha Zero is more traditional than people think. Only when the source code is published will we really know.

1. Cotton economist. Simple arithmetics:


Knock it off, prior.

Knocking off my man’s dick while he plays 2K.




#1. I find all of his reasons for having more babies unconvincing. His reason #2 is particularly bad. Social security should not have to depend on an ever growing population to be sustainable. If it does, something is wrong and benefits need to be cut or taxes increased.
His #1 is nonsense - if women wanted more babies, they could have them right now. Revealed preference vs. stated preference. Lots of people say they want things they don't highly prioritize. I'd like a pony. I don't want to spend the time and money to care for a pony. If I was a billionaire I could have a pony and pay someone else to take care of it. Let's have more babies because we all want magic ponies is not a great indicator that women "want more babies" in reality - they want more babies that they don't have to pay for or take care of. Maybe if we had universal free daycare, women would have more babies, but someone has to pay for it. Do women want to pay the taxes entailed by universal free daycare? Do you REALLY want more babies, in the real world and not just in an imaginary universe with unlimited resources?

3. Don't buy it. We shouldn't need constant population growth to sustain innovation either. I don't think it is true anyway.

4. So ... his last reason is we gotta have babies so they can be soldiers and die horribly in a war someday. That's a pretty sucky reason to have children. If I thought that was the reason we had to have babies ... i would NOT. In fact, I would probably get sterilized so as to prevent it.


Sucking dick all day to keep my man playing 2K

"benefits need to be cut or taxes increased"

Guess which one people are going to choose.

"3. Don’t buy it. We shouldn’t need constant population growth to sustain innovation either. I don’t think it is true anyway."

Why? Are you one of those people who believe that innovation just falls from the sky and doesn't require humans to create? If it is a product of humans, why shouldn't you expect more humans to create more of it.

4. "Global security depends on it (because odds are we have to fight a mass-casualty war within the next 2 centuries)"

He should bet on it:


Neat graphs. Too bad they can't and won't predict the future. No one alive today will be around to see whatever happens so why should they care if women have children or not? If western women have indeed decided to value a Prius, a position at Goldman Sachs or an annual trip to Europe more than children the game is over. Social security is a government program not a cyclical planetary event. At some point it will be replaced or abandoned.

You're not having any babies regardless, and apparently find this challenging for that reason.

2) There is a difference between "ever growing population" and "rapidly shrinking population"
1) It certainly is not nonsense to say that someone wants more kids but can't afford it and would have more kids if we made it easier, and would be happier.
3) What does your statement even mean? More people means more innovation, particularly in the U.S. it's fairly tautological isn't it?
4) If the alternative is annihilation or enslavement then yes give me a defensive war

I just had a newborn like a month ago.

I see you are taking your anonymity strategy seriously

4. The fact that improvement in the standard of living of the middle class since 1978 is not obvious shows the economy has stopped it use to. Look at the previous 40 year periods 1898 or 1938 and 1938 to 1978, there was no need to nit pick over how to measure inflation to believe most people's standard of living improved.

Perhaps some of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked? If growth ever goes hyperbolic it probably means all the humans are dead

My guess is that Roberts will show that it indeed is quite obvious in the next videos. You still have many people e.g. in Russia who are longing for the past regimes including Stalinism. Sometimes you have to live 'outside' in order to see the 'obvious' things.

Why didn't Russ start with claims made by conservatives about how bad things have been for the past 3-4 decades?

Or Trump?

The supposed rational for "tax reform" is the suffering of the middle class.

I note conservatives have only increased their power over the political economy over the past four decades.

Regions moving right seem to be suffering the most. Cheap abundant housing exists in Trumpland but not only isn't Trump living there, he points to that as a problem.

On the other hand, regions moving left see housing become scarcer and thus more costly, making life harder for the conservatives there. Eg, Virginia. But these are places where opportunity exists, but opportunity costs more than conservative stagnation.

Economies are zero sum. Higher incomes drive higher costs. The higher costs can be more stuff consumed by everyone with higher income.

If the rich get the most increase in income, they must consume more. Trump is not doing his job consuming. If he likes burgers, he should be consuming a thousand per day, not four, a thousand diet cokes, not a mere dozen. That would put more money in the working class pockets, shoveling all the fast food to people rich like Trump.

