{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02127659574468085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017368649587494573, 'mean_word_length': 4.321016166281755, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In Memoriam: John C. Harsanyi

The newly formed Game Theory Society held its first International Congress in July 2000. We knew John was ill, and his absence was felt keenly by all. His was the generation that first established game theory as a viable discipline, there were five universally agreed-on outstanding leaders, and unfortunately John alone was absent. But his actual death came as a shock. John Harsanyi was devoted to matters of the intellect, and it is in these terms that I intend primarily to describe him. His physical appearance and demeanor tall, grave, courteous, cautious in his speech, yet not to be dissuaded from a point or a position he felt strongly about all fitted a man to whom the intellect and the life of science and rigorous inquiry were very important aspects of life. On the subjects he found important, he thought deeply and spoke and wrote only after long reflection. I had read several of his early papers at the time of their publication. They were written while he lived in Australia and included his two very famous papers in the Journal of Political Economy basing utilitarianism on risk-bearing. I knew only the papers and assumed the author was some established scholar. I was very surprised therefore when he walked into my office, informed me that he had just been accepted as a Ph.D. student at Stanford, and asked if I would supervise his research. A little conversation established quickly enough that he was the fully developed scholar I had thought he was. I asked him why he was bothering to take a Ph.D.; it was unlikely that he would learn anything that he didn’t already know. His answer was clear enough; he needed the Ph.D. to have an academic career, not for an education. He had lived in great danger and wanted to take no chances. He also came with the ideas for a truly original Ph.D. dissertation already worked out. I did my best to find a few flaws to justify my role as adviser, but basically all I could do was applaud his novel approach to the study of bargaining. A few years later, I had an unexpected opportunity to arrange an offer by Stanford for a joint appointment for him in economics and political science. But, to my great disappointment, he accepted a competing offer from the Graduate School of Business at the University of