Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

etftrends.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#31

Post by alfl »

wearywanderer wrote: post #19
danboarder wrote: post #7

From the article: "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics." Interesting to pick up on how she maps investments across "innovation themes" like robotics, AI, etc admittedly without deep domain knowledge herself, depending on the input of analysts.

> "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics." I'm confused, is this an objectionable statement? A lot of people seem to treat 3d printing as something truly special and unique, but actually 3d printing is a form of CNC; additive rather than subtractive like a CNC mill, but a form of CNC nonetheless. It's a technology firmly rooted in a broader tree of established technologies. I guess some…

I've recently been thinking about this in the context of web technology (revisiting some ideas from the 90s that didn't pan out then, but can be repurposed now).

Your point here about CNC and additive versus subtractive manufacturing is also near to my hobbyist interests.

Extending the idea a bit, I suspect the history of social changes that resulted from the advent of the printing press are an entryway into understanding the public's reaction to social media today.

Aside from living through the history, can you recommend a way to build more of this knowledge? If it's a matter of being widely read do you know of something like a survey introductory text?

I will google more, but thought I'd ask.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#32

Post by sombremesa »

ikeboy wrote: post #9
sombremesa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know enough about this fund to agree or disagree, but I will say that this “selling to take profits” idea mentioned in the article really rubs me the wrong way: in my experience that’s not something people interested in long term plays do.

Kelly betting straightforwardly has you reduce your position size as your edge goes down, which happens when the price moves in your favor more than the fundamentals have changed. It's exactly correct.

Sure, but in the article/convo a distinction is made between selling to take profits and selling when there is a shift in expectations. That implies that taking profits here is a purely speculative move.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#33

Post by RhodoGSA »

internetslave wrote: post #27
inthewoods wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the same funds always have the top performance? Or have the top AUM? And are you talking about hedge funds or mutual funds?

Yes the same funds usually are the top ones. There’s one offs like people who made money in 2008 etc. but it’s the same people always beating the market. The industry is really small, I don’t need a false and misleading academic study

they provided study's and links, can you? Seems like you're the one just saying things.

Not only does it make sense from a mean scenario, but it makes sense from a human scenario too. When i see a company like Tesla skyrocket to 700, every day that it posts a 10% gain i think it's at the end of it's rally. Eventually, the firm gets way too hot and pressure to buy cools down. Market cap is just how much people are willing to pay for something * outstanding shares. If suddenly everyone thinks the rally has gone on too long, buying pressure ceeds and thus market cap/ stock price.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#34

Post by RhodoGSA »

sombremesa wrote: post #32
ikeboy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kelly betting straightforwardly has you reduce your position size as your edge goes down, which happens when the price moves in your favor more than the fundamentals have changed. It's exactly correct.

Sure, but in the article/convo a distinction is made between selling to take profits and selling when there is a shift in expectations. That implies that taking profits here is a purely speculative move.

taking profits is always a purely speculative move, but a good one. Taking profits doesn't mean you liquidate entirely, it just reduces risk.

E.G. I believe in crypto, but when btc went from 20k - > 50k i took all my profit except my initial investment. It was purely speculative sure, but it drastically reduced my risk without reducing too much profit potential if i still believe in the long term.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#35

Post by RhodoGSA »

stemlord wrote: post #16

Industrial society and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

pretty terrible sentiment but i've been seeing it a bit lately. We have cars, microwaves, refrigerators, insulation and food stamps. If you brought someone from a pre-industrial society i'm pretty sure they'd call modern america a utopia.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#36

Post by internetslave »

RhodoGSA wrote: post #33
internetslave wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the same funds usually are the top ones. There’s one offs like people who made money in 2008 etc. but it’s the same people always beating the market. The industry is really small, I don’t need a false and misleading academic study

they provided study's and links, can you? Seems like you're the one just saying things. Not only does it make sense from a mean scenario, but it makes sense from a human scenario too. When i see a company like Tesla skyrocket to 700, every day that it posts a 10% gain i think it's at the end of it's rally. Eventually, the firm gets way too hot and pressure to buy cools down. Market cap is just how much people are wil…

I’ve got better things to do, and it’s widely known that finance academia is worthless. The inner workings of the investing world is opaque. That’s why you see people posting logically sounding nonsense

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#37

Post by inthewoods »

internetslave wrote: post #27
inthewoods wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the same funds always have the top performance? Or have the top AUM? And are you talking about hedge funds or mutual funds?

Yes the same funds usually are the top ones. There’s one offs like people who made money in 2008 etc. but it’s the same people always beating the market. The industry is really small, I don’t need a false and misleading academic study

Morningstar and S&P are not academic institutions. If you have data to refute what they're saying, I'd welcome it.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#38

Post by ikeboy »

sombremesa wrote: post #32
ikeboy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kelly betting straightforwardly has you reduce your position size as your edge goes down, which happens when the price moves in your favor more than the fundamentals have changed. It's exactly correct.

Sure, but in the article/convo a distinction is made between selling to take profits and selling when there is a shift in expectations. That implies that taking profits here is a purely speculative move.

If there is no shift in expectations, then you should reduce your position as the price goes up, per Kelly, i.e. "take profits". It's a great heuristic. If you wouldn't buy something at the current price, why hold it?

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#39

Post by ikeboy »

RhodoGSA wrote: post #34
sombremesa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in the article/convo a distinction is made between selling to take profits and selling when there is a shift in expectations. That implies that taking profits here is a purely speculative move.

taking profits is always a purely speculative move, but a good one. Taking profits doesn't mean you liquidate entirely, it just reduces risk. E.G. I believe in crypto, but when btc went from 20k - > 50k i took all my profit except my initial investment. It was purely speculative sure, but it drastically reduced my risk without reducing too much profit potential if i still believe in the long term.

Talk about initial investment is not meaningful. Money is fungible. The only relevant question is what the current optimal percentage of bankroll to allocate is given the price and the expectation of future prices.

Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial

#40

Post by tasogare »

smoldesu wrote: post #14

Innovation may be inherently controversial, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to the controversy. People who are vocal enough to voice a concern about your product probably care on one level or another, and ignoring them is tantamount to ignoring a support query. If you want your innovation to mean something, you still need to listen and work with your community to build something better. All of…

> biggest innovators

> Discord

We’re speaking of a chat application...

Post reply on HN