Some jokes are too highbrow for Twitter

Rebrand “man cave” to “fortress of ballitude”

The remaining proofs would surely have been easier to write.

Aren't we all

It's equilibrium existence, so fitting that it's about as popular at the party as a theorist is.

Did you work more on this after first posting?

I think I tried it at the time (working on this paper was what prompted my question), and the flow chart it gave was way sparser than this one (which is pretty great though not complete).

Incredibly good??

New paper!

elliotlipnowski.com/wp-content/u...

Please join us on 20/Nov to hear Marina Halac (Yale) present "Agreeing to Implement", a joint work with Elliot Lipnowski and Doron Ravid. Panellists: Matteo Camboni and Sam Kapon.
@elliotlip.bsky.social @doronravid.bsky.social @samkapon.bsky.social

I’m sorry to learn your baby isn’t a theorist

That is good too! But I meant noticing you can replace an argument with a bunch of derivative-taking and epsilon-counting to one where an application of Tarski or Krein-Milman does most of the work.

#mathsky notation question. We feel totally comfortable with a decoration being a function (e.g., for a number x, let \bar{x}:=x^2). But what about a case/font/format change as a function (e.g., for a number x, let \mathbf{x} denote the constant function on [0,1] taking value x)?

Jimmy Kimmel has learned his lesson.

by Susan Collins

The same mathematical result, not the same result as the sex. Perverts.

Sex is great but have you tried replacing annoying quantitative bookkeeping arguments in a proof with qualitative arguments to get the same result??

I think there’s still an opportunity for price discrimination since the thing you’re screening on is how much time people are happy to spend on consuming the same content. And extra steps take time—so it’s similar to coupon clipping as price discrimination.

My reasoning: the marginal cost is negligible relative to revenue, so it's a demand question. I think charging more to listen double-speed is effective price discrimination, since I would guess the people that want the fast version are less price-elastic.

This could be an argument for fairness of the "=rp" answer.

Your way of phrasing is way better: if I listen to a book at double speed, should Spotify want to charge me more (>rp), less (<rp), or the same (=rp) as if I listen at regular speed?

I think I disagree, but I’m curious about your reasoning.

Thank you!

Fun micro #econsky problem set question: If p is the price Spotify charges for unit-speed listening (replacing a budget with a price for simplicity) and r>1, should they price r-speed listening =rp, >rp, or <rp?

Spotify account gives a budget of audiobook hours before needing to pay for more hours, but if you listen to a 10-hour book at double-speed (so 5 listening hours), it counts as 10 hours of your budget. So they price r-speed listening at exactly r times that of unit-speed listening.

Wednesday Addams is fashionable af

Boat question.

Schumer, Jeffries propose strongly-worded letter to counter RFK Jr.'s purge at the CDC.

I was under the impression these were called "siblings"

I didn’t know this!

I should check!

A kind of mechanical approach modifies Hart and Schmeidler's program to check, for every product set B of action profiles, whether some strict CE has marginal supports B_i. Then A^S is the largest B that passes the test (or empty if nothing does).

But there must be something more interpretable!