Castanza

Really admired the humbleness of the Toronto team. Leonard, Van Fleet, Lowery and the rest of them simply went out and played hard. Highly respectable, well disciplined talented team that earned it.

http://clarkstreetvalue.blogspot.com/2019/06/spirit-mta-sells-mta-assets-to-hpt.html

Sold 75% of my HSY - Hershey position. Merely profit taking as it was my best performer this past year. Cost average was 95ish and sold today for 136. My thesis hasn't changed much on the company in general, but this rapid ramp up in price made me want to take some profits. Edit: Tariff tensions are making me a bit uneasy with HSY. The three Mexican plants are quite important in supporting the North American supply chain. I'm uncertain how tariffs will affect the NA segment. NA makes up about 89% of HSY market where Brazil, MX, China, India make up most of the remaining market share. India is their fastest growing international market. One thing I do like is Hershey owns all but 2(located in Georgia and NY) manufacturing plants. And in general, their products are manufactured in the marketplace which they will be selling. This helps reduce risk somewhat. Noticed a large surge in $125 August puts today and figured, might as well take profits. Honestly, this has been one of my best plays. Link to the 10-k if anyone was interested. Don't think I've seen this stock covered on here. https://www.thehersheycompany.com/content/dam/corporate-us/documents/annual-reports/2019-proxy-statement.pdf

Non Facebook link

For anyone else who loves learning about the ins and outs of a companies history in 15min or less check out this YT channel. It's called "Company Man." The creator (author?) does a great job narrating and there is a good variety of companies. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQMyhrt92_8XM0KgZH6VnRg Cheers

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation" Do scientists not also do this by saying "time did it"? We just assume given large amounts of time that something has/will happen based on mathematical probability. They all seem equally arbitrary to me. It also doesn't benefit science to simply ignore the possibility of a God or a Simulation. It doesn't necessarily help it either. I think it's ignorant when people like Dawkins say there absolutely is no God. I much prefer people like Sam Harris who are open to the idea, but don't let it deflect them from scientific empirical study. Science does not find truth, it approaches it.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying. If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise. This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy. The end result looks "planned", but it isn't. BTW: I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer. Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place. I disagree. Matter doesn't need to "know" that the law of gravity exists. Matter has no conscientiousness. The laws of physics are what they are, whether or not anyone "knows" what they are. The universe has followed the laws of physics since long before Newton or Einstein. Your example of that experiment where they had to change the rules, just proves that life might be able to come about even if the rules where different. We know life is possible in this universe, simply because we are here. Yes, but matter cannot act outside of the laws of gravity....that's my point. Life being derived from nothing is not a law. It is not seen anywhere in physics or biology. So we cannot expect that it has happened in the past. Us existing isn't enough to draw a conclusion that life exists elsewhere. I think math more supports that we are completely alone. The entire human existence is a mere microsecond on the entire time scale. If you take you're idea that life probably exists elsewhere would it not also make sense that there should be evidence for life everywhere? The Universe is supposedly 14 Billion years old. There are 40 Billion "earth like" planets in our galaxy alone that could potentially support life. It would take roughly 100 million years using the Von Neumann Probes method to explore our entire galaxy. So in that case wouldn't it be reasonable for evidence of life elsewhere be abundant? That time-frame has been exceeded 100 fold and yet nothing....It's not much different than Stephen Hawking disproving time travel by having that room setup in his house. Or the roadkill theory disproving Bigfoot.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying. If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise. This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy. The end result looks "planned", but it isn't. BTW: I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer. Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else. Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition? If life exists here, then it is possible that exists in other places too. Life exists, so we can say that life originated somewhere. That could be either here on Earth, somewhere else and was transported to Earth (naturally or by other life), or it may have come to be in multiple places in the universe independently. Even if we are living in a simulation, that means that intelligent beings created that simulation and are living in a universe where life originated somehow. We do not know the answers to these questions and nothing can be ruled out. There does not have to be anything greater than ourselves. That is a subjective statement anyway depending on your definition of "greater". There may or may not be something other than ourselves. I agree exactly with this. My point is that people want to say "fact" when in reality nobody knows and science is far from answering these questions. So really no hypothesis is more ridiculous than another. I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos. But to each their own! Anyways I'll leave you with some quotes from various scientists from various beliefs and fields of study. I'll let you get back to your UFO discussion :P Sorry to derail the thread! Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2) George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3) Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4) Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5) Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6) John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7) George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8) Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9) Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10) Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11) Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12) Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13) Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14) Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall� be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity. Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17) Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18) Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19) Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20) Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21) Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22) Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23) Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25) There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

Nope. I can say there is possibility of life else where based on my observation that life exists on this planet. Its a fact and I have several ways to prove the hypothesis. I don't need to understand how planet was created to prove that there may be other planets in the Universe. Probability does the trick here. Actually it makes no sense. Current hypothesis is based on the fact that life exists here and we have observed it. Let me know when you observe the God almighty. If you can prove life exists elsewhere then NASA wants your number. We observe life as it already exists. We have never observed life being created from nothing. You're blurring lines to fit your hypothesis. I'm simply saying a God could exists, just like you're saying life could begin on its own. You also can't disprove a God with science soooo.

