I don't understand this logic at all. How can more information be bad? If you see a mass that looks very likely to not be cancer, for which the cost of further investigation is higher than the likely benefit, then the rational patient will agree not to investigate further. I don't see how more information can be bad unless you assume that the patient is an idiot or irrational.
The idea is that if the growth rate of a city is drawn from the same distribution, regardless of the actual city size, we get Zipf's law. To me this is a reasonable explanation why we see Zipf's law in many places in nature.
Mortgage rates have moved surprisingly little. They usually trade at around a 2% premium over the 10-year government bonds for a 30-year fixed. Right now that would mean about 2.8% but my local bank quotes 3.5%. My guess is that spread is going to shrink over time but who knows. I'm waiting...
The best running tip I've ever had is "run tall". Most people tend to slouch forward at the hip which prevents some muscle groups from engaging. Made a world of difference for me.
Economics professor here. I disagree. We formulate theories that we test using data. Same as physics except that economics is much more messy. Another difficulty is that in many cases (macroeconomics for instance) we cannot do experiments to test theories. This makes it much harder to learn from the data.
Interesting to see that the backlog in unprocessed transactions on the original bitcoin chain is exploding at the same time: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#24h