just a quality lyric film, in which several heroes are somehow involved in the market. is aimed at the mass audience and many moments cause frank negative surprise. on a five-point scale at 1,5 the ball is worse, than a good year, for no lyrics, no market, didn't really work out.
funny something else, that the female character is extremely similar to the heroine of one Russian comedy (дешевого) TV series. emotional moments acquired interesting meaning and fresh colors.
under this name came out Yubies' monthly TA. They are there, Really, more about consensus and all kinds of sentiments. but in general, it's hard to find a techie now, who would like the charts.
I'm not a techie (it's a pity, No, in earnest, I would love to take up astrocycles, but in a day only 24 o'clock, have to choose), but if you choose what to believe, then I'm ready to believe in all sorts of patterns. not as clear structures, but as certain information encrypted in the very near past.
all in all. I have a short view – everything looks disgusting. very berish and quite a long time ago, for a couple of months so sure. but! till (here and now) economic picture, very IMHO, but better than expectations. and the technique is too obvious. hence my distrust of my eyes. for now.
decided to inquire about the site for obvious reasons and came across an entertaining thing , in fact, you will find everything from the link, если вдруг не знаете, I didn't know about it, which is why I have a stable, albeit a mobile psyche.
I never liked the period of the late 90s – early 00s for his overwhelming reasoning about intervention, войнах, new eras and a near-political approach to economic processes. i sincerely hope, that we will not return to this extravaganza. because like the market can be irrational longer, than your ability to pay, so the trends in the reasoning of economists / onolitegs may exist longer, how you save your own brain from irreparable damage.
At that time, such reasoning and such a style are returning to us.
We are very amused by that, With what anger The Economist magazine asks the Western powers, how can they be so friendly with Russia? They are angry, mainly, because, which is quite rightly understood: `` Russia is not like us… Russia does not behave like a respectable European – Russia behaves like… RUSSIA! How dare she?!"
And here The Economist magazine is finally right.. Western powers have really changed their tone: so far, their Russian policy has been completely disastrous, и после того, how, thanks to Anglo-American complicity, relations were completely ruined, the largest EU countries belatedly realized, that they have enough problems even without serious discord within Europe.
And now the French and German delegations one by one replace each other in Moscow literally on a daily basis., and business ties are experiencing a new heyday. Americans also have their own idea of «reboots»: undoubtedly, past those times, when neoconservatives threatened Russia «regime change», and Cheney wanted to bomb the Russian troops approaching Ossetia.
Does our reader remember, that the Orange Revolution was supposed to sweep the streets of Moscow and return Russia to a subordinate state, which the West liked so much in the 1990s.? How Russians were about to rebel against the hated regime and return pro-Western liberals to power, which in the 1990s. worked wonders? How Khodorkovsky prepared to lead his people to the Promised Land? Or from memories of the last time: does our reader remember the angry demands, for Russia to allow Georgia to re-occupy South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
В действительности же, after the destruction of the foundations of the Ukrainian economy, the Orange Revolution and the extremely corrupt Tymoshenko faded into oblivion and gave way to a pro-Russian president, who is doing his best now, to make up for that damage, which the Yushchenko presidency inflicted on Ukrainian-Russian relations.
Meanwhile, the behavior of the mentally unstable Georgian president is becoming more and more bizarre.: recently the country was agitated by fabricated filming, which talk about the Russian invasion and occupation, Saakashvili's death at the hands of the invaders. Нет нужды говорить о том, that it was falsification, invented in the presidential office.
ie. again `` powers '', "запад", `` mentally unstable '', & quot; falsifications" etc. world financial crisis, come back, please…
it was worth being away for only three days and here you are: *WHEAT FUTURES FALL 60-CENT LIMIT ON CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE (..Gagarin, i loved you, uuuu, on-on-on-on…)
markets survived Friday's report well. but there is a nuance. too much talk about QE2, no matter how it works again: thought of future reasons for panic. (although for the second time, it's not without reason)
in the friendliness, as always, a lot of interesting things. hours through 12 I will leave to actively read.
just tell me, that they say there will be no serious reports today, but if that, take a look at Texas Industries. so immediately TXI and starts to disappear from reporting calendars. take a closer look, whop, and the release was moved to 20 number. Today in the morning it was possible, if desired, to find out this fact, and not stupidly look through the calendar.
if ugly then 1) you have three doors to choose from, there is a prize behind one of the doors. 2) you make a choice – probability of getting a prize = 1/3 3) after you have made a choice (but none of the doors are open yet) they open the door for you, behind which there is definitely no prize and ask, do you want to change your choice now. 4) it is obvious that now there are only two doors in front of you and the probability of receiving a prize is now 1/2, which is higher than 1/3. (simplifying a little, in the language of probability it will be prettier)
this whole thing is called a paradox because, what most people think, that an open door does not carry additional information, so there is no point in changing the choice. in terms of probabilities – the choice needs to be changed, because 1/2 this is better, how 1/3.
in fact, it's a paradox of a paradox. in real conditions two choices 1 door from 3, and than 1 door from 2 – are independent. since the choice is made randomly in principle, so it is correct to run your random generator again and point to one of the two remaining doors randomly (if you point to the same, as for the first time – then you don't change the choice, if on another – then change). thus, the formation of the problem conditions leads to a composition error and we focus on formulas instead of reality;)
ie. you make two independent choices, therefore, asking the question `` to change or not to change the decision" leads to an erroneous perception of reality. if anyone knows empirical experiments – share, sure, that the result will be unexpected. can it be like this: the strategy of randomly choosing one of the two doors will outperform the strategy of constantly choosing a `` new door ''.
economists and quanta love to fall for such things. the most striking example of the discrepancy between theory and reality (of those at hand) described by William Feller flipping a coin (popularization from Mandelbrot).
we toss a coin. if the eagle – we write +1 dollars, tail – minus dollar. tossing results are summed up. on shorts (sorry for the quality, photo by phone page from the naughty marketplace" Mandelbrot) third graph – this is the result after 10000 tossing. On the top chart – First 500, second from 500 to 5000.
as we see, if we bet on, that in the long run, our result will tend to zero (what in theory) we may face a situation where market tossing `` goes against us ''. this is where LTCM flew. managers believed, that the spreads will converge. and the spreads converged in the end. but these 'deviations from zero" proved to be sufficient, to knock LTCM out of the saddle.
the practical conclusion is – what is risk management – is the ability to make a decision about, that it's time to change the principle of decision making. for example LTCM – fix losses having felt, that the situation is out of control.
all in all, no one is going anywhere from the need to make decisions on their own.
update.
with the independence of choice in Monty Hall, I seem to be too clever. apparently I was not able to express the idea concretely enough, so the criticism fell on, which is so clear. but, from the choice of 1 out of 2, you can go to the choice of 1 out of 3 and do the same algorithm as in Monty Hole. then the treated probability 2/3 will be higher than the initial probability 1/2 at the initial choice of 1 of them 2. ie. the math trick itself is universally applicable. although it is not known at the practical level whether the strategy of Monty-Hall will outplay the strategy of 2 equal random choices (because of, what is critical is the random distribution of the position of the prize and the door in repeated experiments).
Again, that I did not dispute and do not dispute the validity of the paradox. I thought, what is the focus in specific conditions, but he's in mathematical logic, which consists in reducing the unknown. and, the more we reduce the initial probability (for example, turning choice 1 from 2 to choose 1 from the 10th) the greater the statistical advantage we get when we change the choice.
so i was wrong, but the fact that I was not shown an error is a consequence of the poor-quality formulation of my idea.
