Posts
Comments
I understand your struggle. I dream of being able to coherently communicate my ideas in a structured, understandable and dare I say convincing manner. I succeed when I start with an idea, write it down and start adding notes, ideas and talking points. Then I start fleshing out the ideas, asking myself how can I explain that concept or idea, whilst building an evolving narrative. Usually what starts as a mess of notes evolves into something coherent when I put myself in the position of the reader, asking myself i) what am I trying to communicate; and ii) am I sure this is clear to the reader.
Reading your post, it’s obvious that you know how to communicate clearly. Half the battle is having the courage (and the time) to get started. Just do it! Hope that helps.
Meditation and morning pages / journaling are 2 things that I regularly do. I have found that meditation is helpful for focus and clearing my mind. Morning pages has made me much better at understanding my thought processes and resolving issues I may have, whether personal or professional. When I started them both I wasn’t sure what the result would be but now as I practice they are both super useful tools that have improved my life.
Relative pitch and absolute pitch are 2 different skills. While most people can learn relative pitch, some people say that absolute is genetic and can’t be learnt. I don’t believe this is true (at least in my case). My technique is to learn songs that start on a specific pitch (C for example) and internalise the pitch, imagine the sound and try to sing it before comparing with the original. Try this exercise every morning, take notes and see if you improve over time.
If you have your booster then the symptoms of omicron will likely be mild. Anecdotally I just recovered from O after booster and my symptoms were so mild that if I hadn’t tested, I wouldn’t have known. My two unboosted friends suffered more with 3-5 days of flu-like symptoms. My decision was to get my booster, take hi-dose vitamin D and get on with my life, although everyone will have to make their own cost benefit analysis based on personal health situation, whether they can afford 5 (or 7 or 10 depending on country) days quarantine.
I’m not an immunologist so can’t talk of the efficacy of various vaccine strategies which seem unclear at the moment, but I ask myself - what is the opportunity cost of not getting a booster now? If we assume that omicron boosters will be available in (at best) 3-4 months, and then given to elderly or immunocompromised people first, the chance of me getting an omicron booster in the next 6 months is low. Weigh that against the chance of getting omicron covid in the next 6 months. Looking at the data, we can already establish that omicron is more contagious and looking at increases in infection rates in Europe over the last few weeks along with the fact that omicron will (probably) soon become the dominant strain, I’ll take a small increase in immunity now over a potentially larger one in 6 months when the omicron wave may be over. That’s just my risk calculation though - I got moderna booster yesterday. YMMV
As the saying goes, “it’s time in the market, not timing the market”. There is a lot of research that says that market timing is incredibly difficult and most people fail to do it successfully.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmoore/2016/03/07/the-myth-of-market-timing/
Also your assumption that the fed will raise interest rates to control inflation assumes that low inflation is their actual goal rather than just their stated goal. This months ARP newsletter has an excellent analysis of why higher inflation might be their desired outcome : https://www.arpinvestments.com/arl/why-much-wealth-must-be-confiscated
Furthermore, if you have already sold all your stocks, you are already sitting on a potential 30% gain if your assumptions play out. Shorting the market is a high risk leveraged strategy that could leave you with large losses if the market goes sideways, or continues to rise over the next months.
To be clear I do think that a significant market correction is coming, however as someone who tried (and failed) to successfully time investments during the dotcom bubble and in much of the decade after, I am much more comfortable being fully invested, knowing that whatever happens short term, this is the easiest, and lowest risk way (for me - based on my investment profile and personality) to maximise my returns long-term.
Good luck in any case!
Or just put a checklist in your travel bag. I recommend the small refillable bottles that you can get at places like muji (no idea if muji is a thing where you are) as they mean I can just take enough for a weekend or one week , keep volume to a minimum and allow me to take my bag as carry-on. Having spares is a great reason to do this though.
This seems a little harsh. Sure Wikipedia has many rules, mostly to prevent bias or people pushing agendas. It’s not perfect, but in general I have found it to be a reliable, neutral source of information especially in controversial subjects such as Middle East politics for example.
Also research shows that Wikipedia is a reliable source https://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/ although I’m sure you can find research that shows the opposite.
And as the original poster says, if you find something inaccurate, spend 5 minutes to give back and fix it. I have made hundreds of small edits and maybe only a handful have been deleted / rolled back
I can’t talk about your specific examples of course but I would trust (cited) articles on Wikipedia above most sources on the web.
Seems like you’re looking for anecdotes rather than data which strikes me as strange for a purported rationalist. The plural of anecdote may be data, but the quality of those data will be low. If it helps, I had one dose of AZ and had minimal side effects (slight headache, tiredness) that were gone in under 24 hours.
