Podcasts about concavity

Every episode we explore a Lindy book, and find Timeless ideas you can apply to business and life. We strive to become polymaths like our investing and business icons, pulling the Big Ideas from a wide range of disciplines to help us become better investors and operators. Join 3,000+ curious minds and avid readers by subscribing @ rationalvc.com to get free access to essays and exclusive content. For the video version of episode click here.   Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (11:39) Antifragile definition (19:13) Introduction to the core concepts (22:04) Hormesis, naïve interventionism, iatrogenics (33:55) Peter Kaufmann and Charlie Munger(35:57) Modernity, Switzerland, political systems (55:21) Concavity vs Convexity and Black Swans (1:07:30) FU Money and wealth (1:13:12) Optionality and wealth (1:21:47) Barbell strategy (1:43:02) Rational Flaneur (1:47:23) The Lindy Effect (2:01:22) Raising antifragile kids (2:12:19) Green Lumbar fallacy (2:23:53) Signal vs Noise (2:29:00) Via Negativa (2:51:07) Ethics of Antifragility and Skin in the Game (2:57:36) Deep dives and quotes (3:35:32) Closing thoughts - Our website (all essays and podcasts): rationalvc.com  Our investment fund: rational.fund  Cyrus' Twitter: x.com/CyrusYari  Iman's Twitter: x.com/iman_olya - Links mentioned in the episode: Cyrus referenced Tweets: https://x.com/CyrusYari/status/1792279103862681603 https://x.com/CyrusYari/status/1757715505819906419 https://x.com/CyrusYari/status/1679174178195353600 Peter Kauffman Rational VC episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMiOFC07X8M&t=8s The Black Swan episode: https://youtu.be/HVGJQ25Cr2k?si=8b2DPBPX80Pgbgag Vizi Andrei: https://twitter.com/viziandrei  Daniel Vassallo: https://twitter.com/dvassallo Cyrus essay on Angel Investing (incl. Barbell Investing): https://www.rationalvc.com/articles/angel  WhosAria Bars of Wisdom newsletter: https://www.barsofwisdom.com  Fat Tony's Community:  https://fattonys.net/  - Disclaimer: The materials provided are solely for informational or entertainment purposes and do not constitute investment or legal advice. All opinions expressed by hosts and guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of their employer(s). #Lindy #knowledge #books

