Wrong, unless you can prove otherwise. EVs cost a little more emissions to build but are widely regarded as breaking even with a gas car in 1-2years after production. And even shorter as grids decarbonize.
I would love to see a thorough, agreed upon study comparing ICEs and EVs. If you have hard data (say, from a reputable journal, not just the news), please post.
I looked at a few, and the overall consensus seems to be that at least EVs are not worse than ICEVs (and I suppose EVs will get efficient faster than ICEVs(.
China and their famously steady temperament would never be so bold as to try to own a dependent country or strategically weaponize trade. These are real things Canadians believe - talk about eye opening!
If a country tries to strategically weaponize trade that's something you can predict. That's what makes it strategic.
A predictable relationship is preferable to one where you need to keep wondering whether this week's threat of military action that could draw you into a war, is one of the ones that might actually happen.
Two years ago the same party that currently holds Canadian government and just made these concessions to China completed a report [0] that found
>[China’s actions] collectively "undermine our democratic institutions, our fundamental rights and freedoms, our social cohesion and our long-term prosperity.”[343] [and] the need to consider the threats in the context of an increasingly assertive PRC. Accordingly, Minister Garneau stated that various countries, including Canada, are reassessing their relationship with the PRC in light of its authoritarian and coercive actions.
But yeah a little chirping about Canada’s own unfair trade practices must be DEFCON 3 for US-Canada relations.
Nothing to do with “unfair, non-market policies and practices […] and China’s intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity and lack of rigorous labour and environmental standards”? I suppose that doesn’t even register anymore to the average selectively outraged parochial Canadian.
You'd be surprised the stink people can put up with when you have a leader to the south of us that is engaged in the kind of regressive behaviour that he/his administration is.
Not that I'm condoning this at all, I think China is a very concerning actor on the world stage. But I can certainly understand the mindset of many Canadians to reflexively seek out alternatives to more USA interdependence, short sighted as some of that may be.
Using the government propaganda press release is certainly a choice.
China has been engaging in "unfair, non-market policies and practices and intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity and lack of rigorous labour and environmental standards" for decades, but Canada only changed their minds when Biden told them to.
"You know, there’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say ‘we need to go green fastest…we need to start investing in solar" -- Justin Trudeau
Yeah, I'm sure he did it because he gives a fsck about human rights and fair markets.
American citizens being shot and brutalized by a state sponsored force of masked thugs without training. Sounds pretty clandestine to me and it's happening in us soil.
Ragebait would be trying to argue that China running secret police and propaganda operations on Canadian soil, against Canadian citizens, is in any way equivalent to a domestic force taking actions primarily against foreign nationals, in a statutorily authorized way within a legal framework that can be challenged.
There are many cases of law enforcement being imprisoned for shooting people while on duty. It is well established that enforcing laws does not give you carte blanche to shoot people
>We’ve looked at how our teams work best, and the data is clear: when people work together in person more often, they thrive — they are more energized, empowered, and they deliver stronger results.
Citation needed or this is just more vibe-xecutive decree.
Work at a fortune 200 company. We spent COVID all 100% remote WFH. After several quarters of their entire workforce working remotely, they were gushing about how productivity increased, satisfaction scores went through the roof and the company recorded several record breaking quarters in revenue during a time they expected the exact opposite to happen.
This inevitably lead them to having one helluva hard time trying to get people back into the office since they owned about a dozen buildings where the majority of their employees were supposed to be working. After a year and several attempts, they instead sold most of their real estate holdings and have since consolidated everybody into just a few buildings. The new rule is that if you are less than 30 mins from the office, you need to come in at least twice a week. Not a huge hurdle and so far, has been met with little if any resistance.
I have to give them credit. They tried ordering people back in, and ultimately pivoted and sold their real estate instead.
1. Will you name? Sounds like some sane management; those looking for jobs might find that a useful datapoint.
2. I think making it proportional to the length of the commute is an interesting idea. And even for those who don't like the office... two days a week with a short commute isn't terrible.
1. I can't name them, but they're in the health care industry.
2. Yeah, and all they're doing is taking badge reports. Going in for a Town Hall meeting or a team meeting meets these requirements. You're not required to be in the office a set number of hours - just be there. I've been told its a kind of reverse psychology trick. The more time you spend around your coworkers, grabbing lunch, collabing on little stuff, it will morph into a desire to want to be there more often and thus, the decision will then be yours that you want to be there - not some mandate coming from on high.
I think in a lot of ways its working. Last year, I'd go in for some tech support thing and the building was a ghost town. Barely anybody. This year? Totally different. The ramp is full, people are bustlin about, the cafeteria is packed. Its being around that atmosphere I think is what they want people to be more involved in. I've already had several team lunches on campus and instead of going home, we unpack our laptops and hammer out a few things, then head out. None of us are really there for more than a few hours, but it just feels like really productive face-time with your team.
I just think its cool how the company is just letting the employees figure out without a heavy handed approach and from what I can see, its working.
Honestly, it sounds like the drop-in-drop-out allowance is what makes this tick. Well, that and the short commute thing. You get the best of face-time collaboration without the "grind" of needing to punch a timecard. Just the best possible parts of in-person work, and nothing else. Plus, you get to time-shift so that commute stays nice and short.
it is obviously more nonsense. There is no way one single will approach will work for ALL employees. some people just do not want to spend 4hrs in commute on daily basis. and any senior employee with kids would prefer to spend more time with kid than on
and that is when Office does not hinder productivity through lack of team space, meeting rooms and open office non sense or seting up equipment.
