Sweet

To the specific claims: 1) Do you have a comparison of co-sleeping vs cot sleeping? 2) Do you know what’s the cause of the difference? Is the answer no? You didn't post anything about that. Some quotes from some of your articles: "In global terms, the idea of "training" babies to sleep alone and unaided is uncommon. Modern Mayan mothers, for example, expressed shock when they heard that in the US, babies were put to sleep in a separate room. But in North America, Australia and parts of Europe, many families swear by some form of the technique" - sleep training doesn't have to mean putting your baby alone in a separate room. What are you talking about? "Instead, it’s the expectation that babies will have night-wakings and the family’s “village” will help, whether it means getting up with the baby at night or allow Mom to nap during the day." - it's the expectation of every parent that babies will get up through the night, it's a strawman to suggest anything different. "In many countries, parents and children share the same bed for several years. This is the case in many Asian countries — babies sleep with their parents until they’re toddlers, and at that point, they move to their own small bed near their parents’ bed" - so they aren't co-sleeping after a certain age and they are being sleep trained like everyone else. "In many cultures, cosleep­ing is the norm until children are weaned" - also not co-sleeping and also involves sleep training. "In the Western world, co-sleeping isn’t exactly the norm. Here in the West, we tend to sleep our babies in cribs, in a separate nursery. Room-sharing is still popular the first 6 months or so, but other forms of co-sleeping (like co-sleeping long-term, or bed-sharing) are still more on the rare side among Western moms." - this article says co-sleeping isn't the norm, and then contradicts itself in the next sentence by saying room sharing is popular and is a form of co-sleeping. "Cosleeping is practiced in a variety of ways around the world. In Latin America, the Philippines, and Vietnam, some parents sleep with their baby in a hammock next to the bed" - since when is this co-sleeping? If this is co-sleeping then the vast majority of parents of Western parents will co-sleep too, therefore the claim that Westerners don't co-sleep is wrong. "Many experts see this as a strong argument for using sleep training to ultimately boost the whole family's wellbeing. "If we're not healthy and functioning as parents, it's very hard to look after our children and give them the love and parenting that they need" - plenty of pro-sleep training arguments in your own link.

Yes so there are some things in human history which we used to do which are good and others which we now frown upon. So let’s not herald prior human practices as proof it’s the right thing to do.

Cool - lots of anecdotes. Co-sleeping in the Western countries is associated with a higher risk of SIDS, that’s a fact. It could be different in Asia. 1) Do you have a comparison of co-sleeping vs cot sleeping? 2) Do you know what’s the cause of the difference? (Note - babies normally sleep in a cot beside the parents bed, not as some of you seem to imagine at the other end of the house). Most people in other countries don’t let their baby cry? That’s an extraordinary claim - why should I believe you? And most people in other countries don’t sleep train their babies - evidence please? Is sleep training needed? I can’t speak for everyone so I won’t because I have no idea. I do know this, from our case of twins, one was a great sleeper the other a very light sleeper. The light sleeper would briefly wake during sleep cycles and cry, wouldn’t take the bottle, just didn’t like to be alone. Ferber method allows the baby to cry for a bit, but lets them know they aren’t alone by picking them up at planned intervals. Two days of this (yes only two) and he slept much better then on, he was more rested during the day, cried way less, and mum was better rested and could provision better care. But apparently we are terrible parents even though all results in our case suggest it’s beneficial for our baby. Sleep training is not just ‘letting your baby cry’ - that’s cruel.

Largely my own experience. I tried it for years. There are small edges in the market but it’s god awful boring and it doesn’t suit my personality. I gave up on it and just only do investing now. Some people just can’t buy on big drops they like confirmation signals. It’s not for me. It clear some guys like Druckenmiller use technical analysis alongside their fundamental analysis.

My only point about TA is that you initially said they always work at cross purposes to each other. That depends entirely how it is used, for the most part I would agree but there are systems that combine them. Regarding value investing, and predictions. I think in many cases we are predicting future price through valuation. Some companies don’t pay a dividend so we depend on the market quoting a reasonable price. Unlike the Buffetts of the world we plebs aren’t buying entire companies and are at the mercy of management and market quotes.

Only if you are using technical analysis to trade and invest. If you are using a fundamental filter, like value, then that’s your predictive tool. In this case, the technicals are NOT trying to predict the future, your valuation is doing that. The technicals just get you in and maybe out.

Human parents have co-slept throughout history, and that’s good? Human parents spanked throughout history, and that’s bad? Co-sleeping is strongly associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in young children. There are probably safer ways to co-sleep but the risk of SIDS is still higher. Reason enough to not co-sleep because dead kids definitely don’t develop well. Not sure why all the talk about co-sleeping parents caring more then.