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: All About Concave and Convex Agents, published by mako yass on March 25, 2024 on LessWrong. An entry-level characterization of some types of guy in decision theory, and in real life, interspersed with short stories about them A concave function bends down. A convex function bends up. A linear function does neither. A utility function is just a function that says how good different outcomes are. They describe an agent's preferences. Different agents have different utility functions. Usually, a utility function assigns scores to outcomes or histories, but in article we'll define a sort of utility function that takes the quantity of resources that the agent has control over, and the utility function says how good an outcome the agent could attain using that quantity of resources. In that sense, a concave agent values resources less the more that it has, eventually barely wanting more resources at all, while a convex agent wants more resources the more it has. But that's a rough and incomplete understanding, and I'm not sure this turns out to be a meaningful claim without talking about expected values, so let's continue. Humans generally have mostly concave utility functions in this sense. Money is more important to someone who has less of it. Concavity manifests as a reduced appetite for variance in payouts, which is to say, concavity is risk-aversion. This is not just a fact about concave and convex agents, it's a definition of the distinction between them: Humans' concavity is probably the reason we have a fondness for policies that support more even distributions of wealth. If humans instead had convex utility functions, we would prefer policies that actively encourage the concentration of wealth for its own sake. We would play strange, grim games where we gather together, put all of our money into a pot, and select a random person among ourselves who shall alone receive all of everyone's money. Oh, we do something like that sometimes, it's called a lottery, but from what I can gather, we spend ten times more on welfare (redistribution) than we do on lottery tickets (concentration). But, huh, only ten times as much?![1] And you could go on to argue that Society is lottery-shaped in general, but I think that's an incidental result of wealth inevitably being applicable to getting more wealth, rather than a thing we're doing deliberately. I'm probably not a strong enough anthropologist to settle this question of which decision theoretic type of guy humans are today. I think the human utility function is probably convex at first, concave for a while, then linear at the extremes as the immediate surroundings are optimized, at which point, altruism (our preferences about the things outside of our own sphere of experience) becomes the dominant term? Or maybe different humans have radically different kinds of preferences, and we cover it up, because to share a world with others efficiently we must strive towards a harmonious shared plan, and that tends to produce social pressures to agree with the plan as it currently stands, pressures to hide the extent to which we still disagree to retain the trust and favor of the plan's chief executors. Despite how crucial the re-forging of shared plans is as a skill, it's a skill that very few of us get to train in, so we generally aren't self-aware about that kind of preference falsification towards the imagined mean and sometimes we lose sight of our differences completely. Regardless. On the forging of shared plans, it is noticeably easier to forge shared plans with concave agents. They're more amenable to stable conditions (low variance), and they mind less having to share. This post grew out of another post about a simple bargaining commitment that would make concave misaligned AGIs a little less dangerous. In contrast, let's start...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: All About Concave and Convex Agents, published by mako yass on March 25, 2024 on LessWrong. An entry-level characterization of some types of guy in decision theory, and in real life, interspersed with short stories about them A concave function bends down. A convex function bends up. A linear function does neither. A utility function is just a function that says how good different outcomes are. They describe an agent's preferences. Different agents have different utility functions. Usually, a utility function assigns scores to outcomes or histories, but in article we'll define a sort of utility function that takes the quantity of resources that the agent has control over, and the utility function says how good an outcome the agent could attain using that quantity of resources. In that sense, a concave agent values resources less the more that it has, eventually barely wanting more resources at all, while a convex agent wants more resources the more it has. But that's a rough and incomplete understanding, and I'm not sure this turns out to be a meaningful claim without talking about expected values, so let's continue. Humans generally have mostly concave utility functions in this sense. Money is more important to someone who has less of it. Concavity manifests as a reduced appetite for variance in payouts, which is to say, concavity is risk-aversion. This is not just a fact about concave and convex agents, it's a definition of the distinction between them: Humans' concavity is probably the reason we have a fondness for policies that support more even distributions of wealth. If humans instead had convex utility functions, we would prefer policies that actively encourage the concentration of wealth for its own sake. We would play strange, grim games where we gather together, put all of our money into a pot, and select a random person among ourselves who shall alone receive all of everyone's money. Oh, we do something like that sometimes, it's called a lottery, but from what I can gather, we spend ten times more on welfare (redistribution) than we do on lottery tickets (concentration). But, huh, only ten times as much?![1] And you could go on to argue that Society is lottery-shaped in