Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 10163

My new 45 minute interview out on #transhumanism via Fringe FM:

Zoltan Istvan Gyurko (@zoltan_istvan) is an American transhumanist, journalist, entrepreneur and Libertarian futurist who ran for President of the United States in 2016 to raise awareness for transhumanism. In 2017, Istvan announced his intent to run for Governor of California in the 2018 election as a member of the Libertarian Party – see his website: zoltanistvan.com for more.

Formerly a reporter for the National Geographic Channel, Istvan now writes futurist, transhumanist, libertarian and secular themed articles for major publications including Vice’s Motherboard, Wired, The Huffington Post., TechCrunch and Newsweek. Istvan also regularly appears on television and video channels discussing futurist topics and is one of the world’s most influential transhumanists – believing transhumanism will grow into a mainstream social movement in the next decade.

Istvan is also the author of The Transhumanist Wager, a philosophical science fiction novel.

Read more

Because diabetics often have both nerve damage and poor circulation, they will often not notice when they receive skin wounds, which proceed to heal very slowly. Those wounds can thus become chronic, sometimes even leading to amputations. A new regenerative bandage, however, could help keep this from happening.

Led by Prof. Guillermo Ameer, a team from Illinois’ Northwestern University started with a protein known as laminin. Found in the skin and most of the body’s other tissues, it communicates with cells, prompting them to differentiate, migrate and adhere to one another.

The scientists were able to identify a specific segment of the protein, which plays a key role in the wound-healing process. That segment is made up of just 12 amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), and it’s called A5G81. Because A5G81 is so much smaller and simpler than the entire laminin protein, it’s much cheaper and easier to synthesize in the lab.

Read more

Last year, Intel was able to take a few steps forward towards the commercialization of quantum computing. A 17-qubit superconducting chip was built followed by CEO Brian Krzanich showing off a test chip at CES 2018 with 49 qubits.

Unlike previous quantum efforts at Intel, this latest batch of wafers are focusing on spin qubits instead of superconducting qubits. This secondary technology is still a few years behind superconducting quantum efforts but could turn out to be more easily scalable.

Moving forward, Intel now has the capability to produce up to five silicon wafers every week containing up to 26-qubit quantum chips. This achievement means that Intel has greatly increased the number of quantum devices in existence and could be looking to increase the number of qubits steadily in the coming years.

Read more

Water samples from UK rivers contained significantly higher concentrations of microplastics downstream from wastewater treatment plants, according to one of the first studies to determine potential sources of microplastics pollution.

Scientists from the University of Leeds measured microplastics concentrations up and downstream of six wastewater treatment plants and found that all of the plants were linked to an increase in microplastics in the rivers—on average up to three times higher but in one instance by a factor of 69.

Lead author Dr. Paul Kay, from the School of Geography at Leeds, said: Microplastics are one of the least studied groups of contaminants in river systems. These tiny plastic fragments and flakes may prove to be one of the biggest challenges in repairing the widespread environmental harm plastics have caused. Finding key entry points of microplastics, such as wastewater treatment plants, can provide focus points to combating their distribution.

Read more

I love clearing the air with a single dismissive answer to a seemingly complex question. Short, dismissive retorts are definitive, but arrogant. It reminds readers that I am sometimes a smart a*ss.

Is technical analysis a reasoned approach for
investors to predict future value of an asset?

In a word, the answer is “Hell No!”. (Actually, that’s two words. Feel free to drop the adjective). Although many technical analysts earnestly believe their craft, the approach has no value and does not hold up to a fundamental (aka: facts-based) approach.

One word arrogance comes with an obligation to substantiate—and, so, let’s begin with examples of each approach.

Investment advisors often classify their approach to studying an equity, instrument or market as either a fundamental or technical. For example…

  • Fundamental research of a corporate stock entails the analysis of the founders’ backgrounds, competitors, market analysis, regulatory environment, product potential and risks, patents (age and legal challenges), track record, and long term trends affecting supply and demand.A fundamental analysis may study the current share price, but only to ascertain the price-to-earnings ratio compared to long term prospects. That is, has the market bid the stock up to a price that lacks a basis for long term returns?
    .
  • On the other hand, a technical approach tries to divine trends from recent performance—typically charting statistics and pointing to various graph traits such as resistance, double shoulders, and number of reversals. The approach is more concerned with assumptions and expectations of investor behavior—or hypotheses and superstition related to numerology—than it is with customers, products, facts and market demand.

Do you see the difference? Fundamental analysis is rooted in SWOT: Study strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Technical analysis dismisses all of that. If technical jargon and approach sound a bit like a Gypsy fortune teller, that’s because it is exactly that! It is not rooted in revenue and market realities. Even if an analyst or advisor is earnest, the approach is complete hokum.

I have researched, invested, consulted and been an economic columnist for years. I have also made my mark in the blockchain space. But until now, I have hesitated to call out technical charts and advisors for what they are…

Have you noticed that analysts who produce technical charts make their income by working for someone? Why don’t they make a living from their incredible ability to recognize patterns and extrapolate trends? This rhetorical question has a startlingly simple answer: Every random walk appears to have patterns. The wiring of our brain guarantees that anyone can find patterns in historical data. But the constant analysis of patterns by countless investors guarantees that the next pattern will be unrelated to the last ones. That’s why short term movement is called a “random walk”. Behaviorists and neuroscientists recognize that apparent relationships of past trends can only be correlated to future patterns in the context of historical analysis (i.e. after it has occurred).

Decisions based on a technical analysis—instead of solid research into fundamentals—is the sign of an inexperienced or gullible investor. Some advisors who cite technical charts know this. Technicals have no correlation to long term appreciation, asset quality or risks. They only point to short term possibilities.

The problem with focusing on short-term movement is that you will certainly lose to insiders, lightning-fast program traders, built in arbitrage mechanisms and every unexpected good news/bad news bulletin.

If you seek to build a profit in the long run, then do your research up front, enter gradually, and hold for the long term. Of course, you should periodically reevaluate your positions and react to significant news events from trusted sources. But you should not anguish over your portfolio every day or even every month.

  • Know your objectives
  • Set realistic targets
  • Research by reading contrarians and skeptics (They help you to avoid confirmation bias)
  • Study comparables and reason through the likelihood that another technology or instrument poses a threat to the asset that interests you
  • Then, invest only what you can afford to lose and don’t second guess yourself frequently
  • Dollar-cost-average
  • Revaluate semi-annually or when meeting with direct sources of solid, fundamental information

Finally, if someone tries to dazzle you with charts of recent performance and talk of a “resistance level” or support trends, smile and nod in approval—but don’t dare fall for the Ouija board. Send them to me. I will straighten them out.

Who says so? Does the author have credentials?

I originally wrote this article for another publication. Readers challenged my credentials by pointing out that I am not a academic economist, investment broker or financial advisor. That’s true…

I am not an academic economist, but I have certainly been recognized as a practical economist. Beyond investor, and business columnist, I have been keynote speaker at global economic summits. I am on the New Money Systems Board at Lifeboat Foundation, and my career is centered around research and public presentations about money supply, government policy and blockchain based currencies. I have advised members of president Obama’s council of economic advisors and I have recently been named Top Writer in Economics by Quora.

Does all of this qualify me to make dismissive conclusions about technical analysis? That’s up to you! This Lifeboat article is an opinion. My opinion is dressed as authoritative fact, because I have been around this block many times. I know the score.

Related:

Philip Raymond co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the Lifeboat New Money Systems board. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.