Didn’t realise so many in the board had young children. It’s hell at times, let’s be honest.

As mentioned, co-sleeping is a mistake. Ferber crying out method worked for us. Every baby is different though.

Yes TA cannot save you from poor analysis, I’d say TA is worthless if applied randomly. It’s not if it provides you with entry signals and if it saves you from considerable drawdowns if you can position better / time entries better. There is actually a way to use TA which is complementary with value investing. You are coming at this from the perspective that TA predicts the future - I don’t believe it does or even can. In my opinion the biggest benefit of TA is letting you know how the trend is doing.

Not ‘always’. Some value investing opportunities go lower, sometimes much lower. Applying something like a moving average crossover to enter a position might save you from a significant drawdown in at least some instances. Not hard to find charts which show exactly that. Use your example Meta, it dropped 50% and then another 50%. When was the appropriate time to enter? $95 sure but how many entered much higher to have a significant drawdown? Few. Apply a 20 and 5 moving average on Meta to enter and you do well. Technical analysis isn’t necessarily predicting the future for many it’s about position entry and risk control.

Technicals and value investing do not always work at cross purpose. They can interact and complement each other if designed that way. For example, I have heard of some people who use value investing for picking companies and the technicals as exits and entries.

I’m fairly sure that the recent sightings are either sophisticated propaganda or US technologies. There is a telling contrast between the response of the US government to the Chinese spy balloon and these unknown vehicles routinely intercepted in US airspace and which on at least one occasion nearly collided with a US fighter jet. The US government don’t really seem to care that their airspace is violated by unknown objects on a regular basis. There doesn’t appear to have been a serious attempt to find out what the objects are, who owns them, or to get their hands on one. The Chinese spy balloon was shot down but there is no sign of any attempt to down these objects. So I think the answer is sort of obvious. The US government know exactly what the objects are because it’s their craft or their propaganda.

Of course what happened matter, intent is important. Most people on Jan 6th where there to voice their support for Trump. And anger. Trump was the sitting President, it was his administration, why the heck are supporters of Trump staging an insurrection or coup when their boy is still in power?

So why would anyone ever lend to anyone again in China?

I don’t agree with you. People get hurt in a riots and rioters themselves are criminals. Trump crossed a line, deserves punishment, isn’t fit for office… agree…. but separate from the rioters at the capitol that day. Also wrong was the three year of lies and bs about Russia collusion. I think Trump had reasonable grounds for calling it a witch-hunt. Why can’t both be wrong? Why can’t we dispassionately and accurately appraise events - in the long run nobody will take your views seriously if you can’t. To me you’re espousing the opposite view of those conspiracy and 4chan nuts who think Trump won the election. Blind adherence to your team - what’s the difference except the team? Your team tried to unseat a sitting President with lies - have you called it out? Your team want to make a riot into a coup - really? I was sitting in Newark airport watching CNN call it a ‘coup’, I remember thinking nobody in the airport gave a fuck. The media in America is garbage. It doesn’t report the news it creates narratives and pits people against each other. I swear it’s the root of so much polarisation.

Parsad, I’m not American, so take it for what you will. I don’t know anybody outside of the US who thinks the Jan 6th riot was anything more than a riot. ‘Insurrection or coup’ is a narrative dreamed up largely by US media. Real insurrections and coups are by actual soldiers and military, not by a rag tag motley crew of idiotic Trump supporters.

Growth because of the West’s embrace, let’s remember that. Despite that growth still significantly behind the rest of the world. You say America had more time to industrialise - really? China is one of the oldest countries in the planet. Come on, it’s an obvious soft spot. Xi is no Plato, and Plato didn’t know even half of what we know today.

Peter Lynch is great.

Growth for all, really? Inequality in China is large. In America the poorest are are probably wealthier than the average Chinese. You really do have a soft spot for the CCP. Why should anyone like Xi deserve power for as long he wants?

Probably, I’m not sure much of what Berkshire buys and sells is Warren or Charlie anymore. Hard to know what to make of the 13Fs now.

buying home builders

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-20-dividend-stocks-have-been-the-best-income-growers-in-the-s-p-500-fd6ccc26?mod=home-page

Possibly in big cities like others have said but I personally don’t see myself ever giving up a car. It’s just too handy. I also don’t trust those autopilot cars. I can see it being a thing in some areas though, I know several people who don’t own a car and see no interest in having one.

Might be a catalyst behind the China weakness - Western companies moving operations elsewhere? A lot of these economic and housing woos can be masked by a booming economy, but when the economy slows its a double or triple whammy as these weak areas roll over.