270 karma · joined February 19, 2019
So at most ~5.6% of DNA could have survived. It would be interesting if researchers would be able to detect a fraction of that amount, but it seems implausible.
[1] https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-long-does-dn... | https://archive.is/S39fv
We've seen what hackers are capable of with Colonial Pipeline. We've seen the damage that can be done by taking out Texas' energy grid.
By targeting infrastructure that directly affects citizens, adversaries can influence the democratic process.
If China is able to take out the internet infrastructure in a city like Seattle, people are going to look for someone to blame. That person would likely be whoever is in charge of the country at that point.
For now, the PPC is irrelevant, but that may soon change. Only time will tell.
I understand the appeal of ranked choice voting for citizens, but I don't see either the Liberals or Conservatives supporting it.
On the Liberal side, they will always have the idea of strategic voting, where they tell progressive voters "A vote for the NDP/Greens is a wasted vote that will get the Conservatives elected."
On the Conservative side, the next closest party is the Liberals. So their voter base will choose Liberals as their second option (Assuming the PPC is irrelevant).
When I started thinking of potential customers I found a list of n potential users. I could have started by reaching out from #1 then worked down. But this would not have been representative of my potential user base.
So I picked a random number from 1 to n and reached out to that customer. Then picked another random number, and so on.
This ended up being more representative of my potential market.
At the end of a tree's life, it is decomposed and turned into fertile soil that will feed future generations of the forest. This is a sustainable cycle.
I think we need to develop a plastic alternative, say X, that can be used to make products such that at the end of the products' life, the product can be converted back into X. Then, X can be reused to make new products creating a sustainable cycle.
To maximize performance it is necessary to take breaks to give your brain time to process information. By stepping on the gas 24/7 you are guaranteed to burn out.
Schedule breaks and take them. You're not doing yourself any favours by pushing yourself beyond your limits.
Like others here have said, don't neglect your health. Take time to eat healthy, workout, and sleep. Sleep is the ultimate nootropic.
--
[1] Peak Performance by Brad Stulberg and Steve Magness
But in the meantime, it just redirects to A Rick Roll
y = Where you are
m = Your ability to grow
x = Time
b = Where you start
Although where you start is important, your ability to grow (or decay) ultimately determines where you end up.
Do you think you will regret not taking the leap 5, 10, 15 years from now? It's a big decision that only you can make.
In general, avoid stimulants like HN, Reddit, Instagram to minimize context switching.
You can try sampling different time periods by downloading data from Yahoo Finance. I may need to make the code more robust because there is some data that I hard-coded just for the dates I selected.
The way I discovered this algorithm was initially I wanted to buy the previous day's best performing sector ETF, with a hypothesis that the momentum would continue. But I learned that it actually ended up losing money.
So I decided to inverse the algorithm. There are still a few optimizations I can test out, e.g. Buying the previous day's worst performing sector.
## The Algorithm
This algorithm is really simple.
1. On day `n`, determine which ETF gave the highest return
2. On day `n+1`, short sell the previous day's highest performing ETF at market open and close your short position at market close.
Because this algorithm operates on Vanguard's 11 Sector ETFs, it is resilient against the volatility of individual stocks.
### Caution
Hindsight is 20/20 and because this is a backdating algorithm, similar results are not guaranteed in the future. Use at your own risk.