general, but I think that's an incidental result of wealth inevitably being applicable to getting more wealth, rather than a thing we're doing deliberately. I'm probably not a strong enough anthropologist to settle this question of which decision theoretic type of guy humans are today. I think the human utility function is probably convex at first, concave for a while, then linear at the extremes as the immediate surroundings are optimized, at which point, altruism (our preferences about the things outside of our own sphere of experience) becomes the dominant term? Or maybe different humans have radically different kinds of preferences, and we cover it up, because to share a world with others efficiently we must strive towards a harmonious shared plan, and that tends to produce social pressures to agree with the plan as it currently stands, pressures to hide the extent to which we still disagree to retain the trust and favor of the plan's chief executors. Despite how crucial the re-forging of shared plans is as a skill, it's a skill that very few of us get to train in, so we generally aren't self-aware about that kind of preference falsification towards the imagined mean and sometimes we lose sight of our differences completely. Regardless. On the forging of shared plans, it is noticeably easier to forge shared plans with concave agents. They're more amenable to stable conditions (low variance), and they mind less having to share. This post grew out of another post about a simple bargaining commitment that would make concave misaligned AGIs a little less dangerous. In contrast, let's start...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Concave Utility Question, published by Scott Garrabrant on April 15, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. This post will just be a concrete math question. I am interested in this question because I have recently come tor reject the independence axiom of VNM, and am thus playing with some weaker versions. Let Ω be a finite set of deterministic outcomes. Let L be the space of all lotteries over these outcomes, and let ⪰ be a relation on L. We write A∼B if A ⪰ B and B ⪰ A. We write A≻B if A⪰B but not A∼B. Here are some axioms we can assume about ⪰: A1. For all A,B∈L, either A⪰B or B⪰A (or both). A2. For all A,B,C∈L, if A⪰B, and B⪰C, then A⪰C. A3. For all A,B,C∈L, if A⪰B, and B⪰C, then there exists a p∈[0,1] such that B∼pA+(1−p)C. A4. For all A,B∈L, and p∈[0,1] if A⪰B, then pA+(1−p)B⪰B. A5. For all A,B∈L, and p∈[0,1], if p>0 and B⪰pA+(1−p)B, then B⪰A. Here is one bonus axiom: B1. For all A,B,C∈L, and p∈[0,1], A⪰B if and only if pA+(1−p)C⪰pB+(1−p)C. (Note that B1 is stronger than both A4 and A5) Finally, here are some conclusions of successively increasing strength: C1. There exists a function u:L[0,1] such that A⪰B if and only if u(A)≥u(B). C2. Further, we require u is quasi-concave. C3. Further, we require u is continuous. C4. Further, we require u is concave. C5. Further, we require u is linear. The standard VNM utility theorem can be thought of as saying A1, A2, A3, and B1 together imply C5. Here is the main question I am curious about: Q1: Do A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] (If no, how can we salvage C4, by adding or changing some axioms?) Here are some sub-questions that would constitute significant partial progress, and that I think are interesting in their own right: Q2: Do A1, A2, A3, and A4 together imply C3? [ANSWER: NO] Q3: Do C3 and A5 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] (Feel free to give answers that are only partial progress, and use this space to think out loud or discuss anything else related to weaker versions of VNM.) EDIT: AlexMennen actually resolved the question in the negative as stated, but my curiosity is not resolved, since his argument is violating continuity, and I really care about concavity. My updated main question is now: Q4: Do A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 together imply that there exists a concave function u:L[0,1] such that A⪰B if and only if u(A)≥u(B)? [ANSWER: NO] (i.e. We do not require u to be continuous.) This modification also implies interest in the subquestion: Q5: Do A1, A2, A3, and A4 together imply C2? EDIT 2: Here is another bonus axiom: B2. For all A,B∈L, if A≻B, then there exists some C∈L such that A≻C≻B. (Really, we don't need to assume C is already in L. We just need it to be possible to add a C, and extend our preferences in a way that satisfies the other axioms, and A3 will imply that such a lottery was already in L. We might want to replace this with a cleaner axiom later.) Q6: Do A1, A2, A3, A5, and B2 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] EDIT 3: We now have negative answers to everything other than Q5, which I still think is pretty interesting. We could also weaken Q5 to include other axioms, like A5 and B2. Weakening the conclusion doesn't help, since it is easy to get C2 from C1 and A4. I would still really like some axioms that get us all the way to a concave function, but I doubt there will be any simple ones. Concavity feels like it really needs more structure that does not translate well to a preference relation. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Concave Utility Question, published by Scott Garrabrant on April 15, 2023 on LessWrong. This post will just be a concrete math question. I am interested in this question because I have recently come tor reject the independence axiom of VNM, and am thus playing with some weaker versions. Let Ω be a finite set of deterministic outcomes. Let L be the space of all lotteries over these outcomes, and let ⪰ be a relation on L. We write A∼B if A ⪰ B and B ⪰ A. We write A≻B if A⪰B but not A∼B. Here are some axioms we can assume about ⪰: A1. For all A,B∈L, either A⪰B or B⪰A (or both). A2. For all A,B,C∈L, if A⪰B, and B⪰C, then A⪰C. A3. For all A,B,C∈L, if A⪰B, and B⪰C, then there exists a p∈[0,1] such that B∼pA+(1−p)C. A4. For all A,B∈L, and p∈[0,1] if A⪰B, then pA+(1−p)B⪰B. A5. For all A,B∈L, and p∈[0,1], if p>0 and B⪰pA+(1−p)B, then B⪰A. Here is one bonus axiom: B1. For all A,B,C∈L, and p∈[0,1], A⪰B if and