The risk of death from covid after vaccination is near zero and this seems to be the case despite the variants. The vaccines all seem to be holding up well against the variants so your friends info is anecdote not data. If you’re still worried, keep wearing a mask, taking vitamin d and avoid large gatherings with people of unknown vaccination status. Apart from that, assuming you are living in an area with high vaccinations rates, just get on with your life. I would suggest that the risk to your mental health from continued isolation is higher than the risk of long covid.
There are 2 ways to interpret this :
- people will be 95% protected from Covid
- 95% of people will be protected from covid
The reality is probably somewhere in between with some people being 100% protected and a small number with much lower protection.
As River mentioned, this was the reduction in reported symptoms during the trials last year. The situation this year is likely to be different due to the variants and also the length of time since people got their jab, with immunity levels likely to decline slowly over time, hence the possible requirement to get a further booster shot in the next 6-12 months
TL;DR. It probably doesn’t matter too much, but there’s little risk and potentially a small upside in terms of total immunity in waiting up to 12-16 weeks for the second dose, at the cost of lower immunity while you wait. Prob not worth worrying about.
The period of 3 weeks between vaccine shots was chosen to minimise the time to complete the trials, not to maximise the efficacy of the vaccine.
To a certain extent I would say that it doesn’t matter when you get the second shot, as you’ve already done the most important part in getting the first shot. You’re no longer going to die of Covid. However I guess that you are trying to maximise both the efficacy of the vaccination and the duration of the protection.
Here it’s difficult to have a clear view because the situation is evolving rapidly and you also have to weigh the advantage of increasing your protection from (say) 80 -> 94% rapidly against the potential added benefits of waiting 3 months. And this with the continued uncertainty of the variants and knowing that you will probably need another shot within the next 6-12 months.
I can’t currently find research for Pfizer but for AZ research shows that a gap of 12 weeks between doses leads to higher protection https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268
This is likely also true of all vaccines. The trade-off is the lower protection while you wait.
The reduction comes from the passage of time. Let’s say that a company predicts 10% growth over the year but 6 months into the year they have an equivalent annual growth rate of 2%. That doesn’t mean that they won’t make 10% at the end of the year, but it makes it less likely, so the value of the company changes to reflect that new reality. It’s important to define risk and uncertainty. Risk in this case means probability of winning or loosing something, and can be measured, whereas uncertainty is about the lack of information about a situation and can not be measured as it is unknown. Uncertainty is reduced as more knowledge is gained about reality and as long-term risks become short-term risks, due to the passage of time, only to be replaced with new longer term risks. There are some really interesting concepts around the future value of money, opportunity costs and how to value companies. I’d recommend coursera finance 101 courses.
One word : risk. There is uncertainty as to the company’s ability to provide that future revenue and as That uncertainty reduces, the stock price goes up.
Maybe we shouldn't (and a decision algorithm shouldn’t) put absolute (binary) limits on free speech, but should just reduce the exposure of ideas that have no scientific basis. Banning homeopathic information or research for example might mean that we miss out on a new discovery that we can’t measure today. “Turning down the volume” or reducing the ability to transmit ideas that have been proved (at least based on our current knowledge) to be scientifically invalid will stop people being fooled and wasting their money, or worse putting their health at risk. Similarly requiring proof or evidence for any scientifically-based argument would at least stop charlatans and con-artists for whom the truth is just getting in the way of them making a fast buck. Finally I want to reference Karl popper’s paradox of tolerance, which states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. In other words, there have to be limits on freedoms of speech. It’s not ok to shout “fire” in a theatre, nor is it ok to encourage your followers to subvert democracy by attempting an insurrection, to take a relevant recent example.
It’s unlikely that a human would be better than an AI at diagnosing covid as we already know that AI outperforms doctors on other diagnoses including breast cancer for example https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50857759
Of course everyone thinks they are excessively cautious drivers : https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/
As to how I am dealing with risks - by making decisions based on the best available information. The risk of getting covid isn’t the same for all the population. Super spreader events are responsible for a large proportion of cases, and I am avoiding any possible super-spreader scenario. I don’t know anyone who has had covid in the past 5 months, so the risk of anyone I know having covid at the time I interact with them is extremely low. Add to that the interactions I have are few and far between, outside and respecting social distancing, and the personal risk of me contracting covid is vanishingly small. I personally would rather continue to take that small risk as the benefits of social interaction overweigh the costs.
Why $100 000 ? Surely a better question would be how to maximise fun for the smallest possible cost?
Interesting insight - could you explain why you think they are dubious and politically motivated ? Thks