imcoconut

As with most industries, it depends. But junior people typically make in the 200-500K range. Then as you gain experience, develop your own ideas/strategies and are able to manage risk appropriately, the sky is the limit. The closer you are to managing money that's being invested the more you make. If you can run a 1.5 - 2 Sharpe strategy and never dip below a ~5% drawdown, i.e. probably have substantial positive skew in returns, you can make in the millions or tens of millions at the right fund. Note that as the OP correctly alluded to, this is much more difficult to do live than in a backtest.

Thanks for sharing this. I've heard many stories like that of your uncle from professional researchers in science, economics, and other fields. This is something that people who have no experience in professional academia and science often do not understand.

In my experience a lot of people assume that because science and related disciplines are rational endeavors that the institutions and culture compassing them must also be rational, empirical, purely evidence-based, etc. Reality can be almost comically, and sometimes tragically, the opposite.

very cool blog

Their population demographics are different from ours.

We will continue to provide workers and consumers over the coming decades - economy-wide demand will return once the crononavirus threat subsides.

I actually tend to agree with you philosophically. But practically the outcome of inaction on the fed's part would very likely be disastrous to regular Americans.

Think about America during the great depression. Modern fed theory and policy is all aimed toward preventing something like that from happening again. It's possible that without TARP, QE, etc. in 2008 (and onward) the great recession would have become great depression 2.0.

While a complete economic reset might be in order, the question is how well would America fare during the transition?

the forum section of wallstreetoasis is actually pretty good as sort of hn for finance. not as much good content/discussion as here but still enough.

Actually, the 80/20 portfolio will decrease returns vs the market. It will outperform on a risk adjusted basis, ie have a higher sharpe ratio (maybe). But the highest return portfolio will always be the one that allocates 100% to the highest returning asset - in this case all to stocks.

I noticed this the other day and was very pleased.

Also, if you have touchID then you can use it on safari to autofill login credentials. I just wish safari had an active plugin ecosystem like firefox (or chrome) does.

excellent post, thank you.

Have you checked out the dash library by plotly?

It's pretty awesome and i use it for a similar purpose. MY dashhboards/charts are pretty basic but there seems to be good support for interactivity and callbacks.

https://dash.plot.ly/gallery

https://plot.ly/python/

Devra Davis, an epedemiological cancer researcher[1], writes how it often takes decades for the same carcinogens to actually cause tumor growth in humans while it can take just years (or even much shorter) in mice.

I dont know exacty when cell phone usage became widespread in the developed world, but if it was the 90s to mid 2000s we may still need another decade to start seeing the possible effects.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-War-Cancer/dp/04650156...

Do you live in NYC? and have you found that it helps?

The price would definitely move down if you sold 20% of facebook's float. The market doesn't care that you borrowed and are the one selling (as opposed to the party you borrowed it from selling them), all that matters is that 20% of the shares are being sold.

>However, AirPods don't require the removal of the headphone jack! The removal of the headphone jack is still so consumer hostile

This is key. When they removed the disc drive in the macbooks there was a decent argument to be made about more space for other ports (or reduced thickness). But the 3.5 mm headphone jack is literally... 3.5 mm, right? Another commentor even pointed out that the new iphones are thicker than the 6 line. I just dont ubderstand the argument here.

You should check this out

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio

> But the researchers recognize that their findings are purely observational at this stage and cannot prove a cause and effect of eating too little or too many carbohydrates.

Title of the article - "Low and high carb diets increase risk of early death, study finds"

Not saying this study isn't worth reporting and reading, but they could have titled it better.

As another user commented, the total cost per year is around ~$34 million which is roughly 5% of the total $600 million they're looking to raise. That 600 million will be invested to target some annual return and as long as that return is expected to be a couple of percentage points over 5% (which is not an unreasonable expectation) then they should be able to more than cover the cost every year, without even touching the principal amount. Looks like they're raising the total amount via donations

> Do we really need to pay the Kardashians a boatload of money to incentivize them to do whatever it is that they do?

That's a good question. I personally don't think so and don't pay them myself. But enough people in our society clearly do, and as long as they have the freedom to chose where they spend their money they should be able to chose to spend it on the Kardashians right?

The question of whether (or how much of) the money they accumulate should be taxed, I believe is a separate issue. I think we could tax the shit out of them, but I would caution against the notion of taxing them more than others on the basis that they're creating less "value" than other rich people. There are clearly plenty of people who highly value whatever it is they produce, and to tell those people otherwise seems like dangerous territory (at least it seems like non-democratic - i.e. when you have a government telling the people what to value).

This is a very good idea.

Actually, if you could measure it globally, most institutional investors who measure/benchmark to the US stock market probably use the Russell 1000. You're point is still valid tough regarding cap weighted vs. price weighted.

Have you seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWkUzkfJ4M

Its possible to do so, but it is difficult. A few years of experience in a successful systematic team is extremely helpful. Among many other things, you learn that running a profitable strategy involves the coordination of a number of different types of tasks, which are similar but different enough so that its difficult for one person to be simultaneously good enough at all of them.

To run a successful strategy requires strong signals (indicators that dictate what to buy/sell and when), execution (actual filling of orders on exchanges), risk management (which can include statistical risk modelling as well as draw-down controls), and infrastructure (the wrong type of bug can be costly enough to kill the whole operation!).

