Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 10174

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.

Blind Man

I was going blind which is not a good thing when you need to see to run a growing nonprofit. Luckily, it is 2018 and technology is advancing at an exponential rate so I had some options. Following is my story which is relevant for many reasons including that we virtually all develop eye problems over time and the state of the art available is constantly changing.

MY STORY

I finally couldn’t read text at normal resolution on my 60″ monitor which is about 4 feet from my face (and normally at 1600×900 resolution to make the text bigger) so it was time to go to the optician again. The optician considerably upgraded my prescription to −17.25 diopters on my left eye and −12.25 diopters on my right eye but warned me that this might not improve my vision much due to the beginning of cataracts in my eyes. So unlike in the past where I bought my glasses from outside the country due to restrictions on being able to purchase thin lenses in the U.S. that were implemented during the Nixon administration, I ordered glasses locally so I could speed up the process.

I was unable to see well with the new glasses so it was time to visit an ophthalmologist that my optician recommended. The ophthalmologist had the following assessment:

Dry Eye Syndrome of Bilateral Lacrimal Glands
Combined Forms of Age-related Cataract, Bilateral
Lattice Degeneration of Retina, Bilateral
Other Vitreous Opacities, Right Eye
Hemorrhage in Optic Nerve Sheath, Right Eye
Myopia, Bilateral

There were parts of both eyes that should have retina but didn’t because the eyes were so stretched. (This isn’t affecting my vision.)

The lattice degeneration of the retina concerned my ophthalmologist so he then sent me to a retinologist where he expected the retinologist to operate on me before the ophthalmologist could operate. Luckily, the retinologist said he didn’t need to operate on me so I went from needing 4 surgeries to needing 2 surgeries.

For those who don’t know, cataract surgery replaces the broken biological lens of your eye with an artificial lens called an intraocular lens (IOL). This surgery usually uses a femtosecond laser.

Before my first surgery, the ophthalmologist’s assistants ran multiple tests on my eyes so they could determine what size lens would fit in them. This was tricky because my eyes are extra long (31 mm left and 30 mm right) and machines have a problem with eyes that long. A few days after my tests were done, the ophthalmologist’s office called me to say the doctor was unsatisfied with the tests so I was called in to have more tests done.

His best assistant redid many of the tests which included ultrasound with a liquid on my eyeballs and then did a new test which used ultrasound with a gel on my eyeballs. Finally the tests were done and the doctor was able to schedule the operations which included him having to order a special lens for my left eye that was only created by one manufacturer in the world due to my extreme prescription. The doctor ordered the lens in four different sizes so he could find the perfect fit once my old biological lens was removed.

To show how this procedure is not without risk, the doctor’s first comment after the left eye surgery was, “can you see through the eye?”. I could see quite well immediately and was able to see every pixel on my monitor within a day. It was crazy seeing for a while with one good eye and one bad eye as my extreme prescription in the bad eye made things smaller so I couldn’t line objects up between the two eyes. I often just closed my bad eye as a solution.

Three weeks later, my right eye went well also. Note that even though my right eye was much less nearsighted than my left eye, the doctor couldn’t get the astigmatism in my right eye fixed with a Toric IOL because they don’t make it for my prescription. Instead, he made incisions in my cornea during cataract surgery — a procedure called limbal relaxing incisions (LRI). The incisions were made with a laser, of course.

It is worth noting that I did some research before the operation and found many people had run into problems with this procedure, including one of our larger donors. So it is worth spending time to find some very experienced doctors before allowing them to work on your eyes. My ophthalmologist had done over 30,000 surgeries and my retinologist also had tons of experience. A poor surgery can usually not be fixed!

We need more walkable cities and fewer cars! If aliens came to our planet they would conclude that cars are the dominant species!

Traffic signals give priority to motor vehicles over pedestrians. This inequality undermines many of the stated goals of transport, health and environment policy.

State and city governments say they want to encourage walking and biking for many reasons:

Read more