You are right that position sizing is important but for the opposite reason. Knowing your winners and then full on concentrating in them is statistically a big part of what makes successful winners.
For traders maybe, because they pyramid the position on the back of any gains made. But you also don't want to have so much invested in one company that it becomes make or break. A 10% loss on 5% of your portfolio is way more manageable than 10% on 50% of your portfolio.
No even for buy and hold investors. The best investors get only 55% of the bets right. Only a little better than a coin toss. The only reason the performance for them is better than the 55% metric would suggest is because they cut losses on losers early and push on winners.
Not at all. If Murmansk's importance causes Finland to be strategic then what about Crimea? Turkey blocks Russia's warm water sea access. Much more important for Turkey to be in NATO than Finland purely on the basis of geography.
> What is the point of having a NATO member who illogically rails against new members just because Russia tells them not to?
You, I think, know very little about Turkey's politics to make a claim like that.
PKK & YPG has long been a perceived thorn in Turkey's side and they have largely felt like the rest of NATO has ignored this problem if not actively antagonized them on it.
To them, it's akin to as if the rest of NATO was funding cartels in Mexico.
> "I think it's clear that one of the issues facing aluminum is that it is costly to bring down smelting capacity and even more costly to bring it back up again," Harvey said during a virtual presentation at the Bank of America Securities Global Metals, Mining & Steel Conference. "I think it has tended to be a relatively slow process for producers to come to those decisions."
> Harvey said each potline at a smelter requires about $25 million to restart, which made it challenging for operators to reach curtailment decisions.
I don't necessarily have issue with someone renting out their second property, but I am starting to think the societal problems with large scale rental operations and the disappearance of land ownership as an achievable goal for so many, outweighs the right of large scale landlords to exist.
Modern landlords are mostly government subsidized (tax abetements, low financing rates for "business", etc).
There are definitely landlords that provide a valuable service, but there's a reason why profiteering landlords are almost universally disliked.
PS: Remember where we get the term "landlord" - the feudal lord that collected tax(aka rent) while providing a very specific service to the peasants on the land plot that was grated to him by the superior nobleman.
It's nothing like that today... Even the losses in their income get socialized - how do you think Donald paid only $750 in federal taxes? The whole system is setup to protect "landlords".
I happily pay to buy directly from local sources. Also; people don’t need meat, they do need housing.
You’re missing the point of what I am saying entirely though. If you treat housing as an investment and the investment goes sideways for whatever reason, why should anyone feel bad for you? It sucks, but that’s how investing works!
You don’t think other legislation/govt intervention impacts non-housing financial investments? Thems the breaks. They took the risk, let them own it. That’s literally the entire freaking point!
I was in the “libertarian” camp on this. But now looking at all the damage caused (including killings in India on false social media rumors) I certainly think “mainstreaming of social media” is warranted.
For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself should clean up half this mess with existing laws.
This is my issue with the libertarian stance. It’s easy to make arguments in abstract that sounds really good about personal liberty and responsibility, preventing authoritarianism etc. But humans can be really crappy and bad actors will always try to ruin something good (see Internet, environment, poverty programs, insurance, banking, etc), which is then why we end up with regulations.
What I don’t get is this idea that we shouldn’t learn from our mistakes because the #1 thing is to hold onto some kind of immutable ideal. Isn’t that why we continue to have legislation despite constitutions having been already written? That the world changes and thus government should change with it?
> For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself should clean up half this mess with existing laws.
And it should also enable going after people with unpopular opinions even more.
And preventing people from spreading disinformation doesn't mean that the disinformation will magically go away. It's just that the only people allowed to spread disinformation will be the government and the capitalists. And you will be punished if you call them out on it.
People going after people for unpopular opinions is a society problem. Did that happen in the US or Europe before Twitter? It did not.
I see this touted a lot. But supporting trolls to spread disinformation online isn’t protecting free speech. Free speech protection comes from society and it’s laws. Not anonymity.
It is a non sequitur that negatively generalizes Jews as guilty of the actions committed by a very small subset of Jews. This is anti-Semitic. It is similar to coming into the comments of a post about Ramadan and declaring that Muslims are terrorists.
> It is a non sequitur that negatively generalizes $X as guilty of the actions committed by a very small subset of $X. This is anti-$X.
Welcome to the Internet, and welcome to the club! This is a significant fraction of all social activity, it seems. People are into tribes, evidently.
2.
This whole thing depends on how the relevant categories are perceived. I think things are different in Israel than they are in, say, the United States.
In Israel, the ulta-orthodox are a distinct category, and mainstream/centrist/reform people will criticize them.
In the United States, people see the categories from further away, and they blur together into "Jewish", which causes both anti-Semitism, and reflexive defense of "my people" (even if they are not actually your people).
Second-generation kids from all manner of immigrant backgrounds have similar problems. They'll identify with extremist elements of "the homeland", because they think $MAJORITY/$NATIONALITY is the important dichotomy. When really, in the "homeland", there is some other political dichotomy which is actually important. And which they have been able to ignore, because they've lived in the United States.
A good example is a particular generation of Irish-Americans, who supported the IRA. Current examples include ABCs and ABDs. The relationship between them and those who stayed is complicated. Eventually the latter becomes a kind of mascot adopted by the former: "Notre Dame: The Fighting Irish!"
