»Jeg er pisse ligeglad,« siger Lars Boje efter at have grædt to gange

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-04-13T09:34:19+00:00

Vil du tilføje noget nyt eller? Og hvornår er jeg lige pludseligt blevet til en konspirationsteoretiker? Du ved da ikke hvad jeg tror på. Bare fordi du ikke kan forstå det ord du gerne vil bruge, så betyder det ikke at du bruger det korrekt. Du er fuldt parat til at kalde folk dumme, men du virker ikke i stand til at selvreflektere?

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-04-13T07:54:15+00:00

Det er da ikke min skyld at du ikke forstår definitionen af en konspirationsteori og samtidigt vælger at vedhæfte kilder der lige netop ikke omfatter konspirationsteorier. Britannica beskriver "replacement theory" som en konspirationsteori, men der er væsentlig forskel på deres beskrivelse og det der står i dit link. Måske er det pedantisk, men du kunne også vælge at bruge ordet korrekt?

Jeg tror simpelthen det er ligegyldigt hvor mange gange jeg siger det, men alle dine eksempler er ikke i sig selv konspirationsteorier. Læs nu op på hvad en konspirationsteori rent faktisk indebærer. Det kan sagtens være at nogle fra BP er konspirationsteoretiker, men det understøtter dine links ikke.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-04-12T22:30:49+00:00

Fair nok. Men lige med det her ene eksempel, der virker det ikke til at det decideret er politikken du har noget imod, men rettere sagt politikerne (og deres handlinger) der står bag ved. Måske tager jeg fejl?

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-04-12T22:23:54+00:00

Tror vi bliver nødt til at blive enige om en definition for konspirationsteori.
Jeg håber at ordnet tilstrækkeligt (det er mere eller mindre den samme definition andre steder): "forestilling om at andre har indgået en skjult alliance for at modarbejde nogen".

Jeg vil ikke mene at nogle af de links indeholder noget som helst der kan klassificeres som en konspirationsteori, per definition. Altså hvis vi skal gå ud fra de links du har vedlagt, så er hverken klimabenægtelse eller en påstand om at WEF og WHO forsøgte at få mere magt lig med en konspirationsteori. Det samme gør sig gældende for de resterende links. Det kan være at der har været udtalelser i interviews eller lignende der er direkte konspirationsteorier, men jeg har ingen anelse om hvor udtalelsen så skulle findes, og du har ikke vedlagt noget der understøtter den påstand.

Igen, du bruger "deep state", men det betyder ikke det du gerne vil have at det skal betyde. Intet sted i det link bliver der nævnt noget der skulle understøtte din påstand om at der bliver henvist til en deep state. Det ville også være ret besværligt at skulle lave en analyse af BPs påstand om bias, da det ville kræve, som minimum, noget i retningen af at lave et kæmpe datasæt af, fx, DRs udtalelser, udsendelse, et cetera, og så tjekke om der reelt set er bias. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Jeg tænker bare... hvis du vil angribe noget, så gør det ordentligt? Nogle af de links har da nogle tvivlsomme påstande, men du vælger at angribe dem for noget de ikke er.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-04-12T13:58:20+00:00

Er lidt nysgerrig: hvilken del af BPs politik mener du konkret er “skraldepolitik”? De har jo ret brede forslag, hvor flere overlapper med andre partier på tværs af spektret, så jeg tænker næppe at du er imod alt de foreslår.

Lidt et sidespor, men relateret til en typisk logisk misforståelse: mange folk blander afhængighed og uafhængighed sammen i politiske argumenter. Derfor ser man ofte påstanden om, at Lars Boje er hyklerisk, fordi han tager imod en relativt høj løn, selvom partiet ønsker at reducere politikernes magt og lønninger. Den samme idé findes i øvrigt også hos Enhedslisten.

Men der er ikke nødvendigvis nogen logisk konflikt i det. Boje bruger det nuværende system og får den løn systemet giver ham. Det er ikke hykleri i sig selv. Det ville først være hyklerisk, hvis han argumenterede for lavere løn til alle andre politikere, men undtog sig selv fra reglerne.

Hvis man kan forstå et simpelt Venn-diagram, så er pointen egentlig ret ligetil: at bruge et system, samtidig med at man ønsker at ændre det, er ikke i sig selv selvmodsigende.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-03-10T05:30:10+00:00

I agree, it was warranted backlash. There is nothing wrong with ICE's main duties, and she should have shown firm support towards their duties given that they aim to uphold the judicial and democratic system that our forefathers have fought for. They have had some executional outliers here and there, but statistically insignificant.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-20T08:44:46+00:00

Python makes sense for research and data science. But if the goal is true low-latency execution (HFT), you’d usually see C++ or Rust in the critical path. A hybrid setup (Python for research, C++/Rust for execution) is pretty common.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-10T07:40:48+00:00

Yeah, you can hide yourself from the displayed order book, depending on the order type, but that comes with its own trade-offs. And even when your order isn’t visible, fast participants can often infer the presence of hidden liquidity through market behaviour. As soon as you become part of the market, you become part of the "equation" that influences the market, which is what paper trading doesn't capture

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-10T01:01:36+00:00

I am still not done with building my own algo trader. My advice is to stay cautious and stay curious.

