mathieutd

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.

There is an external force here: gravity.

One cool way to generate Zipf's law is through random growth. See an example here for the distribution of cities:

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/114/3/739/1848099

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.

Not quite! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass_function

Do you a reference for these statements? I'd be curious to read more about the topic.

"This share has been age-standardized assuming a constant age structure to compare prevalence between countries and through time."

Not sure why the rate is so much higher in the US and Canada. Better detection might be part of the explanation.

Children of Men is amazing.

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.