Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Wall Street doesn't predict prices - it prices the randomness in them. That is where the billions are, and it runs on one equation. The model trading desks actually use is Geometric Brownian Motion: dS = μS·dt + σS·dW μ (drift) is the slow expected trend. σ·dW is the...

Di_Krass_'s profile picture

Di Krass

1,939 subscribers

251,980 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyEducationFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Benoit Mandelbrot, Yale professor, IBM Fellow, and inventor of fractals: "Every risk model at Citadel, Goldman and JPMorgan assumes markets are 'normal.' I proved they're wild. That one lie has vaporized hundreds of billions." this free TED talk is mandelbrot months before he died. almost every risk model treats the market as mild and smooth. he proved it's the opposite: rough, jagged, and wild, with extremes far more common than the bell curve allows. that gap is not academic. under the bell curve, the 2008 crash was a once-in-a-billion-years event. it happens roughly every decade. every VaR model that whispered "you're safe" and every fund that blew up in a week was trusting the same lie. those wild days also cluster together, which is exactly the "regime change" the thread is trying to catch. none of it is new. mandelbrot showed it in cotton prices in the 1960s, gave this talk for free, and wrote a whole book about it for the public. same lesson as my article: the math sat there for decades, ignored because it was inconvenient. here is what the regime thread won't admit. no model catches the wild day before it hits, its timing is unknowable by design. the edge isn't predicting the storm, it's sizing so a single wild day can never end you. the math is free. respecting the tails is the discipline almost nobody has.
16:46

Benoit Mandelbrot, Yale professor, IBM Fellow, and inventor of fractals: "Every risk model at Citadel, Goldman and JPMorgan assumes markets are 'normal.' I proved they're wild. That one lie has vaporized hundreds of billions." this free TED talk is mandelbrot months before he died. almost every risk model treats the market as mild and smooth. he proved it's the opposite: rough, jagged, and wild, with extremes far more common than the bell curve allows. that gap is not academic. under the bell curve, the 2008 crash was a once-in-a-billion-years event. it happens roughly every decade. every VaR model that whispered "you're safe" and every fund that blew up in a week was trusting the same lie. those wild days also cluster together, which is exactly the "regime change" the thread is trying to catch. none of it is new. mandelbrot showed it in cotton prices in the 1960s, gave this talk for free, and wrote a whole book about it for the public. same lesson as my article: the math sat there for decades, ignored because it was inconvenient. here is what the regime thread won't admit. no model catches the wild day before it hits, its timing is unknowable by design. the edge isn't predicting the storm, it's sizing so a single wild day can never end you. the math is free. respecting the tails is the discipline almost nobody has.

Rossst.03

35,425 views • 1 month ago

Nassim Taleb breaks down the Black-Scholes formula - and the story he tells starts with a forgotten man. Louis Bachelier priced options 73 years before Black-Scholes - and modeled Brownian motion 5 years before Einstein. it was 1900. a 30-year-old Frenchman defends a thesis under Henri Poincaré that quietly invents two fields at once: the math of random markets, and the first real formula for pricing options. his reward? the committee marks it down - "too much finance." no top grade, no patron, no career. he spends his life applying for jobs one rank below what his work deserved, and dies forgotten in 1946. then 1973: Black, Scholes & Merton publish the option-pricing formula. it reshapes Wall Street and wins the 1997 Nobel - for two of them (Black had died, so missed it). almost nobody remembers the Frenchman who got there first. and here's Taleb's twist: traders never actually use Black-Scholes. what the market runs on is a version of Bachelier's original. the Nobel, he argues, wasn't even for the pricing - it was for dressing it up to fit the economic theory of the day. ~15-min lecture, free. the man who built modern finance — and watched the credit go to everyone but him ↓
16:04

Nassim Taleb breaks down the Black-Scholes formula - and the story he tells starts with a forgotten man. Louis Bachelier priced options 73 years before Black-Scholes - and modeled Brownian motion 5 years before Einstein. it was 1900. a 30-year-old Frenchman defends a thesis under Henri Poincaré that quietly invents two fields at once: the math of random markets, and the first real formula for pricing options. his reward? the committee marks it down - "too much finance." no top grade, no patron, no career. he spends his life applying for jobs one rank below what his work deserved, and dies forgotten in 1946. then 1973: Black, Scholes & Merton publish the option-pricing formula. it reshapes Wall Street and wins the 1997 Nobel - for two of them (Black had died, so missed it). almost nobody remembers the Frenchman who got there first. and here's Taleb's twist: traders never actually use Black-Scholes. what the market runs on is a version of Bachelier's original. the Nobel, he argues, wasn't even for the pricing - it was for dressing it up to fit the economic theory of the day. ~15-min lecture, free. the man who built modern finance — and watched the credit go to everyone but him ↓

