Liberty

I've seen both sides of the argument.. I ended up falling on the side of using sunscreen and getting more Vit D through supplementation. I think humans throughout evolutionary time mostly didn't live long enough to worry too much about skin cancers and skin aging (the sun will make your skin visibly age much faster), a lot of the problems happened after reproduction age, which is an evolutionary blind spot, and throughout most of that time most humans probably had darker skin pigmentation than I do, which also provides some natural protection. There's also issues with the ozone layer being damaged in post-industrial times (some of that has been partially corrected by banning CFCs and such, but not entirely). That's my vague understanding of the situation. I still get plenty of sun without sunscreen, but if I know I'm going to be out for a long time in the sun not being covered too much, I always try to wear good sunscreen now. Excellent points! That makes a lot of sense. I was recently talking about evolution with a biology professor and she made the point that evolution cared (in terms of increasing your chances of survival) only if it helped in reproduction. That is why women live longer than men, because older women help their daughters care for the children, which in turn led to women having more children. So evolutionary wise there is an advantage for mothers to have their grand mother live longer. Men, apparently no so much :) Thank you! Vinod It's not quite as simple as that, but yes, things that tend to happen after reproduction don't get encoded (or at least, not directly, which also leads to the interesting stuff in epigenetic).. That's why aging and the diseases of aging aren't programmed, but rather, a blind spot that evolution hasn't had a time to solve against because for most of humanity's existence, there were few very old people, and they didn't reproduce. There can be secondary effects, like having longer-lived adults helping the germ-line indirectly (ie. grand-parents increasing the chance of survival of their grand-kids).. I'm no expert, but I remember that at the time (10-12 years ago), I learned a lot from this series of posts: https://www.lesswrong.com/s/MH2b8NfWv22dBtrs8 Of course reading Darwin's Origins of Species is recommended as a good starting point, but this book is also a good place to learn: https://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Natural-Selection-Christopher-Williams/dp/0691026157

I've seen both sides of the argument.. I ended up falling on the side of using sunscreen and getting more Vit D through supplementation. I think humans throughout evolutionary time mostly didn't live long enough to worry too much about skin cancers and skin aging (the sun will make your skin visibly age much faster), a lot of the problems happened after reproduction age, which is an evolutionary blind spot, and throughout most of that time most humans probably had darker skin pigmentation than I do, which also provides some natural protection. There's also issues with the ozone layer being damaged in post-industrial times (some of that has been partially corrected by banning CFCs and such, but not entirely). That's my vague understanding of the situation. I still get plenty of sun without sunscreen, but if I know I'm going to be out for a long time in the sun not being covered too much, I always try to wear good sunscreen now.

This is a bit different, but I thought this interview with Tom Catena, a MD doing medicine in Soudan, was pretty amazing: https://peterattiamd.com/tomcatena/ The topic might not interest you at first glance, but give it a try, at least 10-15 minutes.

Liberty, Thanks for all the bringing all the sleep resources into this thread. Very helpful. I know you have mentioned something about Vitamin D. Could you please share any resources that you found helpful in this area? I mostly follow the evolutionary logic that it is best to be in line with whatever humans have evolved over the thousands of years. This goes for both diet and sleep as well and your thinking seems to be similar as well. What I do not understand with Vitamin D debate is how we might not be getting enough of it. Is it related to not being as much outdoors? Sorry for the diversion, but if you want me to send a PM, I would do so. Thanks Vinod Indeed, we're indoors a lot more, wear more clothes, many of us live at higher latitudes than is ideal, etc. We also produce less of it as we age. Ideally, you'd get a blood test to see your serum levels and then take supplementation to bring your levels to within the optimal range (take gelcaps - not dry tablets - at mealtime, as it is fat-soluble and better absorbed with food). I don't have the studies and research I did at the time handy, but that should all be fairly easy to find. I take 5,000 UI/day during the summer and 6-8,000 UI/day during the winter (I'm a 6'1" male in Canada, YMMV).

A few ones I heard recently: Two on sugar/fructose and impacts on metabolic syndrome, NAFLD, diabetes, various diseases, etc: https://peterattiamd.com/roblustig/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ Two on nuclear fusion: http://omegataupodcast.net/22-nuclear-fusion-at-mpi-fur-plasmaphysik/ http://omegataupodcast.net/157-fusion-at-iter/

Matthew Walker recent post responding to some of the questions/criticisms: https://sleepdiplomat.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/why-we-sleep-responses-to-questions-from-readers/

I saw 'Knives Out' (2019, Rian Johnson) and really liked it. It was pure delight.

Few response can also mean much smaller companies that are familiar to very few people. Doesn't mean the ideas can't be appreciated by those few that found them, though (lots of lurkers on this forum, more numerous than posters, I'm sure), even if that's not critical mass to spark a lot of discussion. Doesn't always mean that smaller companies do better, though. AAPL up almost 80% this year, f.ex., and up a fair bit since the thread was created. Same for GOOG and others..

