Here's some more Recreational Statistics (a branch of Recreation Mathematics):
There are about 11.1 million residential properties in Australia, 30% of which, some 3.25 million residential properties, are held by investors.[1]
There are 25 million people in Australia, about 17.5 million of those are adults aged 25 years or older, of which about 12.8%, or 2.25 million, own one or more investment properties.[1,2]
Let's assume the majority of investment property owners also own their own home.
So, about 13% of Australian adults own about 60% of the housing.
Does that sound reasonable? I don't know if there's some alternate timeline where housing is more evenly distributed and life is better, or how to get there if we think that's a good idea.
Lois McMaster Bujold is one of those authors that never got as popular as they deserved. She does have a niche following, though. The Vorkosigan saga is very solid space opera with, unusually for SF, innovative and sensitive character work.
> If the markets were truly efficient, randomly picking stocks would beat SPX ~50% of the time. Since markets are not super efficient, basic exposure to performance factors (small cap, value, momentum...) puts you at a fairly high likelyhood of beating SPX.
This assumes that the expected return of a single, randomly-picked stock is symmetrically-distributed. It is not, single stock returns are highly skewed and "lottery like". Index returns come from the fact that a small number of stocks do exceptionally well, while most of them do poorly.
This becomes even worse if we talk about timing: stock returns come from relatively short periods of doing really well, if you miss that because you are out of the market for some reason, you lose out on the vast majority of the index return.
Sorry, I don't have specific sources to cite. This comes from stuff I've picked up listening to the Rational Reminder podcast (https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast-directory), which have very well researched episodes as well as guest interviews with leading academic finance researchers. I'll try to dig up the relevant episodes, which do cite sources.
Quote from this last one: "[...] around 40% of
the time a concentrated position in a single stock experienced negative absolute returns, in which case it would have underperformed a simple position in cash. And around 2/3 of the time, a concentrated position in a single
stock would have underperformed a diversified position in the Russell 3000 Index. While the most successful
companies generated massive wealth over the long run, only around 10% of all stocks since 1980 met the
definition of “megawinners”."
To go into further detail about systemic investing:
There have been experiments like the turtle traders ^ 1 who applied "trend following", used today by many CTAs on exotic markets. For this, an investor taught some people his strategy/rules, gave them his money and they've shined for 40 years. The fundamental strategy still works today (updated). Fundamentally, it's a method to ride momentum in different ways (e.g. crossectional.) Hedge fund managers like Rzepczynski, Cem Karsan, Alan Beer... Richard Brennan is the most insightful of them who shares his methods freely. N.b. trend following doesn't work well in stock markets, but flourishes in Mexican rate swaps, orange juice futures, London sugar... combined in ensembles.
Traditional value investors, building on the Intelligent Investor, have always done well over samples above a few years. (N.b. Warren Buffet hasn't been a value investor for a long time, because he has too much to manage. He was strongly inspired by Fisher's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, which gave us the concept of "growth stocks".) (N.b. 2, value investing ETFs are mostly terrible, fundamentally not investing in value stocks due to their structures.)
Carisle's Acquierer's Multiple is the most recent development in systemic value investing (he also runs an ETF or two along these lines). "Magic formula investing" even holds up too!
In the mining space, you also get discretionary (not purely systematic) investors like Rick Rule openly discussing their methodologies, successful for decades and decades.
Here’s an interesting paper ^ 2 (exec summary pages 5-6). Note that 70% of underperformance is due to investors withdrawing funds during times of market crisis. Fund fees also drive the majority of underperformance. N.b. most wealth managers can't legally follow such strategies because of the prudent person rule. They are legally forced to underperform typical indices - and the majority of research has focused on them, distorting the data pool.
i toss and turn all night and this thing stays on most of the time, is incredibly comfortable, and i am so grateful i received it as a gift (would never have bought for self)
Instagram democratizes the mental illness that used to only affect child stars and the hollywood famous.
Who people think we are is who we are because identity is a reflection, not an actual thing in reality (similar to colors not existing in reality).
Having access to a extra mirrors at first creates a sense of control. You know your mom and dad won't give you a "non-distorted" reflection so the reflection from strangers is worth more. Colleagues or friends saying "you're smart!" means a lot more from them.
When each mirror is carefully placed, the "whole" of we we are and would like to be can be understood more deeply just like 7 blind men working together understand the elephant more deeply.
However when the mirrors are mass produced and cheap and you have no control over their place in your life, then the identity becomes overwhelmed by expectation. Just like super high resolution makes your pores look larger, the mirror array makes every aspect of your life feel like shit even if from a rational analysis "extra information should never be a danger"
I'd suggest anyone with a passing knowledge of calculus, complex numbers, and vectors to sit through Leonard Suskind's lectures on quantum gravity. This one was good and wouldn't need the calc/math background, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OkwGDKoY0o . But YT is full of actual physics lectures and sitting in on them is pretty approachable with that calc/math background. I think they give an interesting comparison to these popular pieces on particle physics. You might not understand everything the way a physics college student should, and that's ok because you aren't one. But I bet you walk away knowing quite a bit more than you suspect and you can always replay them.
