clutch

Yeah, models aren't perfect, but I don't really see an alternative. Is there one? Make decisions based on the most pertinent observations? E.g., the fact that COVID-19 has significantly higher death rates in older people. In general, scientists should inform decision-makers primarily based on observations/experiments, not prediction models. People are getting delusional regarding these models... thinking that they can accurately predict the future if the models are built by scientists.

Just to share the potential backfire of relying on prediction models... In Ontario, Canada, the health experts had "projected just under 1,600 COVID-19 deaths, 80,000 cases by end of April." They had expected the hospitals to become full and ramped up the capacities, preparing for the surge. As of April 22, 12,245 cases have been reported, significantly lower than the predicted number. Hospital beds are empty, and plenty of ICUs and ventilators are available. Meanwhile, deaths are relatively still high, at 659 as of April 22. This is because long-term care facilities have become epicenters of the outbreak. Half of the deaths have come from long-term care facilities. They are now relocating the staffing and resources from hospitals to long-term care homes. Maybe the government should have focused on protecting the most vulnerable from the get-go (old age + living in shared housing). These prediction models are not crystal balls. Yet, we seem to be relying more and more on them to make decisions that could lead to this kind of negative, unexpected consequences.

Quote of the day

If you have anyone in your family household who is of old age or vulnerable, I highly doubt the decision will be based on the financial situation. It's not worth the $300 per month to take a risk of catching the virus from work and spreading it to your family members. And unfortunately, many of the low wage workers are in such a situation.

I agree. In Canada, you get $2000 per month for 4 months if you were laid off due to COVID-19 regardless of your income. And after that, you can collect your regular employment insurance. I'm pretty sure many people will choose to stay home for a while...

Autodesk and Ansys are not quite in the same competitive space. Ansys' bread-and-butter is simulation (mainly in mech/elec/manufacturing) and Autodesk is really not strong in that area. Autodesk's main strength is in 3D modeling products for architecture and construction -- namely, Autocad, Revit, etc. They also have a strong presence in media and entertainment via Maya and 3ds Max as another poster pointed out. These products have incredible moats and are not going to be replaced in a foreseeable future. Autodesk is trying hard to get into the mech/elec/manufacturing space with a cloud-based CAD system called Fusion. However, it's mainly used by smaller firms or start-ups. It's primarily a modeling tool but has simulation tools as well -- just not as good as Ansys. Serious and large-scale engineering firms will probably use SolidWorks, CATIA, or NX for modeling and Ansys for simulation. So really, in the mech/elec/manufacturing space the main competitor of Autodesk is Dassault and Siemens. In fact, check out this collaboration initiative between Autodesk and Ansys: https://www.ansys.com/blog/ansys-autodesk-open-seamless-workflow Another thing to note about Autodesk is that they have been a serial acquirer. Basically, make cash with their cash cows and spend that money to expand. At one point a few years ago, I believe they were second to Google in the silicone valley in terms of the number of acquisitions. They had 100+ smaller products (anything related to 3D design) but they are being consolidated. I think much of the future runaways will depend on how smart they are with acquisitions and in managing their portfolio of products.

The features I use most on the board are the 2 links right under your name at the top of the page: Show unread posts since last visit. Show new replies to your posts. These show you the thread titles rather than the individual posts so that you can click on the ones that interest you and ignore the ones that don't. Thanks. This is useful.

I use the "Recent Posts" feature and sometimes 90% of the recent posts are from the Coronavirus thread these days. And nothing to do with investment. I was hoping to avoid that if there was a feature.

namely, the "Coronavirus" thread...

Welcome to the "Corner of Covid-19 and Politics"

I don't think BRK will be superior to S&P. However, I still own BRK -- because it is easier to know when to buy and sell depending on its PV. For a beginner, having S&P ETF as your core holding and trading in/out of something like BRK with a small portion of your money might be a good idea, to get a taste of both passive and active investing.

move this thread to Politics already...

Lol, seriously. People should spend more time looking after their close ones instead of arguing about the situation. Or maybe, contribute to one of many initiatives going on to fight the pandemic.

It's kind of amusing to see how markets like these trigger many people's desires to speculate.

This is what concerns me. I'm not sure if these medical professionals know what success looks like or what the end game is besides slowing the outbreak NOW. I don't think they are trained to think that broadly. For sure, we should listen to them and carefully consider their suggestions since this is indeed a health crisis, but we should also think about what would be the best solution for the overall society. Just imagine -- during any war situation, what would happen if you only listen to war generals for every action you take because they are the experts.