only if pA+(1−p)C⪰pB+(1−p)C. (Note that B1 is stronger than both A4 and A5) Finally, here are some conclusions of successively increasing strength: C1. There exists a function u:L[0,1] such that A⪰B if and only if u(A)≥u(B). C2. Further, we require u is quasi-concave. C3. Further, we require u is continuous. C4. Further, we require u is concave. C5. Further, we require u is linear. The standard VNM utility theorem can be thought of as saying A1, A2, A3, and B1 together imply C5. Here is the main question I am curious about: Q1: Do A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] (If no, how can we salvage C4, by adding or changing some axioms?) Here are some sub-questions that would constitute significant partial progress, and that I think are interesting in their own right: Q2: Do A1, A2, A3, and A4 together imply C3? [ANSWER: NO] Q3: Do C3 and A5 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] (Feel free to give answers that are only partial progress, and use this space to think out loud or discuss anything else related to weaker versions of VNM.) EDIT: AlexMennen actually resolved the question in the negative as stated, but my curiosity is not resolved, since his argument is violating continuity, and I really care about concavity. My updated main question is now: Q4: Do A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 together imply that there exists a concave function u:L[0,1] such that A⪰B if and only if u(A)≥u(B)? [ANSWER: NO] (i.e. We do not require u to be continuous.) This modification also implies interest in the subquestion: Q5: Do A1, A2, A3, and A4 together imply C2? EDIT 2: Here is another bonus axiom: B2. For all A,B∈L, if A≻B, then there exists some C∈L such that A≻C≻B. (Really, we don't need to assume C is already in L. We just need it to be possible to add a C, and extend our preferences in a way that satisfies the other axioms, and A3 will imply that such a lottery was already in L. We might want to replace this with a cleaner axiom later.) Q6: Do A1, A2, A3, A5, and B2 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] EDIT 3: We now have negative answers to everything other than Q5, which I still think is pretty interesting. We could also weaken Q5 to include other axioms, like A5 and B2. Weakening the conclusion doesn't help, since it is easy to get C2 from C1 and A4. I would still really like some axioms that get us all the way to a concave function, but I doubt there will be any simple ones. Concavity feels like it really needs more structure that does not translate well to a preference relation. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Concave Utility Question, published by Scott Garrabrant on April 15, 2023 on LessWrong. This post will just be a concrete math question. I am interested in this question because I have recently come tor reject the independence axiom of VNM, and am thus playing with some weaker versions. Let Ω be a finite set of deterministic outcomes. Let L be the space of all lotteries over these outcomes, and let ⪰ be a relation on L. We write A∼B if A ⪰ B and B ⪰ A. We write A≻B if A⪰B but not A∼B. Here are some axioms we can assume about ⪰: A1. For all A,B∈L, either A⪰B or B⪰A (or both). A2. For all A,B,C∈L, if A⪰B, and B⪰C, then A⪰C. A3. For all A,B,C∈L, if A⪰B, and B⪰C, then there exists a p∈[0,1] such that B∼pA+(1−p)C. A4. For all A,B∈L, and p∈[0,1] if A⪰B, then pA+(1−p)B⪰B. A5. For all A,B∈L, and p∈[0,1], if p>0 and B⪰pA+(1−p)B, then B⪰A. Here is one bonus axiom: B1. For all A,B,C∈L, and p∈[0,1], A⪰B if and only if pA+(1−p)C⪰pB+(1−p)C. (Note that B1 is stronger than both A4 and A5) Finally, here are some conclusions of successively increasing strength: C1. There exists a function u:L[0,1] such that A⪰B if and only if u(A)≥u(B). C2. Further, we require u is quasi-concave. C3. Further, we require u is continuous. C4. Further, we require u is concave. C5. Further, we require u is linear. The standard VNM utility theorem can be thought of as saying A1, A2, A3, and B1 together imply C5. Here is the main question I am curious about: Q1: Do A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] (If no, how can we salvage C4, by adding or changing some axioms?) Here are some sub-questions that would constitute significant partial progress, and that I think are interesting in their own right: Q2: Do A1, A2, A3, and A4 together imply C3? [ANSWER: NO] Q3: Do C3 and A5 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] (Feel free to give answers that are only partial progress, and use this space to think out loud or discuss anything else related to weaker versions of VNM.) EDIT: AlexMennen actually resolved the question in the negative as stated, but my curiosity is not resolved, since his argument is violating continuity, and I really care about concavity. My updated main question is now: Q4: Do A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 together imply that there exists a concave function u:L[0,1] such that A⪰B if and only if u(A)≥u(B)? [ANSWER: NO] (i.e. We do not require u to be continuous.) This modification also implies interest in the subquestion: Q5: Do A1, A2, A3, and A4 together imply C2? EDIT 2: Here is another bonus axiom: B2. For all A,B∈L, if A≻B, then there exists some C∈L such that A≻C≻B. (Really, we don't need to assume C is already in L. We just need it to be possible to add a C, and extend our preferences in a way that satisfies the other axioms, and A3 will imply that such a lottery was already in L. We might want to replace this with a cleaner axiom later.) Q6: Do A1, A2, A3, A5, and B2 together imply C4? [ANSWER: NO] EDIT 3: We now have negative answers to everything other than Q5, which I still think is pretty interesting. We could also weaken Q5 to include other axioms, like A5 and B2. Weakening the conclusion doesn't help, since it is easy to get C2 from C1 and A4. I would still really like some axioms that get us all the way to a concave function, but I doubt there will be any simple ones. Concavity feels like it really needs more structure that does not translate well to a preference relation. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

