sysgen [none/use name,they/them]

  • 10 Posts
  • 756 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2020

help-circle



  • Many/most reputable places that do this kind of trading have fixed whole market exposure, either long only or long/short (and a lot are long/short). The idea being that since it's mathematically impossible for the average hedge fund to beat the market in the long term by much (tbf, less so since the rise of index funds), they should at least be able to provide returns that aren't correlated to the stock market, as any idiot can get correlated returns.

    Besides, everyone knows that just because things are getting worse doesn't mean number won't go up - you'd typically trade on the belief that number go up in some more sophisticated way, perhaps by predicting what the fed will do to make sure number go up, or how the books will be cooked to make sure number go up.






  • Yes! And you know what, at that point, given the size of a minimum viable car, we could use some kind of algorithm to match people that are going similar places, and put them together to be more efficient. And I bet we'd find that a lot of the large scale transit patterns are common large parts of the population, so we could even use some kind of segregated, higher speed, more frequent vehicle for that.

    While we're at it, we might as well just warehouse some of these vehicles around places where the common cores end and start, and then we would only have to match one end of the trip.

    Oh wait, we already have those in operation in China: https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=wvNOTZZeYVs







  • Yes, it is, but until the fireball is smaller than a pixel, you will see a reduction in the number of pixels illuminated, and then a reduction in exposure. And I'd wager that for a sizeable bomb it will take a while for that reduction in exposure to mean you stop clipping the sensor, especially at night with the ISO dialed up.





  • If your goal is independence, two sources are always better than one.

    Reducing fossil fuel use by increasing costs and funneling profits to America is a neoliberal approach to climate change and doesn't work. All it's going to do is make people poorer and move production of petrochemical-derived and energy-intensice products elsewhere. This is because the market is not able to make a sustainable change away from fossil fuels, especially not for a temporary wars, as these investments have to be amortized over decades. If you want to actually reduce fossil fuel use for heating and electrcity, you need governmental investment into nuclear and renewable energy and programs to install heat pumps. Becoming dependent on American gas is not actually going to help, and neither will changes in prices because it's a non-market solution.

    Unless of course you think America is inherently more ethical than Russia and should be preferred - I'll let you make that argument.