You should never base your shorts on solely rational points (long-term rational points, even worse) when going short on bubbly assets.
Things like "Bitcoin is not a viable payment method, it's centralized, possibly manipulated, fueled by the greater fool" is not a valid shorting motive unless you have a triggering event caused by your aforementioned rational point.
Sure he tweets every time he pumps it up but are you confident he’ll give you (and all the rest of his followers) a heads up before he dumps it? I wouldn’t be. And for that reason alone it’s a fatally flawed investment strategy.
he just has to tweet something remotely bearish and the market craters
The last time he cracked a joke about BTC maxis and sure enough, the market dumped. When he talked about BTC's eco impact, it dumped hard as well. You can trace the pumps/dumps to the exact moment of his bearish/bullish tweets.
Either dedicate a room to study and work or change the environment when you have to
(like assigning a specific color with led lights). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snAhsXyO3Ck
If that doesn't work, I would go out and study in a library or park.
"I’ve had it so good in this world, you know. The odds were fifty-to-one against me being born in the United States in 1930. I won the lottery the day I emerged from the womb by being in the United States instead of in some other country where my chances would have been way different.
Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb, both equally bright and energetic. And the genie says to them, “One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be the one that is born in the United States?” It says something about the fact that society has something to do with your fate and not just your innate qualities. The people who say, “I did it all myself,” and think of themselves as Horatio Alger – believe me, they’d bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh. That’s the Ovarian Lottery." ― Warren Buffett
This point is moot. Saying that people randomly emerge in all countries implies the stage of pre-birth during which a person hasn't been born yet, but a roulette is about to decide its destination, gender and other traits. This is basically the soul theory and if it's true, the new "assignment" for that soul would be decided based on its earned qualities. Buddhism, in other words. If we reject this idea and state that each person gets created at the point of delivery, then that new person never had "odds of being born rich or poor" for there was no person whose fate would be decided.
No, it's really not. It's a thought experiment using a clearly fictitious mechanism to get the reader to consider what their experience might be like in completely different circumstances.
For the same reason It's A Wonderful Life and scifi about alternate universes don't have moot points.
This implies that the thing that gets the experience can be separated from one body and attached to another body. It's ridiculous to speculate what this Ford's experience would be if it was a Ferrari.
There is no rationale here to be found, You are comparing an insane bubble (Doge, etc.) to a regular bubble (Avalanche, etc.).
People have completely lost the value of money, do you realize how much money is $4.5 billion?
In 2007 Apple had a market cap of 80 billion and a P/E ratio of 26, it had revolutionary products on the market that were clearly going to change an entire industry while at the same time bringing in steady revenue, can you imagine how much it would be worth today in this bubble?
I could not agree more, I've been so heated over the last year looking for any sort of rationale but this greed fueled fake currency explosion is driving me insane. I understand the tech, I don not understand the hype.
Legumes to me are healthy, but i can't see them as 100% peak human food, you have to soak them for hours and many people get bloated, then there are also certain amounts of anti-nutrients.
I’m expecting truly engineered food to be a breakthrough over the next 100 years. Imagine people being able to eat something akin to a chocolate bar that has all the nutrients one would expect from a full meal. Protein shakes are close to this, but they are still just a mix of vegetables mostly (and the ones I drink have high sodium.) I know everyone is expecting lab grown meat, and I’m sure there will be some of that, but I think we aren’t thinking about the possibilities and it could be people in 300 years eat textures and flavors far better than anything we can imagine, while being as healthy as physically possible.
There is a media bias here, but it's not what you're implying. It is Israeli media picking up a story promoted by Israeli scientists. This is common practice for media in EMEA countries.
But most importantly, you're overlooking the authors' bias. 1st/last authors seem to be making an academic career on proving that humans are carnivores. 2nd author is a self-confessed fan of low-carb diets, and listed as the founder of a company offering a nutrition tracker based on the same principles.
Not exactly an unbiased trio. And without the hinges of peer-review that would stop them from making wide claims, I would skip the news article altogether.
And not being unbiased is probably why you won't see their research on international media, that would arguably be a bit more picky, having a wider selection of science stories to choose from.
While I don't disagree with your point I don't think you can state that someone being a fan of a low carb diet is not unbiased unless you also say that every single other piece of research on this topic is also biased if it's by someone not "being a fan of low carb diets" (IE. eating like almost everyone does).