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else. Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition? You can only say there is a possibility of life elsewhere if you understand how that life came to be. Again, mathematical probability is not a proof. Its merely an educated guess which was my main point. It's like the use of infinity in mathematics. It works in our equations to give us extremely accurate measurements etc. But it hasn't actually been shown to exist in the real world. But it works within out "scientific worldview." As far as me "believing in something greater", my point isn't that I'm right; It's simply the fact that it makes just as much sense as any of the current hypothesis' out there. yeah yeah I know, God is un-testable in the sense of religious Gods, but there are plenty of things in science we take as "fact" which are indeed un-testable theories as well. I think Stephen Webb makes a lot of sense.

We know how life got started. At some point our planet had an atmosphere with plenty of organic and fairly little free Oxygen and plenty of lightning storms. It has been shown in lab experiments that this leads to the formation of fairly complex organic molecules which started to a accumulate. At some point, a molecule was created that could replicate itself (the Ur DNS) and things got started from there. Surely, the creating of a molecule (or several different molecules) that could replicate was a huge milestone they took many many rolls of a dice so to speak. It also recall, that we had a laboratory the size of planet earth and hundred of millions of years to the disposal. It is likely that something eventually will evolve. Once something works, evolution goes to work. We don’t know why the big bank happened, but it is sort of an irrelevant question. Before the Big Bang happened, there was no space/ matter or even time. Even the laws of physics as we currently know them didn’t exist. Since time didn’t exist, there is no beginning or end either. We do not know how likely other life is, but we do know that planets like our own seem to be plenty full in the universe, as are the elements they our life is build upon. It is also possible that life may develop based on other chemistries (Silicon can create macromolecules, but the bonds are not as stable than carbo, so this would likely develop at lower temperature and probably not water based. I am not an expert on this but the driving force of evolution (whatever works survives and multiplies, whatever doesn’t, ceases to exist) can lead to the evolution of complex, self organizing structures that are able to duplicate. That’s what life is. No we don't. That is scientists best guess, but if you go read any of the Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Berkeley, Chicago, journals they say they don't know for sure. There is a big difference between having chemicals and compounds suitable for life and those chemicals becoming a living being. Science has not explained this and it's not even an educated guess as none of it has been testable etc. The closest we've come is in computer simulations but even the creators said that the parameters were based on DNA and RNA as we know it. In other words, they are giving it the answer. I believe off hand scientists have also been able to create synthetic DNA and RNA and possible replicate it. BUT they have only been able to do so with it being derived from actually DNA and RNA. Again, this is a HUGE and key difference from random compounds forming molecules then somehow forming proteins, enzymes, and ribozymes then RNA and replicating until they form a single celled organism. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-primordial-life-earth-replicated.html Here is a recent article highlighting the "breaking news" However, once you get past the click bait title you can see how ridiculous it is. "If a ribozyme could replicate folded RNA, it might be able to copy itself and support a simple living system." "but if the RNA was folded it blocked the ribozyme from copying it. Since ribozymes themselves are folded RNAs, their own replication is blocked." BUT!!! "scientists have resolved this paradox by engineering the first ribozyme that is able to replicate folded RNAs, including itself." So scientists had to skip past how nature naturally works an synthetically make it work in a way which it doesn't work in nature....hmm? "We found a solution to the RNA replication paradox by re-thinking how to approach the problem—we stopped trying to mimic existing biology and designed a completely new synthetic strategy." And don't forget the part where the current theory is that this happened near the sea floor by warm vents. Yet in the experiment here they had to use -7C water to concentrate the RNA strands and prevent them from interacting with anything else. They also had to provide a pure environment which wouldn't have existed in the "primordial soup."

If anything is an issue it will be AI and algo trading. We've already seen how many flash crashes the past few years.

You lost me at "alleged whistle-blower" and then again at "all high ranking officials confirm space craft crash." Not to mention you forgot to name the book :P _________________________________________________________ To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began. 1.) We don't know how life started. 2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter? So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof? Just because mathematical odds can be applied to something, doesn't mean that it will or has happened. Especially once you remove all pre-suppositions and go based on empirical data only. Even if you believe that life came about because some magic mud got struck by lightening creating a single celled organism (1 in a gazillion chance) and then on top of that, the single celled organism, somehow "learned" to function, replicate, evolve, etc. So if you take the odds of life beginning and then the odds of that life surviving and then the odds of life evolving I just don't buy the alien argument. Because it's all based on something we have ZERO knowledge of. Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves. If I had to pick some Sci-fi "hypothesis", I think it's much more likely that we are just some simulation being run by some neck-bearded nerd. And all we are is sentient AI which is operating within a set of parameters (Laws of Physics, etc) of a program. I once heard someone say: "Mathematics is the language of God." perhaps it is.

