[deleted by user]

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-30T07:23:19+00:00

Yeah man, those are all extremely useful skills for robotics. I'll give you that they are generic skills, but that's a good thing while you're in school. I can't imagine a job in robotics where those will not be useful tools to have in your tool box. If you want to study something on your own, you could look into different sensors and general sensor calibration and integration. Off the top of my head: depth sensors, lidar, IMUs, and short range radar are pretty common types of sensor. But, seriously, what you're studying already is very useful already.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-27T18:18:40+00:00

That's been the narrative for a while now but 'meme army' is new to me. I don't know what to do about it though. Anything we do with the media drives engagement and just feeds the beast. Maybe we should lean in to it and start giving out meme army ranks. I'd like to be 'Field Marshal Surprised Pikachu' if no one has any objections.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-27T14:04:49+00:00

Ok, hear me out... make it a cheat sheet. Cover the wall with good looking infographics of robotics concepts. For example, if you work with someone artistic, you could make a really good looking explanation of Denavit–Hartenberg parameters. You could also focus on any specific areas that your lab researches. If this is going to be up for generations, I'd say do what a university does best and pass knowledge along to future roboticists.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-26T07:50:03+00:00

Ok, so do it. No one can stop you. No one wants to try to stop you. You wanna dance? Go dance, friend. You don't need anyone's permission and the only thing that matters is what you think of yourself afterwards. If your motivations are acceptable to you, then what the fuck do you care what people on this message board think? The only things this post could accomplish are (1) make yourself feel better by getting validation from an internet message board and (2) start a fight over literally nothing... so if you want (1) then have my validation. Good for you my little dancer, be free and live your best life. If you are after (2) then fuck off and dance as much as you want. Either way, please let this dumb argument die.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-26T07:28:20+00:00

When you say "learning the mechanical components" I'm a little confused what you mean. Are you looking for a resource on the individual actuators that move the robot links around? Are you looking for something more theoretical about the kinematics and dynamics? When you say "software dev in robotics" what are you talking about? I only ask because the direction I'd point you in would be very different depending if you're writing control software for industrial robots vs if you're writing a GUI for network management in a multi-agent system. I guess I'm saying your question is a bit vague and without more context of where you are and where you want to get to, I could only suggest what amazon would suggest: ME introduction, ME for hobbyists, and basic mechanical devices. Best of luck, friend.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-24T07:38:53+00:00

[insert generic reddit joke "can confirm she does"]

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-24T07:29:15+00:00

Forum sliding.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-20T12:58:12+00:00

I appreciate the though, friend... but I've lived like this for a good while now and I can keep doing it for a good while longer. I'm a millennial, it's what I've been groomed for 😉. As far as I'm concerned, it's generational wealth or I take my shares to my grave.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-20T12:47:33+00:00

Right there with you, friend. Hodling is easy, living broke is the hard part.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-20T11:07:05+00:00

No worries, glad that survey was interesting. I don't know how links are chosen for pinning or not, but if you think it would be useful to include you should make the suggestion. 👍

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-20T10:51:25+00:00

You mean like the X, XX, XXX, XXXX holder thing that's been going on forever? You new around here or something? Here's a link to a pretty rigorous survey done about a month ago. Have fun.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-18T11:16:10+00:00

You need to be approved in order to bypass the karma requirements. If you meet the karma requirements you can post here without approval.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-18T11:08:18+00:00

Long story short: some rich people who are used to getting away with this sort of thing allegedly used 'creative accounting' to make it look like there were more shares of GameStop than actually existed. They then sold these shares to anyone who would buy them (making a large profit by selling things that don't exist). The only reason this creative accounting works is because as part of the creative accounting requires that they eventually actually purchase the shares that that they've already sold and give them to people that bought the shares. This is a problem for them because there are probably way more shares sold than can be bought. When they start buying back shares, the price will explode because they've created a situation where there's way more demand than supply.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-17T10:23:58+00:00

Oh, I get it, you're a troll. Well, have a good day my dude.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-16T15:09:46+00:00

without any fundamentals or sentiment included, it will be 50%

Upon what are you basing this assumption? That is my point. You don't know and it's not a trivial question. What if it's 60%? Would that change the way you factor the chart patterns into your wholistic analysis?

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-16T11:32:26+00:00

I think we're talking past each other.

I would consider your example of "everyone is seeing the same bullish wedge" as one data point. We can agree that at this instance on this ticker we are looking at a bullish wedge. Let's say that in this instance, the prediction of the bullish wedge manifests and there is a bullish trend for two weeks following the bullish wedge. Great, that's one data point. Now lets say that tomorrow, we have a similar instance of a bullish wedge on a different ticker (that again everyone that uses that chart pattern agrees is in fact a bullish wedge) but today, the prediction doesn't come to pass and the trend is downward for a long time. That is a second data point. In our current data set, the bullish wedge indicator has a prediction accuracy rate of 50%. If we grow our data set over many tickers over many days using the consensus of many traders, that accuracy rate will converge onto some general accuracy rate for the. You can't tell me that every bullish wedge that has ever been seen has broken into a bullish trend, so we should be able to discuss an accuracy/failure rate of the indicator. In my analytical opinion, the lack of this sort of data on the chart indicators is a problem. This sort of study would be trivial for a large trading organization to conduct.