It's New Tunesday: new releases from the past week! Give the bands a listen. If you like what you hear, support the bands! Today's episode features new releases by All Systems Out, Amelia Arsenic, Civil Hate, Concavity, Dark Insights, Ethseq, Even More, Exsect, The Gathering, Himmash, Jovana, La Machine, Late Night Hour, Mellow Code, Neutron Solstice, Parralox, Satellite Young, The Seance, ΣΕΘ (SET), Spaceman 1981, This Is The Bridge, Tycho Brahe, V, Who Saw Her Die, and Wonder Dark!

Posterior open-wedge osteotomy and glenoid reconstruction using a J-shaped iliac crest bone graft showed promising clinical results for the treatment of posterior instability with excessive glenoid retroversion and posteroinferior glenoid deficiency.   In conclusion, biomechanical analysis of the posterior J-graft demonstrated reliable restoration of initial glenohumeral joint stability, normalization of contact patterns comparable with that of an intact shoulder joint with neutral retroversion, and secure initial graft fixation in the cadaveric model.   Click here to read the article.

It's New Tunesday: new releases from the past week! Give the bands a listen. If you like what you hear, support the bands! Today's episode features new releases by 808 DOT POP & Lisa Van Den Akker, Anniee, Avenue Électrique, Beautiful Machines, Betamax Dub Machine, Binaural Silence, Cold Choir, Concavity, Cyber Monday, Dark-O-Matic, Emmon & Processor, Eric Oberto, EXTIZE, Fatigue, Forever Grey, The Gliding Faces, Into The Blood, Irradiated With Sound, Italoconnection, Jonny Fallout, L'Avenir, La Santé, Lifelong Corporation, Lucca Leeloo, Microchip Junky, Munich Syndrome, Noromakina, Octiv Shooter, Paradox Obscur, Plague Pits, Priest, Replicant, Retrograth, Rue Oberkampf, Same Eyes, Sivernot, Slow Danse With The Dead, SubClass, Tenderlash, Third Realm, VOITH, :Waijdan:, When We Believed, and wonder dark!