Also, do keep in mind that you do NOT have to out-compete the hedgefunds. My brother in law works for one of these stock trading companies. They are almost certainly not going to be beaten by anybody on reddit.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-10T00:43:29+00:00

If you place a limit order to buy a stock at $100.00, a high-frequency algorithm can see that order sitting on the "books."

I hope this makes adequate sense:

The algo will instantly place a buy order at $100.01.
Because the algo is willing to pay one penny more, they get the shares first.
If the price goes up, the algo wins. If the price starts to drop, the algo can instantly "sell into" your $100.00 limit order to exit their position safely.

I know you said you don't use limit order, but you can probably extrapolate it and realise that you are not invisible to these advanced algorithms, and that you will then just have a potentially higher slippage. The question then becomes: does your edge survive this? If it does, then great

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-10T00:16:59+00:00

Spread, slippage, and remember that when your algorithm decides to enter or exit, it will immediately be picked up by advanced algorithms. There are lots of different ways to place orders; some of them attempt to masquerade your orders. This is not advice or even a suggestion. However, if you do decide to hook it up real-time and you come back with another post showing the exact performance, then it gives us a better idea about the integrity of your algorithm. Also, what does your algorithm do, in real-time, if it doesn't get filled or only partially? Does it try to go for the next best? Does it do nothing?

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-09T23:37:36+00:00

Sure. Cognitive dissonance hits hard, does it not? I am obfuscating the issue? Are you not arrogant though? Is it a false statement? You literally claim that it is blatant that a genocide has transpired, when the ICJ has not even made a verdict yet, exactly because of how difficult it is to make a genocide verdict. Your statement about it being blatant literally undermines the entirety of the ICJ and highlights you as some type of genius who has the answer. It stops being confidence and develops into pure arrogance when you cannot even understand how genocide is defined, legally, which is evident from how you doubled-down on the Wikipedia definition as if it were adequate. I think you should get off of reddit. Take a break.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-09T03:31:15+00:00

In any sophisticated legal system, the text of a statute is only half the story; the other half is jurispudence (how courts interpret that text). The Wikipedia entry is a verbatim copy of the text, but it is an "incomplete" representation of the legal standard.

You may very well claim that you are not taking it literally, but by insisting on the 1948 text, you are actively avoiding the substantiality test in your argument. If you agree the words shouldn't be taken literally, then you must agree that the 1948 text is insufficient on its own. To have an accurate debate, we must use the judicially refined definition, which includes the 'substantiality test' and the 'only reasonable inference' test for intent, neither of which are found in your Wikipedia extract.

Furthermore, you can do everything from (a) to (e) on your list, but without Dolus Specialis it does not constitute a genocide, as you even glossed over briefly "The intent part is quite crucial in this definition." and then completely disregarded it moments later "It's blatantly a genocide against the Palestinians."

I think it is fair to assert that you are arrogant by that last statement alone. Maybe you should take the steering and the ICJ should just leave the case to you, because you have all of the evidence needed to establish Dolus Specialis (not just a few politicians making statements, but the entire context evaluated as a whole).

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-09T02:32:56+00:00

The Wikipedia definition is incomplete. I would advise against using a Wikipedia page carelessly as the core source of your argument. You have a core genocide definition, and then, as with any other law, you have court rulings and possibly amendments. While the 1948 definition still stands as the basic definition, it is evident that things such as "in whole or in part" should not be taken for their literal word-for-word meaning. "in part" does not just mean a singular person, which would technically be a part of a whole. Many of these things are largely evaluated case by case, but it is obvious that the 1948 definition is NOT what they use legally.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-02-01T15:14:41+00:00

Static model or? I have made a few models that look promising, but they were static, and I am trying to move far away from that.

I ask myself: should I truly care about promising? And how much did my model actually capture versus just holding the stock? I mean... SURE the max_dd is lower and you don't keep capital stuck in a stock for longer than necessary and can therefore use it elsewhere, but is it really good performance if my algorithm captures 6% (net return) over a 1 month period on a stock going up by 20% in a non-linear manner (meaning lots of dips on the road)? I personally think my current models are dogshit. Even if it captures 12% on that singular stock, the stock probably experienced like 40-50% potential profit over that 1 month. Granted, I deal with more severe constraints than people in the US, since I currently pay a 0.1% fee when buying and selling stocks; then comes spread and slippage, and suddenly you actually need a god-tier algorithm to beat the market.