The best cure for this is to let people spend time visiting "the homeland", so they can come to realize that they're not from there any more.
This applies now to the situation in Israel. Peoples' allegiances are based on imagined categories, and those allegiances are not always reciprocated.
3. To emphasize my philosophical point:
> It is similar to coming into the comments of a post about Ramadan and declaring that Muslims are terrorists.
This implicitly requires an answer to the question: What -- or, I should say, Who -- is a Muslim? Who is a Jew? Who is a Gentile? This expands to every category.
4.
Similar questions now plague the United States. Who is Of Color? What does it mean to be White? Are you Black or are you Kanye?
There are a lot of boundaries. Circles cut around a collection of individuals, in the mind, to mark them.
// These “kosher” phones designed to help haredim hide from the outside world are paid for by your tax dollars.
Would you feel comfortable saying in polite society "whenever you see one of these (insert race/group) talking on their Obama-phone, these are paid for by your tax dollars?"
Whatever your background, you are spewing vitriol that says much more about you than anyone else.
> Would you feel comfortable saying in polite society "whenever
> you see one of these (insert race/group) talking on their
> Obama-phone, these are paid for by your tax dollars?"
You don't need to take offense for some other demographic that you are unfamiliar with. Different cultures have different values, and some stereotypes based on these different values are true.
In this case, it might not be 9/10 but GP is correct that a significant fraction of the people that GP is condemning live off of donations and government subsidies. It is part of their culture.
Don't be so afraid to identify the negative aspects of some cultures. They exist.
> In this case, it might not be 9/10 but GP is correct that a significant fraction of the people that GP is condemning live off of donations and government subsidies. It is part of their culture.
Excuse my ignorance...but is this true? The bit about their culture including living off donations or subsidies etc.. I had not heard that before - could you share some more information about that?
From what I've been told - not by members of the community but from those who oppose them - these people believe that they don't have time to work. They are too busying studying Torah.
You should know, these people are a very small minority in our country and do not represent the rest of us. It is a small part of my taxes that go to these people, but obviously many people take issue with it.
How about all whitespace should be represented by one character to reduce ambiguity. I shouldn't have to figure out if 'l' is 'ell' or 'eye'. Same way I should not have see visually whitespace and wonder if it's tab or space. One visualization, one ascii representation.
Because whitespace is not a space includes margins the spacing between letters etc, we all ready have a word for the white space character you are talking about its called space and its not used for indentation.
I think this is where a lot of the trouble comes from: Tabs are misunderstood as "whitespace", as if code was some sort of DTP by a graphic designer. Code actually is a functional instruction to a machine - semantics matter, and this is where tabs shine: they are unambigious (did the developer decide to indent this this far, or not?)
If tabs-as-whitespace trouble you, editors since the 1990s have allowed you to choose/configure other representations of tabs.
I could literally not use any indentation and the machine would still understand me. Not sure how they matter for machines?
They do matter for humans though. The reason we write code and structure it the way we do is for human convenience. One of those conveniences is thinking of the layout of code as a visual help to scan and read it. As such I am very much organizing my code like a graphic designer would organize information.
Edit: Indentations do matter in some languages and used to signify information. But not in a lot of them. The point still stands that most of the time we are using them for visual purposes not information to the compiler/interpreter.
Only in the sense that all characters are "for visual purposes". Tabs have a distinct meaning from spaces, and can be rendered however you want (arrows or chevrons, for instance); "whitespace" is a poor term for them.
If I ever have to program in python, I'm absolutely going to pull out some of my obsolete translation programming and write a preprocessor that translates brackets to the semantically equivalent indentation, yes this will make python sort of an intermediate language LOL
I thought they were for aligning columns in a table (hence “tab”), rather than indentation? This goes back to typewriters. Sure you could abuse it for indentation and perhaps that became common practice at one point but it doesn’t mean that’s what it’s “for” any more than spaces.
> This goes back to typewriters. Sure you could abuse it for indentation and perhaps that became common practice at one point [...]
Indentation (specifically the first line of each paragraph) was arguably the first widespread use of the tab key. The annoyance with using it for actual tables was that generally you'd want numeric data to be right-justified (so that digits of equal significance align vertically). So I wouldn't really call it an abuse, especially on modern keyboards.
Arguably yes. And arguably spaces are better for indentation as a matter of convenience and accessiblity and you can’t make any strong argument that it’s what tab is “for” based on original purpose.
Youtube has real estate virtual tour walk-throughs from around the world. Sorry, I don't know how to search for them. A few days ago, I saw this one[1] from Bangladesh.
A concrete slab multi-story. IIRC, first floor was occupied residential - here are some hesitant people, their stuff, a shrine room. Second floor was bare slab with construction detritus. No walls, interior or exterior - "can customize". Third floor was also bare, no walls, no roof, forest of rebar. Very roughly, IIRC.
Meta: Wished I could copy a list of yt links from browser history, and get a page of thumbnails for a fast visual search. A little script later, found it.
I think it's more that people don't have the capital to make a second floor as they're building the first floor. I'm sure regulatory hurdles occur as well. It's common to eventually add a floor or two for rental income. Sometimes, the owner will move to the upper floors for better light, a breeze, and a newer home.
