Search results

It's the usual formula for authoritative-sounding nonsense: take an existing idea - preferably one that is well-known in a given field but not outside of it - and attach a false analogy that somehow kinda-sorta seems to support your point. Thus, the "two loops model" (which is nothing more than...

Bwahahaha... "real"! This, from a site that does nothing but shill for anti-vaxxers, 9-11 loons, and other conspira-morons, and whose "authority" is based on some Mexican and Nicaraguan organizations with which they are "partnered". That's exactly the kind of cesspool I expect you to use as...

Uh-huh. You clearly have a problem with the basics of language - or even simple comprehension. It may be insufficient education, it may be your fanaticism - most likely both... I don't really care. But you really, really need to look up the word "proven" in the dictionary, and study it until...

From my GF, who used to be an ICU nurse: nurses and respiratory therapists are getting $10k-$15k per week to work in COVID "combat zones" like NYC, etc. A quick search of the web confirms. And given how many nurses and doctors we're losing due to insufficient PPE, etc., that's only going to go up.

That's what I'm seeing. And given that a number of my acquaintances are in the medical field - nurses, doctors, researchers - and they, from what I see during personal contact, are unable to follow safety protocols during their off time (touching their faces, not wearing masks at all times...

I can't imagine how 0.1% is "more honest" (or even more bewilderingly, "small") when it reflects the same number. Are you looking for something that feels smaller to you personally? Hundreds of thousands of dead people is still the same horrifying number in a personal sense that it always was...

Add this to your scenarios: everybody is damn well sick and tired of lockdowns, masks, etc. (I'm convinced that part of the reason for the rioting is the built-up frustration. Doesn't excuse anything, but it's one of the main drivers behind it.) And politicians are very, very aware of the...

Nothing. But it has everything to do with ridiculous statements made in those domains. Whether a broker has inserted such a piece of code into their platform is a separate discussion; one that is not made better by those ridiculous statements, especially when they're used as "proof". Agreed -...

What you're asking is equivalent to "I'm about to race this 2000HP Formula One dragster - how does this gas pedal thing work?" The only right answer is "don't do it until you've learned enough not to kill yourself." I don't mean to sound snarky, but unless you learn exactly what implied...

As it happens, so am I. And your assumption - if we're going to assign such things - that all backtesting platforms do so is at least as naive as the false one you've assumed I hold. Now, you want to actually find out what I think? Or you want to play silly-ass games? I would think the latter...

He's already missed 1+10-10+1=2, or its trading equivalent, in his FX journal; I figure life is cruel enough to him as it is. Oh, and his take on options was just... precious. I hope he keeps posting here; trading comedy, especially when unconscious, is in short supply.

For all my grousing about TS, their backtesting app is reasonably decent. But note that you'll need to learn EasyLanguage to use it effectively. :thumbsdown:

Oh, that's your reference for statistical, mathematical, and analytic skills? Explains everything.

My, my. Now come the deep-sounding but meaningless faux philosophical pronouncements. I would suggest discovering The Truth of 1+1=2, or perhaps "for all x: x = x", or maybe even - this might take you years of study - the deep mystery of the sigma. They have indeed been hidden from you until...

Hahahaha! OMG... why am I surprised that a paranoid continues to be paranoid? You're right: I'm OBVIOUSLY in the pay of the mysterious broker cabal - here to stop you from exposing the truth to the world. Wanna tell us all about the evil vaccine conspiracy as well, and throw in some Area 51...

The magical "data scientist in a box" software. It contains instructions on how to catch a data scientist and put him in a box, and only feed him when he gives you good answers to your questions. Of course, you also have to catch another data scientist to evaluate the first one's answers, and...

Wrong. You're obviously neither a programmer, a statistician, or a mathematician, and you keep digging an ever-deeper hole by making statements that are utterly ludicrous wherever they involve any of those disciplines. I suggest you stop before you make yourself look even worse than you already...

And what I'm saying is that the conspiranoiac assumption of "stealing your code" doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of rational thinking. Assuming your broker (or whoever) wanted to steal this "code" - how would he know which "code" to steal? There are thousands to millions of backtests...

If that is what you believe, then what is the difference whether your backtesting software "steals your code" or not? Since - according to your belief - it's going to happen anyway?

What could possibly prevent your broker's platform from "literally stealing your code" if you're a successful trader?