Well, strictly speaking, it is suitable for places where all actors make choices in ways we can predict. So even if an actor was choosing, say, uniformly at random (and we knew this fact), we'd be able to incorporate it into analysis to get some expected behavior.
Yea, and so IMO this idea makes sense if you assume that bad conversation is predictable conversation (this is a simplified way of saying this but this idea was formalized within the field of literary theory by a man named Wolfgang Iser as a response to the issue of the hermeneutic circle and the merger of horizons). A conversation is evolved to its best possible outcome when it encourages the human in the loop to face their preconceived assumptions about the world and effectively do the work to come to their own conclusions rather than act as a follower
But game theory also presumes a closed, on-the-record world. E.g., it doesn't handle dumping (loss as strategic gain) without opening the scope of game, but there are no scope bounds since value of any type is exchangeable (land for peace...). So game theory like newtonian physics only helps in narrowly constrained systems, but none of the real systems where help is needed are so constrained (banking laws notwithstanding).
Yep,it has ,it used to be an underground platform and now it's gone mainstream.
The same can be said for a lot of things,especially YC
Earlier,it was hackers who made a product in their free time and then turned it into scalable,profitable products/companies,and now its MBA grads trying to get into YC by building ubers of somethings
(2011) that article. That's like 13 years old. I very well remember 13 years ago the FANG were not filled with middle managers like they are today. Massive cultural shifts in these places since then.
