🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@admin the algorithm doesnt determine the state of the overall market so it wouldnt tell me if the whole market is crashing or not. Though I could stick it on an index like TQQQ and it will tell you if its crashing sorta indirectly (in fact I use TQQQ a lot for my benchmarks and trading).

Thing is the algorithm is not trying to predict long term trends, thats not a good way to make money. It is trying to predict short term trends. It only cares where it should put money into for the next few hours and should that change it will change where the money goes. It doesnt care what will happen a year from now.

@kirschwipfel Thank you! when i come around again and am ready to address this issue (I shelved it for a much simpler approach that is 90% as good) I certainly will. Good to know they are out there.

@hansw

No problem, feel free to ask anytime.

@Gargron

@hansw

Very soon it looks like. My personal income (algo trading) has taken priority as i really need tog et this fully automated. But i literally just finished what I think/hope is the final feature/fix to make that possible (until now ive had to trade manually as i code from alarms from the algo).. once i have that up and trading live, which should be in the next few days I can do a round on QOTO.

@Gargron

@FailForward

Hahah, very true, length is actually relative.

Good conversation, look forward to the next one.

@timorl @2ck

@FailForward

> You seem to be a physicist

Nah, not a physicist at all, though I do have RF EE background which has some deep physics roots. But I would not call myself a Physicist.

> My vector of challenge is that you do not have that fulcrum, that fixed point you need so that you can use happiness as an objective measure. I claim that it is a relative measure (this is more happiness than that), not an absolute one.

Sadly I do not have the time or energy right now to invest in your entire post or the discussion, its a busy day. But I do want to comment on this one point as I was thinking about it all night as I slept.

I strongly disagree with the idea that happiness is not an absolute quality and lacks a fulcrum point. I suspect what you are confusing it for is an unbounded, yet absolute, quality. that is there is always someone who can be more happy or less happy than you,a nd likewise you can adjust to your level of happiness to the point where it feels less rewarding than someone who just came out of a depression. But it is an absolute quality with a fixed "fulcrum point" as you put it.

I would express this assertion by the simple fact that we all know and easily identify (I would think, at least I feel I can) what that 0 point is. There is sadness (negative happiness), there is happiness (positive) and then there is feeling nothing, neither happiness or sadness, this is the 0 point. If i am in an emotionless state at the moment I dont think i could ever confuse this for happiness or sadness due to a relative comparison with a prior state or someone else. If i have no emotional stance at the moment but am in an environment where everyone is sad, I wouldnt say "I feel happy", I would still be fixed at 0 with no emotions.

I think the problem is just that the language is nondescript when it comes to this. If i say "I am very happy" this may mean something very different for someone who is usually depressed (as a little happiness feels like a lot) than someone who is normally happy.

This doesnt mean that happiness is not absolute, it just means that at present time we lack the physical tools to measure it quantitatively, we lack the ruler for happiness. But just because you lack the ruler doesnt mean that length is relative, nor does it mean happiness is relative. I would imagine if an MRI were sufficiently advanced to measure neurotransmitters accurately, and our understanding of that were advanced enough to determine a persons happiness from an MRI scan (which we are getting surprisingly close to doing) then we could measure happiness in very specific quantitative terms.

@timorl @2ck

@musingsole Largely because python offers a suit of tools that make the peripheral work much easier. All the greatest algorithmic trading tools appeared to be in python.

That said python can (as I recently did) acheive the performance, its not incapable of it. It just makes the process more painful than it needs to be in other languages.. even another high level language that allows for easier shared variables between threads would have solved the problem.

The idea that C is noticeably more performant is a bit of a myth. I code in C often and there are many good reasons to pick C, namely low level access to hardware, and it is the more direct and natural way to do GPGPU for certain types of algorithms... but outside of those two points it really isnt something I would pick for performance reasons as you really arent going to see any noticeable performance gain from C over many other high level languages **if** you code it right.

@_hensys_ That is one beautiful inductor.

@FailForward

Yes, I've stated what that is twice.. Good is that which produces net happiness over time, bad is what produces net sadness over time.. Morality is acting on good things and avoiding bad.

