if you're a little younger.

it will be curious, though, if trump's team does start pushing the idea that the fake news should be allowed to expand into canada.

maybe they can get norm macdonald....

that's another thing they've taken from us, btw. our comedians. we should get reparations for that one.

the media is all of a sudden talking about "cultural protections" in nafta. and, this was a serious issue in the 80s, don't get me wrong. but, it's just jumped up out of nowhere, with little evidence that the americans are really pushing into the tv market.

they've already bought out our beer and our hockey, and stolen our music and our writing. they can have ctv if they want it. i want molson back.

but, regardless, this strikes me as a likely attempt to save face - a diversionary tactic to wrap themselves in the flag, in preparation for deep concessions.

well, deep "concessions".

i'm going to find myself in favour of much of what the talking heads on ctv declare to be apocalyptic.

i don't think it would that difficult to replace the kangaroo courts set up by chapter 19 with something that is actually juridical. there's no deficit of possibilities. and, these courts are so phony that we're better off ditching them altogether than holding on to them on a transitional basis.

but, expect the flag wrapping to continue. the national anthem, live at 5. beaver parades (don't think that through.), set to 2112.

oh, canada. your bankers are about to take it on the chin, yes. it might be good for workers, though...we'll see what it looks like, in the end.

smoky was clearly moving out the other day, but it seems like she's still there for now.

ugh.

i'm kind of the same way with gmo labelling.

i have no opposition to labelling the products. but, it won't affect my own burying decisions, and i don't think it will affect the buying decisions of many other people, either.

again: regarding guns, i don't...

if you're going to argue for a ban on guns, i'm not going to present a counter-argument, or line up against you, or anything like that. i see little value in a gun-owning public, and have no cl;ear opposition to a gun ban, of any sort.

what i'm going to do is point out that the data on the topic makes it abundantly clear that a ban on hand guns is not likely to have any effect on reducing crime at all, and agitate instead for social policies that have a better empirical record.

it was one thing when he had the ad up. that indicated he was actively pursuing tenants.

now that the ad is down, it's a different scenario.

i will continue to pursue the option, as it remains preferable, but i also need to sign if something else comes up first, unless i get a change in messaging.

the gatekeeper called late last night - a little before midnight. and, i called him back.

the ad came down yesterday morning.

he apologized for being a "dick". and, he claims he may or may not have two units open and we can figure that out on friday.

this is still the best option in front of me, by far. but, the messaging i'm getting from him is full of red flags and stop signs, too. he seems to be adverse to signing things, and not fully intent on following through with what he signs. and, while his units appeared to be well taken care of, he doesn't seem to be in a hurry to rent them. but, that might be a net positive, too.

the guy is clearly eccentric.

but i'm clearly eccentric, too.

i'm just left with more uncertainty...

but, is the stock market "natural phenomena"?

see, it's not as easy as coming up with a model, fitting it to time and then hoping it works as a predictive tool - you need a reason to apply it. and, this is actually the point where huge amounts of mathematical modelling fails outright.

stated as tersely as possible, fractals are self-repeating patterns, and there's consequently good reason to think you can fit trading data to a fractal-based model. if you're meticulous enough, you can no doubt get it very, very close by solving for the appropriate variables.

and, then, what you have is a model that explains what already happened, in the past. it might be nearly perfect - almost no error bars. but, then using that model to predict the future is truly nothing more than a leap of faith - unless you have some argument, otherwise.

when you're modelling physical data, that's where the actual physics comes in. you can claim that the model is predictive because the force of gravity exists between all massive bodies, or because electricity and magnetism are the same thing or whatever other physical idea you want to present.

but, when you're modelling stock trading, or large scale market behaviour in general, you're just presenting a circular argument: the model is predictive, because you want it to be, essentially. that is, you're trying to understand the phenomena by predicting it with a mathematical theory, rather than using the math to explain the theory. and, see, you might be right. we've learned physics this way, certainly. but, it's just a guess, and it doesn't actually get you anywhere in the end, or at least not in an epistemological sense - what you actually want to know is why you're right.

my understanding is that this kind of deconstruction really applies to any attempt to analyse patterns in the market. and, the reason is that there isn't actually a natural phenomenon underlying the decisions we make. humans are not electrons. and, while we nowadays think electrons are actually pretty random, humans don't even have a wave function.

my opinion is that it's a fool's errand. but, that opinion is only valuable until somebody shows me a truly predictive model - and then we need to figure out why, which is likely to have implications about human quanta that are hard to even imagine, right now.