3. Right after the Alabama primary



Thought the primary was a shell game that bombed.

The analysis of Russ Robert's character reveals that the Civil War’s creative destruction of slavery enlightened Americans. That the right to property is not given by governments, though the protection of that property is their main function. The right to property, as is stated in many world religions, and in it being a human right, is granted in dominion with the Lord, and it is the All mighty whom is the sole sovereign.

+1 to the FOOH troll.

Gone, but not forgotten!

Brazil the bureaucratic nightmare of the realist” and the wackiness “is work in movement in images of movement.”

Brazil is the bureaucratic nightmare of the realist” and the wackiness “is work in movement in images of movement.”

I agree, to both.

#4 was excellent in its entirety.

I restore decorum with a round of dick sucking following by a round of 2K playing.


But who among us has sucked dick while your man was playing 2K?

4. Useful video but MRU has raised the bar to a much higher level. Russ Robert's podcasts are still the best though.



I like all the MRU videos and this one by Russ Roberts.

The topic of this video is excellent in particular. It covers a question argued in MR comments hundreds of times. While it has never been clear which data series to trust, the pessimistic ones still worry me.

(I kind of worry the video editors have a low opinion of us though. All the moving graphics .. they must think we have the attention span of fruit flies.)


Looks like you're quite good at sucking your man's dick while he plays 2K.


But I DID start sucking my man's dick while he was playing 2K!


Would be interested in a post explaining how these spam/bots work.

I am going to need part II before I share that with anyone. Good video though. I like the total animation vs the economist in front of a green screen approach

#1,#6 Spurius correlation ??

Fertility rate vs SariPct

Fer = +0.0053*SariPct +1.88; # n=27; Rsq=0.1293; p=0.0655 .

There. To solve US's fertility problem convince the women to wear sari.

5. I don't see any evidence there that the Russian "Siri" is unsympathetic. Just cultural differences in what might be considered sympathetic.

I have suspicions about the AlphaGo vs Stockfish match, too, and one of the very annoying things is the lack of all 100 games being published. In the games published, Stockfish often found itself in almost ridiculous looking binds with pieces badly placed and/or undeveloped well into the middlegame. My first impression of the games was that the Stockfish version was handicapped in some manner, maybe unintentionally, but handicapped nonetheless.

I wish everyone in the econ and social psychology world so intent on pushing the heritability of IQ lit would take the time to do a little reading on the cutting edge outside their comfort zone:

Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of inteligence.

This should be required reading for those who seek to push a racialist agenda.

I would agree with Paul Krugman that at current interest rates we should do infrastructure improvements. On the other hand our infrastructure is in fine shape. On education IMHO our schools are over funded already, with too much of it going to administration.

1. "Housing prices are high because of restrictions on land use, not babies: tellingly, we’ve seen sharp rises in housing prices during a period of rapidly falling population growth rates!"

Lol. Housing prices are high because:

a. Living near lots of NAMs—and sending children to school with lots of NAM children—is a nightmare. These days there are only a handful of neighborhoods that don't have lots of NAMs, so the price is bid up in big cities and the suburbs (there's not much land left to develop in major US metro areas). And before people cry "racist", to quote a poster above, it's simply revealed preference.

b. Lending standards are lax, down payments can be as low as 3.5%, and interest rates have been at historic lows for a decade.

(b) encourages people to act on the revealed preferences mentioned in (a) to a greater extent than was possible in the past. Furthermore:

c. Two-income households have bid up the cost of housing because of (a). The second income goes almost entirely to housing and child care expenses. The vast majority of families would be happier with a one earner, one homemaker set up. But unless one spouse earns a high income, this isn't possible because the middle class is stuck in a prisoner's dilemma of sorts. Two earners is privately rational, one earner is socially rational. You can try to start a revolution, but your peers will probably keep working and put 4% down on the priciest house they can get a loan on.

But yeah, "muh land use restrictions!" is the whole story. Definitely. That's convincing.

"muh these days there are only a handful of neighborhoods that don’t have lots of NAMs durrr"

Yup, the reason that real estate in big metro areas is expensive is building restrictions. Nothing would help middle class families with aspirations of a house and a yard more than building a bunch of 50-story residential towers!

Revealed preferences

Comments for this post are closed