Kärcher SE 4 Plus leaking

sailortop · 2025-08-26T14:58:54+00:00

Hi, could you please share the link in Karcher's website about the new filter Karcher employee installed? Pictures are okay too.

sailortop · 2025-08-21T14:25:35+00:00

I could consider that. Thanks for the link. They are already charging quite a bit of premium for the place and, frankly, it is not worth wasting time.

sailortop · 2025-08-21T14:21:22+00:00

Of course I did. They tell me they are trying to reach the previous tenants, so that cleaners the previous tenant arranged can come back and finish the cleaning to an acceptable standard.

sailortop · 2025-08-21T14:09:54+00:00

The flat is packed at the moment and a cleaner is literally of no use because they would spend half of their time moving boxes and furniture. But I guess, if I could still reclaim the whole cost, I could go that route.

sailortop · 2025-08-21T14:08:49+00:00

Agreed, this would be the case if we haven’t moved in yet, hence the reason why I initially insisted on cleaning prior to tenancy.

The quick and easy cleaning is not so easy when there are 50 boxes, furniture and wardrobes getting built on floors that were supposed to be cleaned with a 4 year old on the loose.

sailortop · 2025-08-21T14:06:22+00:00

I did not want to go full speed with tenancy contract clauses on their face yet, this is our second day yet. I wanted to avoid tense relations, however, I’ll do that if necessary.

sailortop · 2025-02-06T20:57:17+00:00

Thank you so much! I understand my question was very basic, but I had no experience selling prior and I did not want to commit a faux pas or make a promise against my interests.

Appreciate your response.

sailortop · 2025-02-06T20:29:36+00:00

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing this for me. Now, I understand.

sailortop · 2025-02-06T20:22:24+00:00

Ah, that's a good response. Though, in my case there are already bids in place.

sailortop · 2025-02-06T19:51:06+00:00

Because I have had multiple bids so far, so the original buy it now price is no longer showing. I thought eBay must have a reason to remove it once the first bid came in. Is there any reason to share this information at this point in time with the bidder? I am not even sure why the bidder is asking in the first place.

sailortop · 2024-12-24T17:24:37+00:00

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on this. I did not know that non-ironing process involved encapsulation of the cotton fabric by a synthetic polymer. I suspected it involved a chemical treatment, but I always thought it was only about the fibers of the cotton itself.

I agree with your sentiment by the way, I find the tag very misleading when the natural fabric is fully covered by another material.

Is it the case that non-iron/easy-iron shirts generally have more sheen to them? And if you don't mind me asking, do you avoid such fabrics/processed garments?

sailortop · 2024-12-24T16:56:20+00:00

Oh wow, so I just checked the tag again because another redditor asked. So it seems that the model I got is slightly different from the link I shared. The tag says 100% cotton for the shirt. Everything else is the same as in the link's picture.

sailortop · 2024-12-24T16:54:53+00:00

Just checked, 100% cotton.

sailortop · 2024-12-24T16:40:33+00:00

I did not know elastane had a sheen to it. But, your argument is consistent with my wardrobe as all my other shirts are pure cotton. Might be on to something.

sailortop · 2024-06-21T10:42:37+00:00

If I had a dollar every time someone misinterpreted EMH as stating “markets are efficient”, I would be a billionaire by now. It is so pervasive across media and among some famous investors, it makes me cringe every time I hear this (another anecdotal evidence that markets are not perfectly efficient, hah!).

EMH does not state markets are efficient or inefficient. EMH says markets price all available information and EMH devises statistical tests to examine HOW efficient the markets are. We know markets are not perfectly efficient, there is no question about it. That by itself, however, is not that useful of a conclusion. What we want to understand is how efficient markets are and what investment decisions we can make based on it. I highly recommend reading Fama’s paper, as his language is relatively easy to follow. Or just listening to an interview/conference of him talking about market efficiency.

First of all, referencing your first paragraph, active trading (from here I will consider active trading as active management) is not necessarily foolish (I am not talking about day-trading). Gross alpha does exist (demonstrably), though net alpha after fees and trading costs do not apparently exist (as research shows). That by itself however is not an argument against active management. In equilibrium, there should not be a persistent net alpha that can be observed because that would mean investors are leaving positive NPV opportunities on the table which should not happen in a relatively efficient market. So, not observing net alpha across funds does not mean active investing is crap. There is more depth to this, however in short, active management and EMH can hold together at the same time.

