If you have an algorithmic edge, eventually it will stop working. If it's a really good one, your trades become someone else's edge. The market is constantly changing and active traders are constantly looking at what's going on and trying to take advantage. The more I looked into trading, the more it was just a sea of "Use these charts", "don't really trust these charts", and "once you lose a ton of money, you'll get a feel for things"

The market is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis in action.

You have the market itself which is like the environment, it can go hot or cold based on broad trends, and if that's all their was fundamentals would likely work well.

The problem is there the dumb prey you feed on may adapt and remove your niche you fit in. Even worse is there is no shortage of predators watching you and waiting for you to make a mistake and they'll eat you alive.

I won't downvote you, but I will die on the other hill - the one over there that has a guy sitting down with his arms folded sporting an angry face every time someone something positive about WSL. There's at least three of us on that hill. And we're not going anywhere.

I too went down that rabbithole. Haha. Anything around that time to get an edge in a fantasy football league. I found a bunch of historical NFL stats pdfs and it took forever to make usable data out of them.

Government is the worst possible solution to every problem.

(not an attack on you. I have to say that every time I see someone say anything along the lines of "the government should do it")

Government is made the worst possible solution thanks to lobbying and lawyers. It doesn't have to be this way.

I would agree with you. Dating app data might not be legally protected like some PII out there, but there are easily foreseeable bad consequences from compromised dating app data of any kind. Security should be accounted for from the very beginning.

Old school Zeiss glass is like butter for any camera body. My dad told me to stick with Nikon and spend my money on lenses first. He was not wrong. You can put 25 year old professional lenses on a mid-market Nikon body and the images will be stunning with very little effort.

Oh, tell me about it. Sure, you can only stop-down meter Pentax 645 lenses on F mount since the aperture levers go opposite ways, and I don't know any of the YouTubers who are the only ones left doing that kind of engineering. So what? With anything that doesn't move around a lot, and the sensor crop working in your favor to deliver only from where the glass is sharpest - sure, you're not doing wide angle that way, but where else are you getting a razor-sharp 120mm f/4 macro for a hundred bucks?

The 105mm f/2.8 VR II Micro-Nikkor is still better for the field, of course; that kind of work requires a lens which can talk to my body and flashes, and the stabilizer is actually useful. But for folks not chasing wasps around or the like - and willing to be a little old-fashioned about their working, in a way that will teach you about photography some of what a Piper or Cessna does about flying - there really is no better way to get anywhere near that kind of performance at a similar price point, and a well-maintained lens of such stately age is a joy to work with besides.

This is one of those decisions that confuses you when you're on a mac and things just don't work how you'd expect.

This is the kind of thing I would have expected to read in 2600 back in the day. And why I _always_ looked for 2600 at the bookstore.

I find this odd because that's exactly how I thought viruses worked when crossing species and I have no background that would lead me to that conclusion and have almost nothing in my life that would make me ponder such a thing.

I feel like someone explained this in the 80s to me.

Who buys a drill not strong enough for a hole saw? What does that even look like anyways? An electric screwdriver?