I read from concavity to concelebrant.     The word of the episode is "conceive".     Featured in a Top 10 Dictionary Podcasts list! https://blog.feedspot.com/dictionary_podcasts/     Backwards Talking on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIujMwEDbgZUexyR90jaTEEVmAYcCzuq     dictionarypod@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/ https://twitter.com/dictionarypod https://www.instagram.com/dictionarypod/ https://www.patreon.com/spejampar 917-727-5757

On this special Thanksgiving-ish themed episode, Ben and Adam discuss stand up comedians, the pope, and all things Thanksgiving. Recorded 12/1/20 Bear Fighting Man Commercial ---------------->  https://youtu.be/84bBzAxLXFY Go-Tarts Commercial ----------------------------->  https://youtu.be/Frz_bSkmGLE --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/didididistutter/support

In Episode 59, Dave and Matt make a special announcement about the podcast, and outline a host of exciting changes!    There is also a Jessica Anthony Enter the Aardvark giveaway contest, so hang in til the end. You have until the end of July 15th to email us your entry!    Check out our Patreon page with a fresh $5 per month tier, offering an exciting new reward: https://www.patreon.com/concavityshow   We now have a Threadless merch store! Get your Concavity Show wares here: https://concavityshow.threadless.com/ (Note that at time of episode launch, some products are not quite formatting the logo image correctly [notebooks, mugs, stickers, magnets], but we're working through this with their support people)   *Due to some technical issues, you'll notice a shift in audio sound around the 14:20 mark, so sorry for the jarring change. You'll get used to it in no time!    Contact Dave and Matt:  Email - concavityshow@gmail.com Twitter - https://twitter.com/ConcavityShow Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/concavityshow/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/concavityshow/ Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/concavityshow Threadless Merch Store - https://concavityshow.threadless.com/

It's New Tunesday: new releases from the past week! Give the bands a listen and if you like what you hear then support the bands! Today's episode features new releases by 2PanHeads, Aesthetic Perfection, Bedlam Emotion, Blutengel, Chiasm, Concavity, Control Room, Cult Of Alia, Dead Cool, Egotragik, Fairy Pussy, Fatigue, The Ghost Of Bela Lugosi, Human Electrical Resource, Krõll, Manhatten & Star Madman, Matt Mancid & Color Theory, Microchip Terror, Mindmodvl, Moev, MONOPLAN, Orgreave, Outpost11, Ploho, Psychosomatik, Reality's Despair, Sandor Gavin, SpaceMan 1981, Steven Jones & Logan Sky, Tenth Circles, Terminal, Third Realm, and Unless You Crave Danger!

It's New Tunesday: new releases from the past week! Give the bands a listen and if you like what you hear then support the bands! Today's episode features new releases by 2PanHeads, Aesthetic Perfection, Bedlam Emotion, Blutengel, Chiasm, Concavity, Control Room, Cult Of Alia, Dead Cool, Egotragik, Fairy Pussy, Fatigue, The Ghost Of Bela Lugosi, Human Electrical Resource, Krõll, Manhatten & Star Madman, Matt Mancid & Color Theory, Microchip Terror, Mindmodvl, Moev, MONOPLAN, Orgreave, Outpost11, Ploho, Psychosomatik, Reality's Despair, Sandor Gavin, SpaceMan 1981, Steven Jones & Logan Sky, Tenth Circles, Terminal, Third Realm, and Unless You Crave Danger!