There's no data that proves it. If they had the data they would parade it in front of everyone.
The elites that rule those companies always had WFH as a benefit for as long as I remember. They find it very icky that the underclasses have now a benefit that was exclusive to them. That's the only data there is.
Corporate analysts were "gifted" with a two impossibly rare step functions, that will probably never be repeated in our lifetimes: Near 100% -> near 0% percent in office, then 0% percent -> partial% in office. With most (all?) of the big companies following the same path, I think it's safe to assume the data points to the same conclusion: in whole, humans work better together.
It makes you wonder if it's a fundamental part of our evolution, or something. ;)
It would be very interesting to see their rational.
> With most (all?) of the big companies following the same path, I think it's safe to assume the data points to the same conclusion
That is, at best, very weak evidence supporting your conclusion.
I agree, by the way, that humans do work better together. That doesn't mean, however, that humans work better in an office environment. There are huge drawbacks to that environment that may very well exceed the benefit of physical proximity.
"Humans work better together" is a very different assertion than "humans work better in offices".
Given how I’ve worked and the developers I’ve worked with over the decades, marketeers or managers might work better in bunches but peace and quiet serves the developers. Offices with a door, few interruptions, etc. Rands has talked about being in the zone when working and anything that favours that should be provided by companies interested in software people.
> That is, at best, very weak evidence supporting your conclusion.
Please see the definition of "assume" to help you interpret what I wrote in a way that's closer to what I wrote/was trying to communicate.
Please also see the last sentence, that you missed entirely:
> It would be very interesting to see their rational.
This sentence strongly implies, nearly directly states, that I, in fact, do NOT know their rational.
What's your opinion? Why do you think they're all converging on the same policies? Do you think they're acting irrationally in opposition of data, or without data?
Then the work should be set up so that your teammates and project collaborators actually work from the same office, and not in the space that was most convenient to procure or in lower-cost offshore markets. But executives would pretty much always rather have you take video calls from your desk than incur any cost or inconvenience on their end. They're not acting like they believe this.
> I think it's safe to assume the data points to the same conclusion: in whole, humans work better together.
It makes you wonder if it's a fundamental part of our evolution, or something. ;)
Is that why we invented machines and AI that will replace humans?
This is right but missing that the goal of these corporate cultural proclamations is optimizing for people who are true believers in the mission. Whether that leads to better business outcomes than optimizing for really smart people who believe in work-life balance… I personally doubt.
This doesn't make sense. If you had a 99.5% success rate, you could simply use a fixed $ stop and clean up. I agree you need an information edge, but the difficulty of finding one inversely correlates with your scale. Buying and holding is the best strategy for almost everybody - but that is orthogonal to whether trading is a "coin flip" vs mining an edge.
It does make sense. A small fixed stop loss is just asking to be triggered. A large fixed stop loss will result in a zero-gain zero-loss scenario over many trades.
More generally, there is no optimal amount of stop loss. It ultimately gets auto-stopped out at 3:30 pm, although by then it could have gone nearly to zero anyway. Either the strategy works or it doesn't, and with Trump manipulating the market on random days with significant news, it increasingly doesn't.
OutOfHere gets it. Think about it in terms of probability. The closer to the current price your stop loss is the higher the odds of it being triggered by random market fluctuations.
The same applies to your profit target. This means that if your profit mark is $10, and your stop loss is $5 you will lose roughly twice as often as you win, all other things being equal.
What you actually CAN do is use smart money management, (something like the Kelly Criterion) to ensure that you properly capitalize on any slight edge you do manage to find without going broke in the long term.
That of course requires you to find a bet you can win 51% of the time, and that you be made of iron when it comes to sticking to the plan. Most folks can't.
All of these points are irrelevant. If you have the data that shows 99.5% win rate, you would have the data on your expected win size, and could compute a fixed loss stop that would keep you on-side. In the example, which I'm assuming must be hyperbolic, your average win would only need to stay >1/199th of your average loss. I would agree that if a person cannot manage their positions to this, that person should stick to investing.
The market is adaptive, particularly with options, and will adapt to bust your approach in a heartbeat. It will in general adapt to bust a lot more sophisticated approaches. This is not physics. The underlying assumptions change.
In general, yes - no edge is forever. But that doesn't mean trading is a coin flip where no edge can exist. The market is adaptive because humans are adaptive - but, for example, their machine offspring are often slightly less adaptive and create opportunities for persistent returns. Even more so for most retail where your position size isn't creating slippage.
I can try a dynamic intermediate stop-loss point, with the intended goal that is not too early where it triggers often, and not too late where the loss mounts geometrically. This is intended to greatly limit the max loss per trade, which is good, but it still has significant risk of being triggered unnecessarily. I am highly skeptical that this will work, because I even see in the chart that it doesn't, but it's worth an actual test.
Yes, optimizations of this form can work to manage tail risk on an edge and can reproducibly lift expectancy for a strategy. GP is essentially claiming no positive edge can exist, which is false - though these edges may be short-lived and dependent on particular market regimes.
reply