Trudeau

Posted by: chupacabra

You are confusing creative writing with critical thinking.  

Decisions, when not based on measurable, quantifiable targets are prime candidates to fall prey to cognitive biases.

LOL.  Your snark level is off the charts.  Did my irrelevant independent remark hit a nerve?  Is the market getting you down?  (don't answer, we all know you're killing it)

So... share with us won't you the wisdom in your voting choices, because I can't say I have a clue what they are.  I assume your measurable, quantifiable targets are beyond reproach... or at least they better be.  ;)

I will be over here, not holding my breath.

No man, no snark, no nerves hit.  Market is not getting me down.  Things are good.  I stand by my statement that in order to craft the narratives you do, you need to be an insider with the PC's and the Liberal's.  There is no source of information available, at least without a measurable bias you can use to cancel the noise, to be able to conclude many of the things you do. 

Natural selection has bred us into narrative-building machines.  For many good reasons.

The bad news?  It's almost impossible to turn that off.  If you want to combat it with critical thinking, I'd suggest starting with Daniel Kahneman's best seller I've touted on here a thousand times, then reading books by Airely and Thaler.  Then if you have the time some books on probability and randomness (Mlodinow is gold).  Finally, hit up the alpha-wind bag and read Nassim Taleb's books.

If I were to sum up why I do the things I do, those people above probably have the biggest hand in it all.

As of right now, chances are my vote will go the Green's or the NDP in the chance my independent choices are all pants-on-head crazy.  But everything is case-by-case.

When you ask me to share with "us", can you tell me who you speak for?

Book smarts does not equal common sense.

Posted by: switch

Book smarts does not equal common sense.

Common sense cannot be defined by anything.

Wow that sounds fucking stupid.

Sounds stupid because you aren't using common sense.

Check mate atheists.

Posted by: chupacabra

LOL.  Your snark level is off the charts.  Did my irrelevant independent remark hit a nerve?  Is the market getting you down?  (don't answer, we all know you're killing it)

So... share with us won't you the wisdom in your voting choices, because I can't say I have a clue what they are.  I assume your measurable, quantifiable targets are beyond reproach... or at least they better be.  ;)

I will be over here, not holding my breath.

One thing I've failed to bring up many times... you've ascribed some sort of holier-than-thou feeling to my messages.  Possibly for my penchant for not pulling punches when I see faulty logic (at least in my eyes).  For the record, I hold no answers nor believe I can see into the future.  To me life is nothing but probabilities. 

The probability of corruption within a political party increases for each year it is in power.  I cannot prove that, but history is on my side.

When looking at quantitative differences between our ruling class, I see window dressing.  In my opinion, extended tenure causes more damage than anything else.

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: KenN

A worthwhile read. Mostly a thought exercise, and one could argue the timelines a bit, but pretty much spot on otherwise.

https://shift.newco.co/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die-38b843bd4fe0

That was a good read. Predictions are not easy, but the key date is when production peaks. Anything after that is the post tar sand era. He predicts 2022, but even 2025 is too late for this pipeline to be of any consequence.

Another good'n. Article is a year old, but very relevant.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/paabxk/heres-how-canadas-oil-sands-could-collapse-by-2030

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

LOL.  Your snark level is off the charts.  Did my irrelevant independent remark hit a nerve?  Is the market getting you down?  (don't answer, we all know you're killing it)

So... share with us won't you the wisdom in your voting choices, because I can't say I have a clue what they are.  I assume your measurable, quantifiable targets are beyond reproach... or at least they better be.  ;)

I will be over here, not holding my breath.

One thing I've failed to bring up many times... you've ascribed some sort of holier-than-thou feeling to my messages.  Possibly for my penchant for not pulling punches when I see faulty logic (at least in my eyes).  For the record, I hold no answers nor believe I can see into the future.  To me life is nothing but probabilities. 

The probability of corruption within a political party increases for each year it is in power.  I cannot prove that, but history is on my side.

When looking at quantitative differences between our ruling class, I see window dressing.  In my opinion, extended tenure causes more damage than anything else.

I don't pull too many punches myself and I am sure to come across just as holier than thou as you do, so I guess we can give each other a break.  :)

You may not believe this, but I also am a big proponent of probability.  I am sure my wife is sick of my poker analogies by now.  The way I saw the last election there were 3 contenders with an actual possibility of forming a government, so I wasn't interested in the rest as I saw them as irrelevant.  So I weighed the facts, looked at my priorities and picked one.  I think we differ mainly in the weighing.  Of course, Trudeau's incredible hair played a factor as well.

Posted by: ReductiMat

No man, no snark, no nerves hit.  Market is not getting me down.  Things are good.  I stand by my statement that in order to craft the narratives you do, you need to be an insider with the PC's and the Liberal's.  There is no source of information available, at least without a measurable bias you can use to cancel the noise, to be able to conclude many of the things you do. 

Natural selection has bred us into narrative-building machines.  For many good reasons.

The bad news?  It's almost impossible to turn that off.  If you want to combat it with critical thinking, I'd suggest starting with Daniel Kahneman's best seller I've touted on here a thousand times, then reading books by Airely and Thaler.  Then if you have the time some books on probability and randomness (Mlodinow is gold).  Finally, hit up the alpha-wind bag and read Nassim Taleb's books.

If I were to sum up why I do the things I do, those people above probably have the biggest hand in it all.

As of right now, chances are my vote will go the Green's or the NDP in the chance my independent choices are all pants-on-head crazy.  But everything is case-by-case.

When you ask me to share with "us", can you tell me who you speak for?

Have you read Homo Sapiens or Homo Deus?  Another Israeli writer and both great reads.  Is the Khaneman book Thinking Fast and Slow?

Posted by: KenN

Another good'n. Article is a year old, but very relevant.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/paabxk/heres-how-canadas-oil-sands-could-collapse-by-2030

We will have to wait and see, but if the adoption of solar is any kind of reference the soothsayers were way off on how quickly they would become economically viable.

Posted by: chupacabra

Have you read Homo Sapiens or Homo Deus?  Another Israeli writer and both great reads.  Is the Khaneman book Thinking Fast and Slow?

Too slow, I bought it yesterday.

Posted by: chupacabra

Have you read Homo Sapiens or Homo Deus?  Another Israeli writer and both great reads.  Is the Khaneman book Thinking Fast and Slow?

I have not, but will put it on my radar.  Thank you.

Hope you get as much out of T,F&S as much as I did.

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: KenN

Another good'n. Article is a year old, but very relevant.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/paabxk/heres-how-canadas-oil-sands-could-collapse-by-2030

We will have to wait and see, but if the adoption of solar is any kind of reference the soothsayers were way off on how quickly they would become economically viable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-2017-5

Good discussion on the environmental disaster that is the tar sands ....

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/06/analysis/theres-some-good-news-about-canadas-2020-climate-target