Castanza

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.

Can't think of any pure online companies that are doing this. Personally, I don't see this taking off. Most online retailers use USPS for last mile delivery as it stands now. If I might ask, why are you interested specifically in this? interested?

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2019/04/update-on-money-demand-currently-stable.html As always, Scott put out a few high quality posts this month. Regards

Curious on your thesis for shorting VBK?

Columbus, OH

Could you expand on this a little? Liquidity is coming almost entirely from the underwriting group, the issues are being priced at slightly below market (to evidence a marketing bump on issue), and underwriters are focused on volume (fees) - not quality. Get as much out the door as possible before the opportunity closes, and dump the inventory as quietly as possible. SD I see, definitely a good point. Ever since Venture Capital money has come into play, IPO's have been well, "disingenuous." These companies come out of the gates with massive valuations its hard to see how they are't set up for failure. Not sure if anyone watches the HBO series "Silicon Valley." But this show highlights some of these issues, such as being overvalued when you IPO. Also it's just a damn funny show.

Could you expand on this a little?

Even if we were to wait 1000 years for better sample sizes how accurate would the data even be? I'm not a fan of historical averages. I mean look at how the world has changed in the last 50 years. There are far too many variables in my opinion to draw any type of conclusion which would make me feel confident in averaging a 7% return. The time is now and whatever the return now is what we will get. I think putting more effort into real time vs historical time is far more important. But there still is value in terms of historical perspectives. Especially when it comes to policies, and psychological/sociological trends (Which can be hard to justify at times as well.) I'll leave this skyline montage to simply show how much places in Asia, SA, and the Middle East have changed. Certainly these have effects on today's economy compared to the early 1900's when the populations were low all over and countries were more nationally focused. http://the-technology-tips.blogspot.com/2014/03/20-skylines-of-world-then-vs-now.html

Greg, I agree completely. People shouldn't be thin skinned. But censorship wasn't the purpose. It was more to protect the sanctity and purpose of the forum to keep it from getting overrun like every other forum that has fallen due to this exact thing. But you're right, it's probably best to just ignore and move along. Regards,

Glad to be here John! In short I did not create this post assuming I had some democratic power haha. I am new to this site so my insight to the effectiveness of the political section is limited. The main reason I posted this was because I noticed a lot of people complaining about political posts and how they were beginning to bleed into other topics. Believe me, I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. But that doesn't mean a forum created for a specific purpose shouldn't be moderated. In the end I just want what the members want. Nobody seemed to raise the question so i thought why not? I was pretty excited to find this site as it seemed to be much more focused and had much more knowledgeable members than other forums. I get where you're coming from, but at the same time this forum isn't limiting ones ability to partake in free speech elsewhere. Politics certainly have a big influence on our investments and in an earlier post I said it should be completely fine to have political discussion if it relates to investing in some way. But I hardly can see how discussing Jesse Smollett would affect my investments. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a place void of political discussion simply to discuss investments. Viking had a good point. It's not easy to handle. But you have to weigh the cost benefit. In the end, I don't have strong opinions one way or another. I can see both sides to the argument which backs up the difficulty of the situation. As John pointed out this isn't a democratic forum (I guess?) but at the same time you think some people (long time members) would have a say. I think Sanjeev makes the best point as to why it exists. But I think it would be beneficial to have "politics" hidden by default so it's not thrust on new members immediately. Self-policing is probably how I will move forward regarding my interactions. Again, to all I don't want to cause any "angst." Just something I picked up on as a new member with a fresh view. Regards

That was my thought at first as well. And politics is easy to get sucked into. I think having the thread kind of pulls you in. But I wasn't here before so I cant really say and I trust what others say about it being better now. I think at the very least the "Political Section" should be hidden from view as a default.