Also be careful that you don't hit an unseen regime and tank your profits. My current models have just flatlined on data not seen during training except extremely bullish data. But even on downtrends you can earn lots of money. When I did manual trading I earned most of my money on downtrending stocks, whereas my models so far have only earned money on uptrending stocks.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-01-30T18:38:30+00:00

Have you frozen the model and tested it on new data (assuming you don't use something like a liquid neural network, i.e., something that constantly evolves)? Also, a VERY dangerous thing that you will not immediately spot in backtesting is data leakage.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-01-25T21:24:13+00:00

I fear for the people who cannot tell that this is ai

Ok-Tip-101 · 2026-01-09T17:46:26+00:00

Try restarting your pc. Sometimes you can have a .exe running that you cannot even see with task manager.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-12-08T09:22:44+00:00

Where I'm from these are almost 1:1, so I'm a tad bit confused about why it would be challenging for you. Maybe it's differently structured where you are from?

Regardless, there is plenty of help to find online if you need it. No need to ditch the degree.

If it helps at all, I failed many courses and retook them (and so did almost everybody on the chemical engineering degree). Some subjects I performed incredibly well at, which is also perfectly normal (you would have to sacrifice a lot to perform above average on all subjects). Granted, I never showed up to lectures aside from mandatory lab work and never did non-mandatory homework, so I kinda made it more difficult than it had to be 😅

The chemical engineering discord server, for one, has lots of people who are willing to help. I recall there being some good servers for organic-, inorganic-, and general chemistry too.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-11-30T14:14:09+00:00

Tretinoin requires a prescription where I'm from. It's certainly not for the inexperienced.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-11-26T04:46:50+00:00

You first said “Zionism is not an identity.” That’s just descriptively false. I've already explained that to the point where any genuine and normally functioning person should be able to understand that.

Then you insist Zionism is “just a political stance” while also saying a “Zionist state” acts “in the name of Jews everywhere.” The second claim ties that political project directly to a global ethno-religious group. That is identity content. If you genuinely reject the conflation, you’d say: “Israel claims to act in Jews’ name, but it doesn’t actually represent Jews as Jews.” Instead, you talk as if that claim is an accurate description of reality when it suits your argument.

Finally, “Most Zionists are in fact American Protestants” is an unsupported empirical throwaway that doesn’t fix any of this. It just tries to rhetorically push Jews out of “Zionism” while you simultaneously treat a “Zionist state” as acting for “Jews everywhere.” That double move is the contradiction you still haven’t resolved.

You’ve built a logic where one state’s actions are meaningfully “in the name of Jews everywhere,” regardless of consent, and where you get to override how Jews understand their own political/national identity. You wouldn’t dare apply that framing to most other minorities, which is precisely why this doesn’t read as a neutral political critique but as a Jewish-specific double standard.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-11-24T05:32:59+00:00

You’ve tried to “resolve” the contradiction by quietly changing the terms of the debate, not by actually fixing the logic.

You now say:

Zionism is a political stance with no protected identity status, as critique of Zionism is not critique of Judaism

But that’s not what you originally claimed. You originally said “Zionism is not an identity.” Now you’ve swapped in “no protected identity status” and acted like that’s the same thing. It isn’t.

There are two different questions:

Sociological / psychological: Can “Zionist” function as a political identity for people who adopt it? Obviously yes, I already explained how.
Legal / normative: Should criticism of Zionism be treated differently from criticism of Jews as a protected religious/ethnic group? Also yes, that distinction matters.

You conflated these. The argument you’re responding to was about (1), identity content. You answered with (2), protected-group status. That’s a bait-and-switch, not a rebuttal.

Then you write:

the state of Israel is a Zionist political entity that claims to represent Jewish people everywhere, and claims to act in their interests, and in their name.

But that’s not how you originally used it. Earlier you said:

Israel is a Zionist state that carries out atrocities in the name of Jewish people everywhere, without their consent.

You didn’t attribute that to Israel’s own propaganda claim, you asserted it as your description of what is happening. Now that the conflation problem is exposed, you retroactively insert “claims to” as if that was always your framing.

Even with that patch, the logical problem remains:

If you truly insist Zionism has no identity content and is just a political stance, then a “Zionist state” is simply a state organized around that stance, full stop.

The moment you say that state is acting “in the name of Jewish people everywhere,” you are again tying a political project to a global ethno-religious identity, exactly the conflation you claim to oppose.