Ergo if I can look back on an act and see it produced happiness in the world, then I can claim it is objectively moral.

To go back to the example of explaining slavery to a roman commander, I can with certainty assert that when slavery is legal the net sadness this produces is significant but due to the extreme suffering of the slaves, as well as the callousness for life and harshness it promotes in its master (which pours out and effects other people and generally promotes a world where there is little value for life even outside of slavery and thus much sadness is produced).

Therefore the objective measure I have of good and bad would show that even though in roman times the vast majority might disagree with me on the fact that slavery is immoral, the objective measure of morality I defined shows otherwise.

@timorl @2ck

@valleyforge LAWL

@sohkamyung Was done hundreds of years ago already, but still really cool

@FailForward

> Clearly I am bound to lose this . Still… We might learn something.

I suspect this is a joke, or at least in jest (a half joke). But just to be clear I never consider these sorts of discussions about winning, even if I might feel my stance is unlikely to change without some strong arguments, it is still about exploring my view and yours and seeing what each of us can take away from that, if anything.

> I also believe there is a handful of principles humans deem universally moral/proper

I think this wording is problematic, and at a minimum it doesn't really represent what I was trying to say with my last rebuttal. There is almost nothing, no opinions on anything (and that includes opinions of facts) that are universal when it comes to humans. We cant even agree the earth is round in today's day and age with all the evidence we have. Sure we like to think all the humans agree o it and that flat earthers are some extreme minority. But the truth is people with very different opinions from each other tend to drive each other away, or just cause people to suppress those views. They are far more common than you think. I am shocked how often I come across them or the people ive seen on my timeline for years who turn out to be one but just never said so (due to the ridicule they get)

If we cant even agree on the earth being round there is very little, I'd go so far as to say nothing at all, that is universal about human opinions.

In fact it is quite possible that whatever the true objective morality is, it may very well not be particularly popular at all, let alone universal. But it doesnt make it any less true.

> Putting that aside, the question whether there is such a thing as universal moral principles is not a thing humanity as a whole did satisfactorily solve

I solved it :) The only thing I havent been able to do is to convince you and everyone else of that. Of course I half joke, it is certainly true that should there be a objective moral truth it is clear that we have not reached a majority consensus on what that is, so on this we agree.

> Morality is about deciding whether some human act, thought, or principle is deemed good (proper) or bad (improper). And a pure observation of humankind tells us that we quite differ in these judgements.

Again I agree on this point (though I would not use proper and improper to mean the same as good and bad, but thats not core to your point).

> Whether Earth is flat or not is not a question of “good” or “bad” (proper vs. improper) behaviour but of what we can satisfactorily prove to be the case or not in physical reality.

This example was not given to be an example of morality, it was given to show that even when we have more than enough evidence to accurately determine objective truth, you will still find humans are in disagreement about it in large numbers.

As for the earth being round being provable (falsifiable being the technical term), I think we both agree that it is. But by the same token go back just a few hundred years and it was no longer provable with the technology of the time. Yes you hear of early scholars measuring its circumference, and the techniques they provided to do that certainly was evidence in favor of the earth being round. But to understand the time period there were also other experiments that even today seem perfectly reasonable that suggested the earth was flat. It wasnt until our scientific understanding advanced far enough to understand why those experiments were incorrect that we could truely prove the earth was round. so while even though, at the time, it was not able to be proven it was none the less falsifiable, objective, and provable at a later date. More importantly though the scholars at the time with limited evidence were able to argue to that the earth was round, use evidence to do so, and while they couldnt prove it or be in the majority they were right and their perspective.

The point here is that the fact that no one could agree that the world was round, lack of universality, didnt make a lick of difference on either 1) the importance of aruring for the truth even when they were a minority voice or 2) the actual fact that they were right.

> Maybe I am missing something, but you are saying that 1) judgement whether something is “proper”/”improper” behaviour is actually objectively decidable; and at the same time

proper and improper was your wording, wording I rejected early on and already provided an objective definition of good and bad.. good and bad is quantified by the overall happiness over time that an action creates in the world. In other words, if you literally scanned everyone's brain and looked at how happy everyone feels, and average that out over time then you are measuring the amount of good in the world, and since it is measurable and tangible it is an objective measurement.

