Zetice

30 ms·

361.
by Zetice 3y ago
If you value your safety, ignore every word this person has written. Their way of thinking leaves them extremely vulnerable. You will be worse off if you think like they do.
362.
by Zetice 3y ago
Thank you for being a live demonstration to anyone left reading this of how fools and their money are soon parted. Knowing your limits and knowing how bias creeps in are two skills you clearly lack. I hope nobody depends on you to make the
363.
by Zetice 3y ago
No, you can’t investigate their claims, as you are not a domain expert. They rely on you trying, however. And it is not a logical fallacy to disregard their argument entirely. I didn’t say they were wrong, I said they weren’t credible.
364.
by Zetice 3y ago
I didn’t filter your link because it was a blog, I filtered it because it was an obvious pitch for a product the authors sell. Do you really not understand the issues there? Incredible.
365.
by Zetice 3y ago
If you can't smell the salesmanship taking place on this link, there is a whole lot more wrong with your filtering abilities than I had initially thought. So based on this, I think you have a filter problem; you seem to be unable to ac
366.
by Zetice 3y ago
As with literally everything else of this nature, it's overfit for the past, and in future applications inevitably fails. This isn't about interest, it's about value. What you're proposing is flat out wrong, and has bee
367.
by Zetice 3y ago
The point is you cannot know which days are the worst days ahead of time. Also uncited and unpublished papers aren’t worth the ink they’re printed on.
368.
by Zetice 3y ago
> They did not omit it for fear of peer scrutiny, they omitted it because we live in a society where even experts at the top of their field can face brutal repercussions for having the wrong opinion. The lead author felt the lab leak was
369.
by Zetice 3y ago
You haven't presented contradictory evidence, you've presented garbage con-man scribblings dressed up as contradictory evidence. The fact that I'm capable of seeing that and you aren't is what folks ought to glean from t
370.
by Zetice 3y ago
If your plan is "throw my money into a pit" that is not a good strategy, even if you stick to it. So no, we would not agree. You ignore Nejat Seyhun's 1994 paper "Stock Market Extremes and Portfolio Performance" [0
371.
by Zetice 3y ago
EMH being settled isn't of issue here, and I did not claim the markets followed a random walk. It's the name of a book, not a theory pushed by the book itself. The fact that you haven't even heard of the book speaks volumes
372.
by Zetice 3y ago
Note, dear thread-reader, how these links are all blogs, none of them are actual academic literature, unlike the dozens of citations in even an introductory book such as A Random Walk Down Wall St. If pablum on the Internet is your preferre
373.
by Zetice 3y ago
This isn’t up for debate; it’s been shown, time and time again, that timing the market is a bad long term investment strategy.
374.
by Zetice 3y ago
Except 50 was never on the table, and 75 is a fraction of what it would be worth if you stopped trying to actively manage your portfolio. I cannot overstate how bad of an idea this is. Investing is not the same as decorating, there are obj
375.
by Zetice 3y ago
Sorry but if these people aren’t willing to say this in a way that invites peer scrutiny, then I don’t give a shit what they mumble back and forth to one another, and you shouldn’t either. We saw this with election fraud claims from the Tru
376.
by Zetice 3y ago
Er, you’re acting like you have a choice here, but you don’t. You either endure the drawdown or you just straight up lose your money. You’re trying to say that straight losing money is better than not losing money, but that’s nonsense.
377.
by Zetice 3y ago
Your stomach should turn more by actually realizing those losses rather than just letting it ride. Market downturns mean nothing! You lose literally nothing; you still own the same things you did in the morning, and will own those things a
378.
by Zetice 3y ago
I think it is representative of where they landed, but not of where they were the entire process. Folks often argue one thing but come to believe another over time, and what we see is only the end product of that journey (unless someone
379.
by Zetice 3y ago
Open to being shocked now! My family is mostly attorneys, I’m presently the black sheep for working in software.
380.
by Zetice 3y ago
There is what you believe, and then there is what you prove. Science isn’t interested in the former, and Nate Silver understands that. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and scientists are free to think whatever they like;
381.
by Zetice 3y ago
It isn't clear to me that there are meaningful outward pressures on these folks to lie or misrepresent what they're able to credibly support. And even if there were, it does nothing for the argument that it was a lab leak. You ca
382.
by Zetice 3y ago
The authors can believe what they want, isn't the whole point that if they're not willing to "commit" to those views, then they don't actually matter? We don't know their mental state when writing those Slack m
383.
by Zetice 3y ago
Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on if the lab leak theory is plausible or not, I'm commenting on how none of these folks were willing to go "on the record" about it in a way that would have to stand up to the level
384.
by Zetice 3y ago
Ugh. Nate, why? Nate (and you, dear reader) should know better than this. What a person is willing to say under oath (or in a peer reviewed paper) is what they're able to defend. What they say in slack chats or emails is completely
385.
by Zetice 3y ago
Not only do I despise remote working, I'm leaving the industry entirely as a direct result of working remotely, in favor of getting a law degree. I'm just beyond sick and tired of my default mode being, "Stare at screen to so
386.
by Zetice 3y ago
That's my point; everyone here is shitty, none of it matters, and smart people can ignore both places entirely and be better off for it.
387.
by Zetice 3y ago
The issue is that LW, more than most, is seemingly unaware of this fact.
388.
by Zetice 3y ago
You sneer at “getting on the front page of HN” but when you rephrase it to, “discuss something you’ve observed informally” your dismissal loses its oomph. The point may be to entertain as well as inform. Many humans enjoy the unfocused dis
389.
by Zetice 3y ago
I hope you don’t think invoking Reddit raises the stakes…
390.
by Zetice 3y ago
Then the question you should be asking is why choose to post on LW when the value of publishing a paper is substantially higher. Perhaps because what they post doesn’t hold up to scrutiny from their peers, so they prefer to play in the mud

More ›