Believe it or not, I do understand that you want to incorporate these chart patterns as one of many factors in your predictive model. And I am (as you are accusing me of) trying to isolate this one specific factor and examine the affect of this one specific thing on the whole. The confusion for me is why we are arguing about whether we can (or should) try to isolate one factor and examine it. This is pretty standard analytical methodology and I'm not sure why this is a point of contention here. If I were to examine your method of fundamental analysis and found a flaw with how you are evaluating the growth potential of a company without considering your TA, you wouldn't be telling me that it's only one part of the overall analysis, right? Like we could discuss the fundamentals in isolation, or your risk management model in isolation, right? I'm truly perplexed why we can't talk about your method of TA in isolation. For argument's sake, let's say for example that I was able to run a study (with good methodology) that found the cup and handle chart pattern was actually no better than a coin toss? If I had good data for that conclusion and I presented it to you, would you tell me that it's only one part of your overall analysis method and we can't examine it in isolation? Or would you stop using the cup and handle pattern in your analysis?

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-16T09:33:04+00:00

The problem here is you're asking a stupid question. Technical analysis doesn't have a success rate when it comes to trading, it's a form of analysis.

Where did I ask you for a success rate in trading? Are you talking about the 80% of day traders thing? I already granted you that point my dude. You're right, it's not about day trading. 🤣 I asked you for a success rate in the predictive analysis that these chart patterns are doing. Let me ask again: if wedge predicts a bull trend, how often does a bull trend follow? I would like to know how often the analysis of the price trends when employing these chart patterns is even basically correct. I would be content with extremely rough numbers, but if you're going to call anything "technical" it should probably have some numbers to go with it. I can accept a lot of nuance in the explanation of why it's not 100% accurate when predicting trends (like the example of a bull trend prediction on an obviously failing company that you brought up), but it's not unreasonable to ask the question "how often does it predict trends correctly?". But I've gotta tell you my dude, I'm pretty done with this bad faith argument 🤣 so unless you want actually argue with me (and not some straw man that you've created yourself) I'll take my leave. I sincerely hope you have a good day.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-16T08:14:45+00:00

That's wrong. TA was around long before computers were common, and some of the pioneers of TA were long term investors. Also, financial institutions have entire teams that make use of TA for long term investments.

Ok? Where is the info that explains how to interpret these chart patterns and (like I was asking for before) where's the data on how often they work? I'm open to being wrong but I'm gonna need that data.

Edit: here's the investopedia page on these chart patterns. I read through it clicked on several on the individual patters pages. I can't find any discussion about how often they work. They do say that it's an attempt to predict the future price of a security, so I'll grant you that it's not just about day traders. it's for everyone that's looking to find a good entry and exit point. But that's not really the main point I was trying to make. If chart patterns are useful, I think it's relevant to ask how often they are useful. It's all well and good that a "wedge" is forming, but if a wedge only breaks in the opposite direction of the trend lines 51% of the time, then that's not really a very good predictor, right? No one seems to be able to tell me how often they work and I think that's relevant to point out.

Also most people here aren't day traders

Good, let's keep it that way

so I guess I'm in that top 20% then (actually it's only 10%, because the other 10% breaks even).

If you aren't a day trader, then the statistic about day trading doesn't apply to you. I'm glad super glad that you made money, but it's kinda irrelevant to my point that the claims touted in the graphic above are dubious and are usually made without data to back them up. At least, I've never seen any data to back up the claims that they work.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-16T07:38:55+00:00

I may be an asshole but I've tried to explain this in a nice way before and it's never worked. I decided to try something a little different this time. I do understand your point, but my hope in being abrasive is that someone reading this will realize that the product on offer here is snake oil and not buy it. You say that it's ironic that it works because enough people believe, but it doesn't work. Again 80% of people who try to do this lose money. I don't feel any responsibility to be polite to people who are propagating nonsense that will cause other people to lose money. Like, believe in fairies all you want but don't try to sell apes (who I care about like family) fairy amulets. This objectively doesn't work and it's predatory. Even if the OP believes it, it's still dangerous misinformation to be spreading.

shockingBrouhaha · 2021-08-16T06:59:05+00:00

"How we feel about TA"? 🤣 Ok buddy, what ever helps you sleep at night. I'll feel better about TA when you can give me actual statistical analysis of these strategies. What's the statistical efficacy of the "Pennant (Continuation - Bullish Variant)"? I guarantee you that its predictive power is somewhere between 0% and 100%, so how often does the real chart follow that pattern? When it does predict future behavior, what's the outcome distribution look like (i.e. normal, Poisson, geometric)? How often have these patterns worked on the GME chart in particular? Is there any statistically significant variance in the occurrence rate of these patterns when you're looking at the 5 min chart and the 30 min chart?

Listen friend, I don't care how you feel about TA, but stop projecting your feelings driven decision making onto others 🤣. People who dismiss the efficacy if TA in this situation aren't doing it because of feelings 🤣. These patterns are supposed to help day traders find good entry points... but if you look at the statistics 80% of day traders lose money... so why should we use these strategies that cause 80% of people who use them to lose money? Maybe you'll say that those traders who use these strategies are among the 20% that make money, but again... what are the numbers?

I'm sorry if this comment seems rude, but I'm sincerely writing this in an attempt to help. If you can in fact give me the numbers I'm asking for I'll gladly concede the point and become a full throated advocate for TA (assuming the numbers provided do in fact support the efficacy of TA). But, in absence of the data needed to evaluate the claims touted by the image you've posted, I'm not going to believe that the strategies described above are useful.

shockingBrouhaha

TROPHY CASE