Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170527)	4/15/2021 7:44:19 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217588

Yes, but women and evolutionary selective pressure takes care of such failures to adapt in eugenics carnage. Women are worth competing for... but, I think you might somewhat misunderstand their priorities... A first stab at it... not without some reason... tacked on to the end, here... as the cute/money matrix. Money seems absent in all the overly defensive counters proffered by women in response to the overly honest crazy hot matrix... this one, for instance, totally derivative, but MENTIONS money while refusing to acknowledge it honestly enough to commit it to the white board... The Universal Douchebag - Hot Guy Matrix totally whiffs on the joke... and compounds the error by providing another revealing truth about women that we all know is true... as it shows you can compensate for not being as good looking as an 8+ "dating zone" guy... by being MORE of a douchebag... marriage requiring you manage at least a 6.5 up to 8.5 in douch-baggery... that zone overlapping with the Cheater Zone... also revealing... basically admitting that beyond good looks and money... women want what other women also want... and expect you to make them suffer the awareness they're replaceable... or they won't feel wanted just because you come home... most of the time. Of course, its saying women aren't interested in nice guys at all... unless they're really good looking... but its is obviously masking the douchebaggery scale concerns, in part, as a proxy for money... making the rest of the chart mostly a lie... except for the part about the more of a douchebag / the more wealthy you are... the more women might tend to take it as a licence to be as crazy as they want to be... Both the women's efforts whiff... because what makes the Hot Crazy scale truly funny... is its absolute and brutal honesty... The women can't match that... since they're stuck on lying to themselves and each other about what it is that they really want... or what they want to want... rather than what they do want... when each point in "emotional availability" comes paired with a particular price range... Beyond the humor, all the efforts fail in point of fact, of course, because "good in bed" is not a metric... It's also just not possible to complete a proper analysis of what women claim to value without first accepting the truth presented in the cute/money hypothesis... that having enough money / power tends to remove all other concerns women might have... While the women's efforts are truthful enough in what they do expose that they don't intend to reveal... what their overly idealized efforts still avoid... is addressing the reality that where you fall on the scale yourself... greatly conditions what your expectations are in what you want of the other sex... Most women want financial security... all else being subsidiary. Good husband, father, not a total douchebag... good in bed... yada, yada... ad infinitum. Preferences allowing a match is rare enough. Beyond that... other benefits in hotness or emotional availability... but always paired with an at least sufficient level of manliness / douchebaggery to not be dismissed as an obvious cuck... ? The relativistic reality is that there is a dynamic which depends on the relative positions of BOTH persons on the metrics in the relevant charts ? Who is hotter ? Which of the two persons is otherwise more desirable than the other ? And, only then, once the basic attraction and compatibility issues are resolved... and after the social dominance factors in the relationship relativity matrix calculations are complete... can you also begin to introduce the idea of who is smarter... Bottom line... if she's hotter than you are... and is otherwise not fatally flawed to the point of being defective in some other metric... it probably means she's also smarter than you are... Smart enough to ensure she remains in control... not just by being better looking... but by controlling you in other ways without you even realizing it... still just leaving you glad to have her ? The same process just discussed in relation to determining desires in relative values in different forms of currency... probably not too far distant from the process applied in figuring out what you want in a mate ? Enough fun with socio-biology for one day... ?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (170527)	4/15/2021 8:14:33 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217588

Re <<evolutionary selective ... carnage ... fat and lazy and stupid?>> Was told that 'it doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it is a cat' (okay, perhaps I got the quotation slightly wrong, but a good mouser is the same as a bad mouser at the end of each work night, a cat) Nothing particularly wrong being fat and lazy and stupid, as long as cash flows and funding is in the inward direction, the opposite of stagnation / ossification or in the away-direction. Speaking of which, cats, ... Raoul Pal Says One Threat May Derail the Bitcoin Revolution – And It’s Not Regulation Macro guru Raoul Pal believes the advent of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) could adversely affect Bitcoin. In a recent conversation with Scott Melker on The Wolf Of All Streets podcast, Raoul Pal says the threat that could derail Bitcoin is nuanced. Pal imagines a scenario in which G20 nations develop a basket of currencies but enforce a ceiling on inflating the value of those currencies. “It makes Bitcoin, at the margin, significantly less attractive. If they implemented that [policy] for ten or twenty years, it would make Bitcoin less needed. Can they do it? I have no idea. What probability would I give this? I’ve no idea.” For now, Pal says the macro case for owning Bitcoin is as strong as ever. “My conviction just keeps growing. It’s not really just a function of price. It’s a function of the amount of people that come into the space, the thoughts going on, the development going on, so yeah. I’m still both irresponsibly long financially, I’ve not sold a single thing, and I’m irresponsibly long in terms of commitment to where this is all going. The ex-Goldman Sachs executive is also still interested Ethereum. “Just because people got burned in 2017 doesn’t mean everything repeats.” Ethereum survived and is now trading in the $2,000 range, with a market cap of almost $270 billion. “It’s a risk curve, we’re just starting a whole space… A bond investor might start with corporate credit and go to junk bonds. An equity guy might go to blue chips, to tech stocks, to emerging markets. It’s normal. It’s risk-adjusted returns. And when you go further out, in this case it’s the altcoin space, of course they’re riskier, so of course you take less risk.” He says investors should always be prepared for losses. “Because it’s risky. Risk is a real word, it’s not a one-way bet.”