Jurgis

Yup. Ok, if you review all of my posts, I think you may feel otherwise. I joined this forum to have active dialogue on individual stocks. Find the holes in the story and lets debate them as it tends to lead to better decision making. I didn't join to be accused of "pumping" a stock. Blatant pumps are my favorite short term trades. This is anything but that. I maintain that I have been very clear on the downsides and the fact that every microcap is inherently risky. I agree with globalfinancepartners: you come through as very promotional. Maybe you have good intentions. Maybe you are just excited about this company and the opportunity. And, yes, you did disclose your position. But still you have posts only on a single company and all of them very positive. Good luck. Disclosure: No interest in the company and stock.

https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story-horror-story/

Unfortunately a lot of pharmas do this nowadays. :-\

https://medium.com/swlh/definitive-list-of-50-books-to-understand-everything-in-the-universe-6d04f1a08533 Pretentious title, but the list has some (a lot of?) books mentioned here, so perhaps others might be interesting too... 8)

I might not be terribly concerned about anti-Americanism, but I wonder about a bit related thing. As everyone knows (parts of) Google and Facebook are not available in China. Apple says that data on their devices is encrypted with no backdoors even for state level actors. What is to stop China from demanding that either Apple provides them with backdoor or Apple devices are banned in China? What would Tim Cook do? There are arguments of why China would never do this. But IMO it's not outside realm of possibility. It would hurt China, but would also accomplish couple goals: supporting local phone manufacturers and getting rid of secure platform for dissidents. If they can ban Google and FB, then why not Apple? I highly doubt that the security of any consumer device can withstand capable code crackers from a state like China. Presumably Apple device withstood (it's more complicated, but I'm simplifying) attempts of FBI. Next step: Apple complies. CIA/FBI/US congress/etc. want to know why there's no backdoor for them in Apple devices sold in US.

I might not be terribly concerned about anti-Americanism, but I wonder about a bit related thing. As everyone knows (parts of) Google and Facebook are not available in China. Apple says that data on their devices is encrypted with no backdoors even for state level actors. What is to stop China from demanding that either Apple provides them with backdoor or Apple devices are banned in China? What would Tim Cook do? There are arguments of why China would never do this. But IMO it's not outside realm of possibility. It would hurt China, but would also accomplish couple goals: supporting local phone manufacturers and getting rid of secure platform for dissidents. If they can ban Google and FB, then why not Apple?

This is a witch hunt. Weak journalists with fake news trying to stop strong businesswoman from making America great again. Jeff Bezos did it to not pay taxes. The blood test was really great. And used on the biggest crowd. She should be immediately pardoned.

I think you guys are overconfident. BRK has fallen 50% top to bottom 2 or 3 times in its history. It can happen again. And if Warren was dead, there's no guarantee it would recover from 50% drop. ::) 0.6x (+/-) book would be AWESOME! I'd probably mortgage my home 4 that. You clearly forget that when stocks owned by BRK fall, book also falls.

Although I agree that WW2 was a war with really clear moral purpose, there were a bunch of past wars that were purposeless too. WW1, for example, seems to have been pretty pointless... although some people might disagree. With WW2 it's interesting how well the defeated nations picked themselves up. Germany, Japan, even Italy. I still think it's amazing that coming out of WW2 a lot of former enemies became mostly friends (minus Soviet camp) and were integrated into global community.

Tuesday purchase was majority of the shares are would've come before the T/TWX decision unless he somehow got a big block after hours. Maybe he did the same thing people did with TWX: bought before decision.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/13/17453994/amazon-alexa-prize-2018-competition-conversational-ai-chatbots Like the article says, chatbots, including the winner one that you can try on Alexa, are pretty crappy still.

I think you guys are overconfident. BRK has fallen 50% top to bottom 2 or 3 times in its history. It can happen again. And if Warren was dead, there's no guarantee it would recover from 50% drop. ::)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/meet-erik-finman-the-teenage-bitcoin-millionaire

You mean Masa Son? Yeah, some of his investments are head scratchers. Then, Vision Fund is not (just) his (Softbank's) money. Then, Vision Fund structure is pretty funky and Softbank could be bag holder. Then, some of his exits are pretty great.

AFAIK, Scandinavian banks in Lithuania pretty much mint money. There's almost no competition and they can gouge customers as much as they want. But then Lithuania is a small market - and that's the reason there's no competition - so maybe it doesn't move the needle much.

Not directly about FB, but related and I did not want to start a new thread: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/13/17446660/mozilla-firefox-pocket-recommendations-ceo-nate-weiner-interview-converge-podcast I use Firefox Pocket recos and it's pretty good and interesting. (Some links I posted came from there). Not perfect, but not bad so far. How it works: https://help.getpocket.com/article/1142-firefox-new-tab-recommendations-faq

https://jalopnik.com/dominos-is-fixing-americas-crappy-roads-for-pizza-safet-1826736405

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/magazine/veterans-ptsd-drone-warrior-wounds.html

OT? Seems like a theme. If Ukraine had held onto their (Soviet Union's really) nukes instead of giving them up, they'd still have Crimea. Or we'd have a nuclear wasteland in the middle of Europe. Don't give up nukes. Ever. © Kim Jong Un.

I think you are right that the competition in this is growing exponentially (lol, I just love when someone says "exponentially" especially in bull case writeup ;D I need to do this exponentially more often ;D ). And that's definitely an issue, because backtesting will mostly test on data where there were way fewer competitors affecting the market. So you may get good historical results, but the future performance will be crap. Of course what really matters is if the real-money algos are saturating and killing the prediction edge or not. This is tough to measure. I'm sure the hardcore funds have some kind of metrics of noticing when algo gets "exhausted" to shut it off or whatever. But this is where basic theory is not sufficient I'd say. Anyway, thanks for input.

I find comments like this quite funny. Yes, go ahead and do it. It's easy to write a forum post saying "oh this is an old idea with no moat". It's not that easy to actually get it done and raise these $35B. So if you believe you can do it, go ahead. You'll get the $35B and we'll cheer your success. 8)

No. First, you can't - or you shouldn't - cross validate in conventional sense, since you should not apply algo trained on the future data to the past data. At least these guys don't do it and IMO that's a correct approach. I guess you can do limited cross validation with that restriction, but it limits your data amount possibly a lot, which means worse training and worse results I'd guess (see below too). They do something clever, but they don't explain it well, so it may be "really smart" or "really not helpful" . Well, first I assume you already split data into training/dev/test set, yes? So you should not overfit, otherwise you won't get good results on test data. Second, why you assume that you train/test on only rising markets? There's data for more than that... you can test on data that includes 2007-2009 crash, no? :) Though I agree that there are issues: 1. Depending on what you are training/etc. there might be not-much data. E.g. if you train on daily prices, and you have 10 years of data, that's ~3.5K data points, which is quite low when you think about NN training sets. 2. Even if you include times with crashes, there might be only 1-2 big crashes per training/test data, which is also quite sparse in terms of data... so yeah, there's a risk that a "different" downturn/crash/whatever may not be handled (well). I don't think this is the case, but as I said, I have other reservations. No, I don't have slack. 8) But if you guys want to move further discussion to a limited group, we can organize something. 8)

Buffett in red jacket... that's a first... 8)

ISRG has always been expensive. There always has been questions about addressable market, growth, etc. Not saying it's a buy or that I have answers. It's yet another stock that I have bought and held briefly in the past, sold at some gain instead of holding long term for huge gains. No position right now.

They are shutting down US Congress? ... ... Oh wait, nvm.