How do you explain Taiwan, SK, Japan? They are still open for business. You are just ignoring facts that don't suit your argument. They did what the experts said, they just did it faster and harder, so now they could reopen (while staying very vigilant with testing, contact tracing, lots of mask wearing, social distancing, etc). That ship has sailed for the US. These countries prove my point. In South Korea, the medical experts at the very beginning recommended the president to close the border with China. This didn't happen. It turns out, the major outbreak occurred because of a single superspreader in the religious sect who has never visited China.

We should listen to them but what gives the health care experts the absolute authority over everything? By listening only to their advice, you'd be doing the opposite of what experts say from other domains. A hypothetical and somewhat stupid question... but what would you do if health care experts advised that global warming is good for preventing pandemics in the future?

It is foolish to believe that the economy can be saved by descending into something worse than a 2nd world country with hundred thousand if not millions dying. It makes no sense and is more than foolish thinking. Going back to pre-quarantine days should not be equivalent to doing nothing on the healthcare front. While resuming regular economic activities, the government could pump money into increasing the healthcare capacity (build more hospitals, produce more equipment, conduct more tests, etc.) while focusing on protecting the vulnerables (distributing protective items for free and delivery services for essential goods, etc.). Instead of using the money for bailouts as the economy tanks, we can use it to actually fight the fire. If this is really a long-term crisis, we need to take a more active approach than a passive one. It's good that we are trying to slow the pace of the outbreak right now to buy us some time, but at some point, we will have to make the switch in the strategy.

Deaths from COVID are already exponential in USA. A graph of heart disease deaths would be a straight line with no change in slope day to day (i.e. a linear plot, not an exponential). I am concerned about it more than cancer or heart disease. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”. -MT More: USA COVID deaths from March 16-17: 23 USA COVID deaths from March 17-18: 41 USA COVID deaths from March 18-19: 57 So, a 39% increase in # of daily deaths over past 2 days. Do heart disease, cancer, and auto accidents ever show similar trends? Are heart disease or cancer or auto accident deaths known to rise 39% or more from day after day like this? Do people have 39% more heart attacks nationwide on a Wednesday than they did on a Tuesday? Over three days, for sure. You could find many death causes that showed exponential growth in a 3-day period (of course, by chance). Not arguing the potential exponential growth in the death numbers due to COVID-19, but I find it funny how you show these three numbers as concrete evidence that there is an exponential trend. ??? I posted a plot over weeks but it was too complex for some to understand so I whittled it down to 3 numbers. Attached it here for u. The trend continues for much longer than 3d. For those who have some quantitative training, the trend looks awfully like an exponential one. Remember, the derivative of an exponent is...still and exponent. What would the plot for cumulative auto accidents or cardiovascular deaths look like? What is the derivative of such a curve? If you think auto accidents can rise 39% in a day, go talk to an actuary at GEICO. Ok, didn't know you posted this before. But if you look up auto accidents between Sunday and Monday, I bet there would be a rise of 39% or more. Just emphasizing the point that one shouldn't draw conclusions based on a few data points (which I assumed you did).

Deaths from COVID are already exponential in USA. A graph of heart disease deaths would be a straight line with no change in slope day to day (i.e. a linear plot, not an exponential). I am concerned about it more than cancer or heart disease. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”. -MT More: USA COVID deaths from March 16-17: 23 USA COVID deaths from March 17-18: 41 USA COVID deaths from March 18-19: 57 So, a 39% increase in # of daily deaths over past 2 days. Do heart disease, cancer, and auto accidents ever show similar trends? Are heart disease or cancer or auto accident deaths known to rise 39% or more from day after day like this? Do people have 39% more heart attacks nationwide on a Wednesday than they did on a Tuesday? Over three days, for sure. You could find many death causes that showed exponential growth in a 3-day period (of course, by chance). Not arguing the potential exponential growth in the death numbers due to COVID-19, but I find it funny how you show these three numbers as concrete evidence that there is an exponential trend. ???

Japenese people in general, even in normal circumstances, practice high standards of hygiene (e.g., wearing masks) and minimize contact between each other. I'd say that's the primary reason why a breakout hasn't happened in Japan.

Not sure why many people expect US to be another Italy. It could have been that Italy was an exception with the combination of an aging population, the first breakout among western countries (and hence not ready), the cultural norm, population density, etc.

holy fuck, what a bounce back

Is this feature now gone? Can't locate "Modify profile" EDIT: nvm, found it

Yup, the gold thesis is wrong. :(