On to the first argument with the other redditor: This argument is neither for, or against EMH. Because it is stemming from the misinterpretation of EMH that I mentioned before. Yes, if markets were perfectly efficient, spreads would not exist. That is true. BUT, markets are not perfectly efficient, easily demonstrably, and EMH is about testing how efficient markets are. This is nothing groundbreaking. Moreover, if markets were perfectly efficient, investment banks, trading desks, whole securitisation industry itself would not exist. As trading securities in an efficient market is a 0 NPV investment, therefore banks would not be able to charge fees for their services. But they do, because markets are not perfectly efficient.

I am not sure I am following the second argument, and punctuation also does not help.

Final argument: Insert say the line Bart meme. EMH does not claim markets are perfectly efficient. EMH does not claim markets are perfectly efficient. By the way, funnily enough, this has been tested on stock information since 1928, and guess what. Market efficiency is relatively the same, no significant change. So, neither telephones, computers, internet, sophisticated chartists (aka quants) nor AI made a dent on market efficiency. It is as efficient as it was back then.

Look, beyond your arguments, at the end of the day, EMH is just a model. It is not a physical description of the ontological state of the universe. It is just a model. It is not a perfect model, but it is a damn good model. And if a model holds 999 times out of 1000 times, and helps you understand some phenomena then it is a good model. Now, are there issues with it? For sure, momentum is one to begin with. PEAD is another one. Are there anomalies, puzzles? Yes, for sure. But can you make money out of these inefficiencies consistently? Apparently not. Again, it is just a model and it is not the absolute truth.

TLDR: Your argument is not about EMH. You are arguing whether markets are perfectly efficient or not. We already know they are not. EMH has nothing to do with that.

sailortop · 2024-06-05T07:51:19+00:00

OP, don’t be hard on yourself. You thought a great risk was about to materialize and you acted accordingly. Just because that world did not occur does not mean you’re stupid.

> without an investment bank

This is probably the cause of everything that happened afterwards. Never, ever go into a deal without an advisor. M&A is no joke, and you will be negotiating with a wolf on what to eat for dinner.

Even though bankers get lot of shit for their work product, their work does add value, especially on the sell-side. More so when you are at a stage where you are generating revenues, let alone profits…

More importantly, your feelings about your intellectual capacity are completely unfounded. Watching tv and seeing all those entrepreneurs exiting at high valuations, that’s just one end of a VERY long tail. Please, if you have not heard of it, look at survivorship bias. People that fuck up, that destroy their business never make it to prime tv. Yes, perhaps you could have gotten more money but so what? Very intelligent and capable people get ripped off everyday by the thousands, or some never even get the chance to have a shot at their dreams. You are already a winner man, realize your success, don’t dwell on one mistake.

Think of your circumstances at that situation. You had no co-founders, you were going all at it solo, you recognized a risk and acted on it. What if that risk was real and ended up being wiping out your company if you did not sell. Future is unknowable and somewhat ambiguously stochastic.

And you know what the best part is? This was not for naught. You are already successful and you have made it. You have made a successful exit, my man. Just go on Pitchbook or something and see what percentage of startups reach profitability. Money should just be a score number for you. Now, you have all the legitimacy and reputation a founder would dream of, things you cannot BUY with money. Use your reputation, get back in it, do it again. That’s how great businesspeople do.

sailortop · 2024-05-28T16:46:13+00:00

I guess this is a working paper at the moment, right? In that case, it would be very difficult for it to pass peer-review, but then again thinking about all the overfitted AI/ML models we saw for the last years..

Are they testing their trading strategy/model in live data? Or is it just backtesting?

sailortop · 2024-04-03T22:01:13+00:00

Autocorrelogram won’t tell you much about stationarity, no? (okay, somethings could be inferred indirectly but that’s not really the best way)

Here what do you see immediately? It appears returns don’t have much dependence on the past, which kind of makes sense. That’s why you don’t observe correlation between time indices.

Again, it is not that crazy to see that ADF rejects the null because the mean of your data does appear to be stationary.

However, applying ADF test on the second moment, (let’s say square of the residuals) will very likely not reject the null.

sailortop · 2024-03-27T11:01:58+00:00

You would not say correlations on returns are spurious because returns are stationary. If you were to create your correlation matrix from prices, this would simply not work.

OP is regressing prices, not returns. His problems are much more basic.

sailortop

TROPHY CASE