> 2) except for a relatively narrow set of quite extreme behaviours (murder and such), humans (at least so far) did not find a way how to agree on how to objectively decide it.

this point would seem apparent and obvious. People obviously disagree on what is good and bad, just as people disagree on other objective truths like if the earth is round.. but people disagreeing really has no bearing on the purpose of this discussion (exploring what **ought** to be, not what is).

> Technically, Biden had very little “effect” on history so far (if we omit his previous political acts) as his window of opportunity to have any effect started just a few hours ago. We’ll see.

Same can be said of Trump, if we omit his previous political acts to date Trump has had very little effect on humanity in the past day as well.. not sure why that is relevant, obviously we can and **should** consider both their past political pasts and I see no reason to limit the scope to the last 24 hours as both have had significant time to exercise political power in their respective histories.

> You seem to be forgetting that a societal consensus of what is proper and what is not changes.

I am not forgetting it, I never said or invoked anything about what is proper, you did, and as far as the definitions I already laid out when I first used the terminology of good and bad then what is proper has no relevance or relation to anything I said, as that is not what I said those words meant.

> I’d probably have a good time watching you explaining how slavery is a bad thing to a Roman senator some 2000 years ago, or to a Greek before that.

I would likely have a tremendously difficult time explaining it to them, and in fact most people would likely disagree with me. Though how many people agree with me has absolutely no bearing on the fact that I would, all the same, be correct. Just as someone arguing the earth was round to a roman senator, even if they wouldnt agree, would be all the same correct.

> What is deemed proper today, might be deemed improper 100 years from now.

Of course, but what is "proper" has no relevance to what is "good" or "moral" so that is a moot point.

> There is an element of universality to these things (protection of life, etc.), but most of it is a social agreement existing in a given time and space.

If by universiality you mean "lots of people agree" then no, not really. There are tons of people who do not feel protection of all life is a is a good thing... If by universiality you mean what is objectively good regardless of how many people recognize it or not, then I'd say yes, all things that are good or bad are objectively so (see my earlier objective measure of it).

> From my pov, exactly because we cannot decide what is good or bad explicitly.

We can, I already did decide, and I gave an objective measure for it. If you or anyone else chooses not to agree with me, that's fine, from my perspective that just means you are unable to recognize a clear and obvious (to me) objective truth about morality.. but from my POV the objective more truth is all the same there regardless of you or anyone else not being able to agree on it.

@timorl @2ck

@FailForward

You entire response is pretty much an exercise in **Hume's razor** / **Hume's guillotine** and I reject it on those terms alone.

You are arguing that what **ought** to be doesnt matter and all that matters is what **is**, which is contrary to the very premise of the discussion, which is a discussion about what me and tim feel **ought** to be the interpretation. Not to mention even a bit Nihilistic as it can be applied to any discussion where one argues an improvement of society by proposing a particularly moral outlook which is not currently the predominating one, creating perpetual stagnation as a principle.

> Morality is a very loose concept in that it is very subjective and local to subculture you adhere to.

While the consensus on morality does differ greatly by person and location, and culture, that does not necessarily mean it is subjective, and I would argue it is not.

A great many people believe all sorts of things that is dictated by the culture they are in, for example some people believe the earth is just a few thousand years old, some even believe it is flat. The opinions you get on these ideas are highly dependent on the person you ask and the culture you are in. None of that, however, implies that the "the earth is round" is not an objective truth. Objective facts do not require consensus to be objective.

With that said when people do agree on an objective fact, some saying the earth is round, the others saying it is flat, then what you have is peoples opinions as to which of these two facts are true.

Morality is no different, I would argue there is an objective, factual, sense of what is or is not moral, it just so happens peoples opinions about what that fact happens to be differs, and there is no consensus as to which of the many proposed objective moralities is the truth, and factual one.

In my opinion of the fact, however, it is quite easily objectively defined, good and bad is measures by the overall quantity of happiness an action elicits as a result of that action over time.

