Only if you are looking at it on a very short timespan. Those of us that have been VTSAX and chill for the past decade+ are still up plenty. Markets go up, markets go down too. That is why retail investors should buy broad based, low fee, index funds and not try to beat the market.
There were certainly some serious winners over the past few years, but only if you got out and my guess is that most of those folks in meme stocks can't give up the ghost and over estimate their abilities.
> There were certainly some serious winners over the past few years, but only if you got out and my guess is that most of those folks in meme stocks can't give up the ghost and over estimate their abilities.
You might be reading WallStreetBets too seriously and underestimating the financial literacy of people on there.
At the very least, most of the people still there know what IV Crush is.
I think the idea is that the behavior of the subjects of the article will almost never lead to ten years of accumulating wealth. It will more than likely lead to losses after a term of one to three years.
Didn't say it was groundbreaking, just said it's better to be slow and steady than focus on one year's worth of gains/losses. Short term wins is how gamblers think, long term gains is how investors think.
We could start by trying to take the magic out of how social media sites decide what to display. Content delivery algorithms can be very effective at imparting a lasting impact on users that carries away from the platform.
If content delivery algorithms were open sourced it could add a healthy check to the ecosystem.
Someone should make a service to do this. I'll give the service may payment info, and then I want to have to click one button each month to turn on each service. If I haven't watched Netflix for awhile, it automatically turns off when the month expires. If I decide to watch Netflix, but it's already turned off, I click one button and it's back.
You can already do this, you just have to do it yourself with a bunch of clicks.
No one is compelling you to pay for a streaming service. In fact there are many ways to pay per-show/movie if you prefer that model, which range from a short term digital "rental" to physically owning a disc.
Applying this to other monthly costs is also an interesting exercise: If I don't just my gym membership, do I get that back? If my house doesn't burn down, should I get a refund on my fire insurance?
I think I disagree with this. There's a cost to keeping the lights on and that's part of the subscription. If you don't use any electricity, your provider still bills you for the $30 to maintain the power grid.
But you have the option to use it by maintaining the subscription. It had to be available any moment during the month you could choose to login and watch something. Someone had to keep the servers on, the content network, the authentication service when you logged in, etc.
That's fair, you paid for the ability to watch Netflix any time during the month, and whether or not you actually do, the ability to do so was was given.
I think this is a great idea. Similarly ISPs should detect if they don't receive any packets from your connections for any 24 hour period, and refund you for that day.
Well, customers who take holidays would have days when they don't transfer any data (assuming they turn off their router/modem while they're away) and customers whose connection is broken because of faulty ISP equipment would also benefit (because there would be financial incentive for the ISPs to fix the problem, rather than it helping their bottom line).
Still doesn't really make sense because the ISP still incurs the same expense. They had to buy that capacity which still exists while you are taking a short holiday. If its a long holiday you can cancel the service for that time.
If your service doesn't work for a significant period, you likely can receive some compensation enforced by a government body.
Not even. During the process and confusion caused by changing the pricing rubric, they'll make sure that you're paying more than you were paying before.
I didn't downvote but streaming services could argue that they're paying for on-demand capacity that has to be available for all paying customers who could decide to stream at any moment in time during their subscription.
On a personal level I also think there's paradoxical social net negatives from overly-insulating people from their own poor decisions while in tandem raising barriers to entry for services (basically, why I choose not to live in California).
I didn't downvote it, but I would imagine that it is a case of consumers needing to take responsibility for their own actions at some point.
Keep in mind that streaming services are sold as a reoccurring monthly service, it is remarkably easy to cancel service, and they fulfill the full month even if you cancel early. It is difficult to regard the those business practices as deceptive. (At least in the case of services that I have subscribed to.) This is very much unlike the horror stories that I have heard of for other subscription services, and have experienced in a couple of cases.
Isn't the high level plan for this treatment: 1)The psilocybin breaks down the patients ego and 2) the psycho therapist molds it hopefully for the better?
"people who have done a lot of mushrooms..." In my experience those people also take just about anything. How could one say it was the psilocybin
Probably not, but I assume a recreational dose is greater than a therapeutic another friend took the same amount and he was perfectly fine, but my friend became really paranoid (government hiding people to torture, signals sent through TV, people trying to kill him). he was a heavy cannabis and alcohol user in high school which could have been a sign of self-medication, but that was the first time he really had a negative experience.
At the time, we thought he was schizophrenic, but he got a bipolar diagnoses later from doctors.
It's been a struggle with sobriety and mental health for over a decade. Mushroom didn't cause it, but it was definitely a notable moment in his life
Dried product varies pretty widely in strength, even from stem to cap. Things like strain and spore lineage also contribute to strength of the dried product.
They are using synthetic psilocybin. It would be impossible to make a translation between grams of dried vs. synthetic. Different species have diff content, liberty cap vs. penis envy etc. also stalks vs. caps typically differ in str.
Dosage guides for dried shrooms are already universal in recommendation of dosage typically speaking in terms of grams without bringing up the individual strain. This leads me to believe that a generally close conversion should be reasonable from the dried natural to that MG number.
There's no surefire way to estimate the actual weight of psilocybin save for extracting it chemically. It can vary widely between species, between flushes, and even between individual fruits.
The article glosses over how the spores could expect to respond during the highly saturated setting phase. It is reasonable to assume they could cause deformations or web-like weak points in new concrete by being too active well before they are intended to be active. I think getting a predictable outcome during setting is probably the challenge.