I have been building a woodshop dust collection system with HVAC metal ducting the past 6 weeks. I went to homedepot tonight and the wyes I've been paying $14.50 each are now $18 .68. I went to Home Depot and Lowes to buy some black iron pipe the other day for a project. It was 2-3 times the price of copper piping. A length of pipe that used to be $3-5 a year or two ago was now $10-15. I even had some old pipe with price labels still on them that I compared it to for a sanity check. I talked with a guy in the isle who was also looking at the pipe (happened to be a part-time plumber) and he said he's never seen iron pipe cost more than copper. That $50 project quickly turned into $150 and I could buy what I was going to build for less.

That always happens though in the maturing of the cycle. As rates move higher, lenders can accept more defaults and still end with the same, or higher, income due to the higher rates. Riskier loans means defaults get higher even if the economy is strong. It's not to say that there's nothing to worry about, but you can't just look at the data in a vacuum like that. I mean I get your point, but I'm not only looking at that data. I was just adding it to the mix. No defaults on cars probably wont bring down the economy. But If we hit a recession it will have some big implications. Especially when you look at how inflated used car prices are and how over saturated the market is. You have used pickups with 200k miles on them selling for 6-8k less than a new one. If we hit a recession, I think the auto industry will be one of the first to take a dive. It's also worth noting that if your willing to take out a risky loan on a 70k vehicle then that lack of financial aptitude probably carries over into other aspects of your life.

Retire by my mid 40's so I can spend my time working in the ecology sector doing what I enjoy instead of mashing keys all day behind a desk; all without worrying about 100k+ income (preferably make that up in divy's) Decent house (with a few acres for a vineyard or hops) paid off and maybe 1-2 rental properties probably back near my hometown and family. Cabin in Montana (With all the fly fishing gear I want) Sea worthy sailboat (Preferably a Catamaran but I'd settle for less :P) Full fledged dedicated woodshop ability to travel a few times a year (preferably on my sail boat) Independence and a nest egg for my future kids children. ___________________________________________________ I'm a simple man, not into cars, clothes, or being in big cities permanently. Guess I'm a bit of an old soul.

Subprime auto loans and defaults are also worth keeping an eye on. Strange how these rates are climbing in a relatively "good" economy with good jobs numbers.

Partially OT. If someone does a snowbird thing or just plans to live in one place more than couple months a year, AirBnB probably is not great. Also if they want to setup their house/place the way they like with their things/books/etc. OTOH, IMO upkeep is a hassle and that's why I would not want to have multiple houses and would go with frommi approach. 8) Multiple Condos with once a month maid service 8)

"However, some experts point out that expert systems were not part of true artificial intelligence since they lack the ability to learn autonomously from external data." It's funny that whenever we get a system to do things that computers could never do before we declare that it isn't "real" AI and we move the goal post further back. To some "real" AI won't be achieved until artificial systems can think, think about thinking, feel, love, hate, fear, not want to die .... I think it's more people are skewing what AI really is making factitious claims. It's no different than these companies that claim they've built an atomic computer. I don't think the definition of AI has ever changed and I don't think we should change it to meet technological short comings. All we are doing is processing more data faster. It can give the appearance of Intelligence, but is it truly intelligent?

"However, some experts point out that expert systems were not part of true artificial intelligence since they lack the ability to learn autonomously from external data."

That's not AI. That's a static deterministic model using ML algorithms within a bound set of inputs. AI can take inputs outside of the bounds and return a probability factor based on confidence. If-then or if-else based models are purely deterministic and only operate within the bounds of inputs determined by the programmers. Boiled down it's basically a decision tree with integrated ML. If you want to call that AI, fine haha but it's not "true" AI.

That seems quite "ballsy." How large of position did you take if I might ask?

I don't understand these drivers complaining about money. I mean, I have never seen Uber advertised as a full-time job. Commercials always show it as additional income when you have a few hours to spare. I drove for them while in college and some nights when my wife worked 3rd shift as a nurse. I was quite happy to have some "beer" money in college. If anything these people should be thankful Uber exists. It facilitates everything for them and gives them a platform to make some extra income. Nobody is forcing them to drive for Uber and they could go out and start their own private taxi service if they really wanted (my neighbor used to do with for a local Judge...made out pretty good). Society needs to stop trying to push these supplemental income jobs as careers. Bagging groceries, flipping burgers and driving for Uber isn't a career. We need to hold firm to this conviction, because out of necessity comes change. People will learn this and adapt if needed. Fun fact: also paid for the entirety of my honeymoon by donating plasma in college. But that's a story for another time.