As mentioned earlier, there is overlap in the skills and experience required for these broad categories, but people in the quant hedge fund/asset management industry typically specialize in one. This is where larger shops have an advantage. The entire strategy is only as good as its weakest link. Its common for people who haven't worked in the space to focus mostly, or even exclusively, on the signals and infrastructure aspects.

If you were to group most of the successful quant funds out there by alpha time horizon you would see that funds within the same bucket are generally running very similar types of strategies using very similar signals (the general concepts behind successful signals/execution of varying time horizons are actually not that complicated, but just might take a while to explain). Again, that's not say its easy to do. With most of the equities and derivatives markets getting ever more efficient, tighter coordination and implementation of the entire strategy pipeline (signals, execution, risk mgmt, infrastructure) can lead to significant Sharpe/Information ratio improvements.

If you wanted to get a feel for how some successful people in the industry think about the problem, I would recommend reading through the following books in roughly the corresponding order:

1 - https://www.amazon.com/Efficiently-Inefficient-Invests-Marke...

2 - https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3...

3 - https://www.amazon.com/Active-Equity-Management-Xinfeng-Zhou...

And I didn't personally like this one so much but its quite popular among the more "academic" types

4 - https://www.amazon.com/Active-Portfolio-Management-Quantitat...

> (There is a small group of researchers who believe viruses may even have come here from outer space, an idea known as panspermia.)

Fred Hoyle [1] is one such researcher. He is an astrophysicist who was the first to demonstrate how elements heavier than helium are synthesized by nuclear reactions in stellar cores. He holds a number of non-mainstream scientific beliefs and one involves the source and evolution of life on earth. He discusses it, along with other evidence challenging the neo-darwinian theory of evolution [2], in "The Intelligent Universe" [3]. I'm reading it now and highly recommend it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Fred-Hoyle/dp/00...

> Call me crazy, but I partially blame the dualist world view of the Western world for that, even if most people aren't even aware that they have been raised with a dualist mindset. This whole mind/matter division makes people think that mental problems have to be solved by thinking.

Not crazy at all. I strongly agree with this.

As I understand it, pubmed (and medline) only index a subset of medical research, and excludes most non-medical science research. As Cutler was a chemist, I'm not sure any articles of his would be indexed by pubmed.

Scopus, which seems to be run by Elsevier, lists some abstracts and letters here (I have no idea how extensive this is) [1]

[1] https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7103370042

There is merit to chelation therapy as a means of eliminating mercury (and other heavy metals including lead) stored in the body, but many protocols, both alternative and conventional, don't consider the full complexities involved and can be more harmful than beneficial.

There are a number of relevant factors including length of exposures (acute or chronic poisoning) and form of metal (organic, inorganic, metallic - for mercury at least).

By far the best source I found on the topic is Andrew Cutler, a chemistry PhD from Princeton who was mercury poisoned himself and created an effective and safe protocol for removal. He has a strong background in kinetics, pharmacokinetics, and biochemistry in general, and recognized that the standard toxicological protocols for heavy metal treatment were very dangerous (e.g. infrequent high dose IV administrations of DMPS/DMSA) , especially for cases of chronic poisoning.

According to Cutler, protocols such as the one you linked are very dangerous as they don't administer the chelating agent according to its metabolic half-life in the body (the half-lives of the chelating agents in cilantro and chlorella are unknown). As a result blood levels of the chelating agent and the metals fluctuate greatly. This can mobilize previously sequestered metals, but not provide the body enough time to properly eliminate them, which results in "re-poisoning" events. And when a large amount fat-loving free metals are released by the chelating agents within a short period of time, they often enter the central nervous system, settle there and exacerbate neurological symptoms.

I have no background in chemistry, so that's my summary of what I've read. But I highly recommend his book [1] which focuses mostly on mercury, but he covers lead as well. There are a few interviews with him around the web as well [2]. Also happy to provide more info and sources as I have two of his books and they both cite a wide array of sources.

[1] http://www.noamalgam.com/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8AQGrh0XMw&t=34s

It's interesting that you point that out. I remember reading that in his day Bach was widely renowned at improvisation.

Thank you for the excellent description

If she were writing a mathematical proof then I would agree with you. From a logical standpoint stating "white male bigots should be fired" doesn't say anything about non-white non-male bigots.

However, in normal discourse context is not generally understood to be that of a logical proof. Things are implied and inferred by what's included or excluded from what's said.

So, for example suppose I were to say simply "white male high-performing employees should be promoted". Logically this doesn't contradict the statement "all high-performing employees should be promoted". But I didn't say that. I made a much more qualified statement regarding white males. Why did I qualify it so. It's natural to ask such a question. I would expect people to think I'm implying something about non-white non-males. Again - It's natural, and in fact part of normal discourse, to infer things from what people chose to include and omit from their statements (please let me know if you disagree with this).

Similarly, original statement was about white male bigots specifically, not just all bigots. It's natural, outside the context of a logical proof, to infer some meaning from that.

After all the positive sentiment in this thread I signed up with the cloud service for a side project.

I have to say the UX is beautiful and easy to use. Also, the setup was easier, and performance better than any other provider I was testing. I'm sticking with hetzner.