Pop-sci pieces tend to portray the universe as just a bunch of particles interacting in odd/spooky ways. It's a little reductive and sort of enshrines entanglement and similar concepts as unknowable at times. I skimmed this and it seems to spend a lot of time on spin 0 particles. Who knows, maybe that's a constraint from ER=EPR? But I didn't feel like it really conveys much about Higgs.
(Which would serve a purpose - "oh you can't know it so please come back for next installment in my series of 10 books describing it." I don't think any authors actually set out with that as a goal, explicitly, but they could do a better pointing out where to go for further, more complicated edification. That sort of thing could shoehorn new talent into science.)
I comment this under any similar threads in the past and will continue to for any Australians who don’t know, but this would be a valid reason for a return/refund under Australian law. A company can’t remove or “functionally change” features after you’ve bought a product, or if they do, you’re allowed to return it for a refund.
I’ve done this in the past with a few different pieces of tech already, such as Bose speakers and a Samsung TV.
One technique I find that works every time to make peeling easy is to instantly run the eggs under the tap once the timer has finished. My only explanation is it causes a temperature shock which helps the membrane peel away from the inner egg.
Am very glad to see this - was considering adding Coinbase's Commerce product due to quite a few requests to accept BTC payments for our hardware at https://kubesail.com - I suppose we have an extremely privacy focused user-base currently. Since we already use Stripe, I would be very glad to simply "enable bitcoin" as a payment method and leave it at that.
Somewhat sadly, I was quite involved in web3 several years ago when the web3.js project was very young - so I have mixed feelings about being glad "someone else is gonna handle it for me". I suppose in the last 5 years I've gone from "Not your keys, not your coins!" to "I just don't want to spend a ton of time on this". Does that mean crypto has failed to live up to the dream or does that mean it's finally boring enough for old-business-owner-me to make use of it? I can't quite decide!
I am a former Stripe employee, so I am quite biased, but I'll just say: In my experience, if the Collison brothers do anything - you'd be a fool to think it's not extremely well thought out. If I hear a rhyme I assume there is a damn good reason.
I am operating under the assumption here that said articles can pertain to any topic, and not just diamonds. If that is not the case, I do apologize.
I am a huge fan of William Langewiesche's work (some of which, incidentally, has been for The Atlantic). He writes crisp, longform articles on a variety of topics, including but not limited to aviation [1], shipping [2], nuclear proliferation [3], the dark net [4], and private military contractors [5].
I don't believe drugs whether prescribed or recreational can cure Mental disorders. yes they may alleviate the symptoms but they don't really work on the root cause which are basically ones mental tendencies, thought patterns or habits acquired over a period of time. here[0] is a different take on what depression is and gives a high level road map to come out of it, for more details this [1] is a book by the same author and for testing out if those methods work here is an app [2] again from the same monk.
p.s i have followed all three & i must say the quality of life has improved considerably
I'd add UELI[0] — probably the best alfred style launcher. Does almost everything including Everything integration.
Also this script[1] for AHK to quckly jump from "Save as" window to folder currently opened in file explorer.
There has to be a good reason why psychological warfare is used, including by the United States in periods like the Vietnam War. The expectation is that statements written on paper or recited through loudspeakers or similar influence people's thoughts, which influences what actions they will take. Those actions are supposed to be beneficial to the forces scattering them from a helicopter or posting them on walls. They're trying to get you to do something regardless of what your preexisting thoughts are beforehand.
Now tear down the pieces of propaganda and burn them. Is this censorship?
I think human brains are sufficiently able to be hacked by the right information. With certain kinds of information, those people could end up causing material harm to someone who is completely uninvolved. That is the ultimate danger that I believe YouTube and the like are trying to avoid, and if true it would be an admittance of a sort that some kinds of information are dangerous to some kinds of people. The name "psychological warfare" implies that communication can be weaponized, in a sense. Certain people do not change their ways regardless of what you try to tell them.
I think the issue is centered not around people trying to have a reasoned debate, but those who have been lost to debate more or less permanently. Previously, you couldn't scatter this kind of information about on the scale were seeing today, and also recommend similar content using very effective algorithms. The more millions of people the content reaches, the more latent believers it will reach and end up converting, even if the conversion rate is a fraction of a percent. And many of these people are very vocal.
In a sense, the content takedown seems like an attempt to counteract the fact that the algorithms are too effective of a medium for misinformation. I don't think we would have seen this kind of scale with books or flyers.
It is not easy to do something 'lifetime' obviously. I set out to create a service 'for life'[0], it is 15 years old next year, it has loyal clients and it's getting an update (rewrite, modern skin, app, modern features, launching 1/1/'21) for it's 15th birthday. But although I promise never to sell (out; no ads, no data sales etc) and have the entire product (source etc) in escrow, anyone can break their word + contract obviously. I keep promising lifetime anyway and hope that others who do do not break their word easily either.
For Windows users, I can recommend ClickMonitorDDC[1]. While the UI is a bit cluttered, it has a neat feature:
You can display the current brightness in the notification area, hover over it with your mouse, and use the scroll-wheel to adjust it. I really like it.