It's New Tunesday: new releases from the past week! Give the bands a listen and if you like what you hear then support the bands! Today's episode features new releases by 2PanHeads, Aesthetic Perfection, Bedlam Emotion, Blutengel, Chiasm, Concavity, Control Room, Cult Of Alia, Dead Cool, Egotragik, Fairy Pussy, Fatigue, The Ghost Of Bela Lugosi, Human Electrical Resource, Krõll, Manhatten & Star Madman, Matt Mancid & Color Theory, Microchip Terror, Mindmodvl, Moev, MONOPLAN, Orgreave, Outpost11, Ploho, Psychosomatik, Reality's Despair, Sandor Gavin, SpaceMan 1981, Steven Jones & Logan Sky, Tenth Circles, Terminal, Third Realm, and Unless You Crave Danger!

Ever wondered how to turn $10k into $100k (or more) in just 2 years (or less)? Many traders have, especially early in their careers… But how do professional traders achieve superior returns while also protecting capital.  On this week’s episode of BST Live, Laurent Bernut from Alpha Secure Capital joined us to discuss “Superior returns from superior risk management”, and a new approach to risk management where you can put risk appetite on autopilot, protect capital and achieve superior returns. Here are just some of the tips you’ll discover: How to turn 10k into 1 million (or more) in just 2 years..., How unrealistic trading expectations set you up for failure, What is "superior" risk management and why investors are like teenage girls, Concavity and Convexity Oscillators for dynamic risk management, Position sizing with small accounts, Why you should let the market dictate the risk for you, How to judge the tradability of a strategy, plus Emotional capital vs financial capital and which is more critical, Risk management after long periods of underperformance, mean reversion vs trend following, the problem with pyramiding into positions and MUCH more. To hear all about it, head on over to bettersystemtrader.com/177 now to watch along or check in with your favourite podcast app if you like to listen.  Happy trading! Andrew. PS. Laurent even turned the tables and asked me a question on why I do Better System Trader. Check out my response at bettersystemtrader.com/177

Jesse is joined by Dave Laird of the Great Concavity podcast! They discuss the AFR in Footnote 304, minority representation in IJ, Incandenza family dynamics, and that lovable scumbag Randy Lenz. Listen to the Great Concavity podcast! @dave__laird @concavityshow @jessedraham @mrjezzicho @diamondjoequim jessedraham@gmail.com Song: This Train is Bound For Your Legs

DESTROY DEPRESSION #165: Daily Mentoring with Trevor Crane on GreatnessQuest.com SUMMARY I think everybody experiences depression in one way or another in our lives. If not full-blown DEPRESSION, then definitely DISAPPOINTMENT. In today’s episode, I share with you my strategy on how to destroy depression. Today, I’ll give you three simple things we can SHIFT, change the game. GET THE APP: Text: TREVOR To: 36260 #greatnessquest #trevorcrane #unstoppable #idealbusiness #ideallife

Numero 5/Cinco! of PG2L featuring Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace and Zach discusses pages 259-342! Is JVD ugly or not?! The Concavity finally makes sense! Is Mario the key to the worlds salvation! Can you decide or do you need guidance before choosing!!!??? " Unrefined analysis of superior written works" A weekly serial podcast with discusses important works of literature as read by an "everyman" reader. Check back each week as your host, Zach Hall, progresses through the book. Email the host via the link at www.hallzach.com Tweet discussion topics and questions to @HallandBoats Thanks and enjoy!

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 3.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Chapter 1.3: Concavity and the Second Derivative

Examines the graphical connections between concavity and the first and second derivative

Welcome to the conversation. Zach Adam interviews Dr. Sanjoy Som on his 2013 paper in �Planetary and Space Science�.The interview is 15 mins long. Audio soundtrack courtesy of the Symphony of Science.

Examines the graphical connections between concavity and the first and second derivative