> Since these acts do not touch most of the stuff “universally considered bad”, we do not deal here with universal moral principles, but strictly with normative ones.

that seems like an unjustified leap to me. Because an act does not touch on something considered bad, universal or otherwise that does not mean we have to go an extra step to somehow figure out some reasoning why its really bad afterall. That's just confirmation bias eagerly trying to find a reason to call it bad "well if this doesn't determine its bad, lets try another technique that will determine it is bad"

In fact I'd argue much the opposite, if our usual sense of morality, on analysis of a situation, shows us there is nothing about it that would typically be considered bad, then we can stop there and conclude that is in fact, **not** bad.

> So while each of us might call those people “good” or “bad”, that does not matter.

Of course it matters, particularly in this context. The point of the discussion is to decide if we feel Biden has an effect which is more "bad" or Trump. Answering that question requires us to debate if we feel they are good or bad. Falling back to laws does **not** answer that question for us.

That would be like saying "Slavery was good because people disagree whether slavery is bad or not (re: nazis) and therefore we must fall back to laws. The law said slavery was legal, ergo slavery was good"... the logic is flawed the moment this argument invoked law as an arbiter of good and bad.

> The society, through a contract between its members (which we conveniently call constitutions) decided that those acts are bad.

No we didn't, we agreed those acts should be punished, we agreed those acts should result in consequences like being put in jail. At no point did anyone assert that anyone was "bad" or "good", the law only dictates the consequences, nothing more.

> And you have all right to think that. Yet, what matters in this case is what the society as a whole “thinks”.

"Matters" here is an awfully loaded term, and again not true. Even if we can determine that a majority happen to agree, thats rather irrelevant as we are arguing what **ought** to be, not what **is**. Again if we were discussing if slavery was right it would be silly for anyone to argue it was morally justified because the majority believed it to be so.

@timorl @2ck

@koherecoWatchdog I would agree that is a concerning decision and I would support a better definition to ensure an ID wouldnt be required.

@koherecoWatchdog Your preaching to the choir, all this I already know and more or less agree with.

@koherecoWatchdog Not disagreeing with you that it is a problem. Only trying to clarify the details.

I personally feel strongly that a person should have a right to levels of anonymity they are not currently granted in many things, and requiring and ID is part of that. It is why I am against all of the following:

* Stop and ID laws
* requiring you use your true name on facebook
* Requiring licensing or registration of guns (in its current form, I'd be ok with anonymized licensing)
etc

@koherecoWatchdog Are you claiming that these place will not accept a nondrivers photo ID, or did you perhaps mean to say a photo ID and not specifically a license?

@FailForward

What is or is not illegal isnt really the issue be debated here. Pretty sure both me and tim would agree that from a legal standpoint the group acted illegally.. Terrorism is so loosely defined I would also agree that from a legal standpoint they very well could probably make a terrorism charge stick, but then again people have been charged with terrorism for some pretty absurd reasons, so that isnt much of a measuring stick IMO.

You are using the law as if it is a defacto measure of good and bad. I reject that as an accurate measure of morality. The only place law has any relevance is if we are discussing what the consequences for these people are likely to be, but that is wholly seperate from if these people are good people are not. Or how bad their actions are.

It also depends on if a police officer can or will even find many of them and simply how much is invested in doing so, which ultimately biases any results.

In my eyes burning a building down with people in it, as the liberals did in my city during their riots is clearly and substantially far more immoral than breaking the window of a capitol building, walking inside, and taking a selfie. Yet the people who through the molotov cocktail into the buildings, despite some even being caught on tap, are likely not be persecuted because no time or money was spent on doing so. Yet those who broke the windows of the capitol building will, in all liklihood, have every resource of the FBI thrust upon them, likely being arrested and tried. Yet to me it is quite clear they are not even approaching the level of immorality as burning a building with people in it...

@timorl @2ck @antigravman

@timorl

Apology accepted, no worries, as I said we are generally respectful in both directions and its appreciated.

As i said in my last comment at the very end (see the PS).. aside from the transcript i did watch it again before typing that comment and it still sounds like "we want pence" to me. Though there are parts where its a bit garbled, but even when I try to hear or pick out "hang mike pence" from that my brain can not hear anything remotely close to that.

@2ck @antigravman