Only a small subset of people post on those, though, and there's probably some self selection (more chances of posting about good ones than bad ones), so it doesn't solve much.

Is it soapy with exaggerated overacting? I've recently watched, again, Ken Burns' The Civil War. Fantastic, as always. The Expansion season 4 and The Witcher are coming soon, looking forward to both. I don’t think “The Crown” has any overacting, I found the acting exquisite. It’s a bit like Downton Abbey in a way, except all the characters and events are real. The season 1 was slow at times and I almost thought I would skip and look for something else, but Season 2 and especially Season 3 got better and better. Speaking of the UK, I just finished watching all 3 seasons of "Harlots" on Hulu. Good show. If you like UK stuff I would highly recommend "Endeavor" and "Inspector Lewis." Excellent acting, great character development. Endeavor tends to have a little bit too complicated plots, but the best characters and acting. Fleabag is great too, on Amazon Prime Video.

I gave up on Killing Eve on episode 4 of season 2. Season one was really good, the first couple of S2 showed some promise, but I think writing took a dive... Makes sense I guess since P.W.B. wasn't involved with S2. Saw the first two episodes of The Crown and am liking it so far. Quality production all around (acting, photography, direction, costumes, locations, etc).

Buybacks are not a cause, they're a symptom. Symptom of lots of cash on the balance sheet that can't be reinvested at good returns right now, so returned to shareholders. If it didn't come out as buybacks, it would either be higher dividends (which also tend to increase valuations as they rise), or more investments which would probably lead to higher growth, which also has an impact on valuations (unless the ROIC is under WACC or generally destroys value).

Video of the 50-min interview here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-12-18/druckenmiller-on-2020-outlook-monetary-policy-u-s-election-video

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/stanley-druckenmiller-says-he-couldnt-have-been-more-wrong-this-year.html

Kevin Kelly interviewing Marc Andreessen (dec 12, 2019):

Got this from the author of the paper, who wanted to post here but didn't have an account, so I'm posting it for him: If you want to get in touch, he's at:

Good time to bump this up. I currently have 13 CPU cores running Rosetta@home 24/7. Here's a recent presentation by Dr. David Baker about computational protein design (he's the head of Baker Lab at U. Washington, where Rosetta software is being developed):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nq78cSnol3I/TTmuP9JGAKI/AAAAAAAABfQ/jJq0eaNwWfY/s1600/Norris-popup.jpg

https://www.seilernfunds.com/files/file/view/id/594 I thought this was interesting. Via

I enjoyed it too, seen as one more episode of the show, an epilogue. Those expecting "a movie", something fundamentally different and of much larger scale, will probably be disappointed.

I actually just got through Halt and Catch Fire after your recommendation. Me getting through a TV series is a feat in and of itself. Overall I liked this show. Seasons 1 and 3 were great. Season 1 in particular was amazing. Season 2 was terrible IMO. Basically a frat house with daytime drama and relationship bs. Season 4 kinda sucked as well IMO. After a while, you also kind of just roll your eyes at how the story continues to push ahead. First these guys stole the IBM product, and would've/could've/should've been the ones to create the Mac. Then, they basically developed Ebay. Next they invent Google. Like I wasn't around that environment and dont know what it was like in that space; maybe everyone in SV was really all on the cusp of creating the same things...but I dont buy it. Keep it grounded in reality. You dont need to have Joe McMillan stare off into the distance, and dramatically deliver a "what if...we took.......(insert major tech them that emerged half a decade later)" in EVERY SEASON. Glad you (partially) enjoyed it. I still haven't finished season 1, but so far I like it. Got side-tracked with other things (Barry, Succession, Killing Eve -- all enjoyable so far).

New podcast interview with Mauboussin: https://www.jimruttshow.com/michael-mauboussin/

Good new interview of Peter Attia by Tim Ferriss: https://tim.blog/2019/11/27/peter-attia-fasting-metforming-longevity/

If you don't want to think about it, just get low-cost ETF indexes. It's the most sensible thing to do. Expenses of 1% or 2% are a big deal if you expect the market to return 6-9% a year. That's a huge chunk of your return that you're paying in fees. You can take out your compound interest calculator to see how much the delta widens over 20-30-40 years. Most mutual funds and hedge funds don't beat the indexes. Would you pay them 10-20-30% of your "profits" each year for trying, money that wont be compounding for decades to come? Maybe you're really good a picking managers that outperform, in which case, go for it, but since you're asking for recommendations, I'm guessing that picking money managers isn't your specialty, so don't expect to outperform that easily there too. If if was that easy to do prospectively (not in hindsight), everybody would do it.

The Gavin Baker interview on ILTB was great. The two before that, with the Instragram co-founders and with the Spotify CEO were also great.