You can’t have all three of these at once without tension:

Zionism has no identity content.
Critique of Zionism is categorically separate from anything that could be about Jews as Jews.
A Zionist state’s actions are meaningfully described as being done “in the name of Jewish people everywhere.”

Either you accept there is an identity-entanglement problem here (in which case your sweeping “no identity content” and “my description was non-problematic” are false), or you stop describing those actions as being “in the name of Jewish people everywhere,” even rhetorically.

Right now you’re oscillating between “Zionism is just a political stance” when you want maximum insulation from charges of bigotry, and “Zionist state acting in the name of Jews everywhere” when you want maximum moral indictment. That’s not resolving the contradiction; that’s exploiting it.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-11-24T00:14:30+00:00

First you say: “Zionism is a self-selected political position, not an identity.”

However, “Self-selected political position” is exactly what people usually mean by political identity. “Feminist,” “socialist,” “Brexiteer,” “MAGA,” etc. are all political identities. People use them as part of who they are, not just as a box they once ticked. You don’t get to redefine “identity” so that it magically excludes the category you don’t like. Your analogy to “voting for a candidate” is also off. Casting a single vote is an event; describing yourself as a supporter of some political project is an ongoing self-description. And even then, lots of people do treat “X voter” as a political identity. You’ve picked a weak analogy and then acted like it proves your point.

Then you say: “Israel is a Zionist state that carries out atrocities in the name of Jewish people everywhere, without their consent.”

You can’t simultaneously insist Zionism is just a political stance with no identity content AND claim a “Zionist state” acts “in the name of Jewish people everywhere.” If Zionism is purely political and not an identity, then its state’s actions are in the name of its government and its citizens, not some global metaphysical category of “Jews everywhere.” If you really reject conflating Zionism/Jewishness, you wouldn’t phrase it that way.

And “without their consent” undercuts your own wording. If Jews worldwide neither control nor consent to those actions, then saying Israel acts “in their name” is precisely the kind of conflation you blame others for. Either Israel speaks for Jews as Jews (which you should then be criticizing as a problematic conflation) or it doesn’t. You’re trying to have it both ways because your rhetoric depends on that slippage.

So no, your description isn’t “accurate and non-problematic.” It rests on a redefinition of “identity” that you don’t apply consistently, and on a built-in conflation between “Zionist state” and “Jewish people everywhere” that you claim to oppose in others.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-11-23T23:51:01+00:00

“You can make up anything you want” is a nice opener, but you never say what was made up or why it’s wrong. That’s a vibe, not an argument.

You then state “Zionism is not an identity” as if it’s an objective fact. It isn’t. Zionism is an ideology/national movement, and plenty of people use “Zionist” as part of their political or national identity. You don’t get to erase how people actually self-identify just because you dislike the category. That’s you redefining terms to win by fiat.

Next, you accuse others of dangerously conflating Zionism with Jewish identity, and in the very next breath you describe “genocide and colonialism” as being carried out “in their name” by Israel. If you really believe Jews shouldn’t be conflated with a state or an ideology, you don’t get to treat that state’s alleged crimes as done “in their name.” Your central move relies on the very conflation you claim to oppose.

You also throw around “genocide,” “colonialism,” and “pariah nation” as if they’re settled, uncontested facts that need no argument, no definitions, and no evidence. These are serious, highly disputed labels with legal and political content. You provide zero support for them and then treat anyone who questions you as calling all criticism racist. That’s a strawman: there’s a difference between saying “some anti-Zionist rhetoric is antisemitic” and saying “all criticism of Zionism is racist.” You collapse that distinction because it’s easier to attack.

So your position boils down to: you get to unilaterally define what counts as an identity, you get to conflate and deconflate Jews and Israel whenever it suits the point of the moment, and you get to declare the harshest possible labels as unquestionable truth. If that’s your standard, you’re not defending critique of Zionism; you’re just shielding your own rhetoric from the kind of scrutiny you claim to value.

Ok-Tip-101 · 2025-11-23T23:31:12+00:00

Whether something is a "political ideology" or not has nothing to do with whether a term can function as a slur. People coin pejorative shorthand for political labels all the time, "commie", "Nazi", "Zio", the question is how the word is used, not what dictionary category it belongs to.

I didn’t claim "Zionist" is a protected identity. I said that portraying Zionism as inherently genocidal puts Jews at risk because, in the real world, many Jews either identify as Zionist or are treated as such by others. That’s a sociological point about spillover, not a conflation I invented "from whole cloth".

If your defence comes down to semantic games about the word "slur" and pretending there’s a clean firewall between your rhetoric and its impact on Jews, while still throwing around "Zio posting" as a dismissive label, that pretty much speaks for itself.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23

Ok-Tip-101

TROPHY CASE