If you are interested in digging into this stuff, and what really works medically/scientifically based on reviewed evidence and sources such as Cochrane Reviews, I can't recommend Dr Stanfields youtube channel high enough:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DrBradStanfield/videos
Also here is his video on Sulforaphane which Glucosamine activates. He goes into detail as to how this mechanism works. Because of his video/latest research presented I changed to taking Broccomax because you need Myrosinase to actvite the SGS for it's full effect, he goes into detail on this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAb1eQbRAe0
Why it ruined content? You are not the only one that is searching for the answer to that question. Keep reading to know why SEO ruined content.
Many people think that SEO ruined content, in this post, we are goin to explain why SEO ruined content. When you finish reading this post, you will know why SEO ruined content.
In the last years we have observed a grown in the quantity of content created, unfortunately, as we are going to explain in a moment, it has been ruined by SEO.
¿Is it SEO really the reason content was ruined?
Some people argue that SEO is not really the reason content was ruined, we will review all the reason why SEO could be really ruining content.
Please, click "next" to know why SEO could be ruining content.
Sounds like a bank, a government agency, or any business over a certain size.
I tell people you only call it politics when you are losing. More accurately, it's a layer of literal stupidity above the competent to shield the money side of the company from the leverage that operations people would have if they had any information about how the money side worked.
Instead of a hierarchy, rethink a company as a hub and spoke model with concentric rings. The main differences are the implication in a hierarchy that there is "gravity," keeping people down and that they need energy and leverage to climb "up," which further implies there is a place to "fall," and that there is only one way "up," instead of many possible paths to the centre from all directions. There is no gravity, only gates and barriers, and even these are just information. Politics is how a middle manager runs interference and creates distractions to make sure you can't see over, around, or through them, and that the people behind them closer to the money can't see you. Tech is usually outside the main perimeter, mediated by contracting companies or middle managers whose job is to compartmentalize the value people create, and be sure it is replaceable.
Viewed this way, of course this demented political farce is how Apple works, because it's how everything seems to work when you have internalized the precise and specific mental model someone uses to take advantage of you.
Sorry if you can't unsee it now, but hopefully it will be funny and we can get good, competent people who value tangible skills into positions of power.
1. Googler wants a promo. They know they need to "launch" to get promo. They can't get a promo if they just improve or maintain something that already exists.
2. Googler gets together with other googlers and puts together something they could launch. Nobody cares if it makes any sense.
3. The thing launches. Googler gets their promo. It is now pointless to spend any effort on maintaining something that you can't "launch" again. Googler moves on.
4. Project dies and gets shut down after a while because no sane person would touch maintenance work with a 10 foot pole.
9 out of 10 projects at Google go through this lifecycle, pretty much verbatim. This is why you have three different Google-provided messsengers on Android, and why stuff launches with great fanfare and then quickly runs out of steam. You get the behavior you reward. This is what Google rewards.
Bitcoin doesn't solve that problem. 600kWh of electricity are consumed for each transaction. Venezuelans would be mad to trade 2 weeks wages for a single BTC transaction. And that's when transaction fees are socialized by block rewards. If they actually had to pay the electricity consumed for their transactions it would be 10X higher.
Their problems are societal and need to be solved by societal means. Pretending magic beans in your computer will solve the Venezuelan objective nightmare is just ignoring objective reality. But don't just listen to me -- they all have access to Bitcoin. They know what it is. If it could solve their problems they would have started using it already. Bitcoin has no extrinsic barriers to adoption -- only intrinsic. People just don't want it, and why on earth would they?
The Bank of Canada study by real economists showed a BTC economy would have as much drain on the economy as a 48% inflation rate haha.
That's a rather extreme generalization, isn't it? Not all humans are equally remorseless and prone to carelessly harm others, whatever the entities they interact with and the acculturated categorizations they project on them.
Now we can certainly come with statistics of tendencies, but to my mind they seem to be condemned with cultural biases. Not only the human brain plasticity is molded by the culture where it is immersed, so any data will tell us more about the result of such a culture than about "human inherent tendencies", but even the way we will decide to analyze them and consider/interpret the outcomes will depend on our culture (and our current mood or other more "local" psychological factors).
With that in mind, it's hard to categorically conclude that humans are fundamentally "psychopaths in [their] relation to animals". Dominant cultures, offspring of predatory cultures, surely help to foster such a behavior. That doesn't require it to be an intractable instinctive trait.
There are about 11.1 million residential properties in Australia, 30% of which, some 3.25 million residential properties, are held by investors.[1]
There are 25 million people in Australia, about 17.5 million of those are adults aged 25 years or older, of which about 12.8%, or 2.25 million, own one or more investment properties.[1,2]
Let's assume the majority of investment property owners also own their own home.
So, about 13% of Australian adults own about 60% of the housing.
Does that sound reasonable? I don't know if there's some alternate timeline where housing is more evenly distributed and life is better, or how to get there if we think that's a good idea.
1. https://realtyai.com.au/inside-australias-property-boom-how-...
2. https://realtyai.com.au/inside-australias-property-boom-how-...