0xDipper

245,386 views • 2 months ago

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Democrats are fuming after local news is forced to report gas prices are PLUMMETING near $2 under President Trump in certain areas, the lowest in 4 YEARS 🇺🇸 "It is PERCECT timing for everyone that is leaving and heading out to wherever their holiday destination is!" "The last time that the national gas price average was below $3 was four years ago!" "This time last year, the prices were up about a dollar." "AAA says that right now the national average is about $2.86. This is the first time in the gas price average was below $3 since May of 2020." "But the tri-state is sitting at even lower prices in the Cincinnati area. A gallon of regular unleaded gas is right around $2.54!" "In northern Kentucky, the average is a bit higher at $2.60 and prices in our highest, if you can even call it that, in southeastern Indiana with an average of $2.80."
1:01

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Democrats are fuming after local news is forced to report gas prices are PLUMMETING near $2 under President Trump in certain areas, the lowest in 4 YEARS 🇺🇸 "It is PERCECT timing for everyone that is leaving and heading out to wherever their holiday destination is!" "The last time that the national gas price average was below $3 was four years ago!" "This time last year, the prices were up about a dollar." "AAA says that right now the national average is about $2.86. This is the first time in the gas price average was below $3 since May of 2020." "But the tri-state is sitting at even lower prices in the Cincinnati area. A gallon of regular unleaded gas is right around $2.54!" "In northern Kentucky, the average is a bit higher at $2.60 and prices in our highest, if you can even call it that, in southeastern Indiana with an average of $2.80."

Eric Daugherty

268,912 views • 8 months ago

same crash, same window: this strategy ended at $117, buy-and-hold at $67 the difference is one operation in the formula on screen M_t = ( Σ r_{t-i} ) / ( σ_t · √N ) the top is momentum: just the sum of recent returns. net directional drift the bottom is the part retail never adds: divide by volatility that denominator is the whole edge raw momentum has a fatal flaw. a 2% move in a calm market and a 2% move in a panic look identical to it but they are not the same signal. one is information, the other is noise wearing a big number dividing by σ_t rescales every signal into the same risk units now a move only counts as momentum if it's large relative to how much the asset is currently shaking strong drift in a quiet tape scores high. the same drift inside chaos scores near zero this is why the strategy survived the drawdown that ate buy-and-hold when volatility exploded, the denominator exploded with it, the signal shrank toward zero, and the position sized itself down automatically no rule that said "reduce risk in a crash." the math did it because σ_t was in the denominator this is called time-series momentum, and it's one of the most documented effects in finance moskowitz, ooi and pedersen, AQR, 2012: it worked across 58 markets, every asset class, back to 1900 the reason it keeps working is structural, not a pattern trends persist because information diffuses slowly and institutions can't enter all at once. a pension fund moving billions takes weeks, and that slow entry is the drift the signal captures retail buys the move and gets bigger as it accelerates, which means biggest right before the reversal a desk scales inversely to volatility, which means it's largest when the trend is clean and smallest when it's about to snap the paper is free. the whole thing is a rolling sum divided by a rolling standard deviation ten lines of python, twenty years of data that never cost anything the momentum was never the edge. everyone can see a trend the edge was dividing it by the one number that tells you whether to believe it full breakdown in the article below
0:34

same crash, same window: this strategy ended at $117, buy-and-hold at $67 the difference is one operation in the formula on screen M_t = ( Σ r_{t-i} ) / ( σ_t · √N ) the top is momentum: just the sum of recent returns. net directional drift the bottom is the part retail never adds: divide by volatility that denominator is the whole edge raw momentum has a fatal flaw. a 2% move in a calm market and a 2% move in a panic look identical to it but they are not the same signal. one is information, the other is noise wearing a big number dividing by σ_t rescales every signal into the same risk units now a move only counts as momentum if it's large relative to how much the asset is currently shaking strong drift in a quiet tape scores high. the same drift inside chaos scores near zero this is why the strategy survived the drawdown that ate buy-and-hold when volatility exploded, the denominator exploded with it, the signal shrank toward zero, and the position sized itself down automatically no rule that said "reduce risk in a crash." the math did it because σ_t was in the denominator this is called time-series momentum, and it's one of the most documented effects in finance moskowitz, ooi and pedersen, AQR, 2012: it worked across 58 markets, every asset class, back to 1900 the reason it keeps working is structural, not a pattern trends persist because information diffuses slowly and institutions can't enter all at once. a pension fund moving billions takes weeks, and that slow entry is the drift the signal captures retail buys the move and gets bigger as it accelerates, which means biggest right before the reversal a desk scales inversely to volatility, which means it's largest when the trend is clean and smallest when it's about to snap the paper is free. the whole thing is a rolling sum divided by a rolling standard deviation ten lines of python, twenty years of data that never cost anything the momentum was never the edge. everyone can see a trend the edge was dividing it by the one number that tells you whether to believe it full breakdown in the article below

delost

32,624 views • 1 month ago

An Indian physicist put the entire secret behind Renaissance's $100 billion on one chalkboard: a coin that barely beats 50/50. he is V. Balakrishnan, and his lecture went viral years after he recorded it. it has been free the whole time. almost nobody who trades has watched it. lecture one is the humblest thing in all of finance. a coin that lands your way a little more than half the time. that is the entire edge. that is all Renaissance ever had. the post above is the one equation for what to do with that coin. not what to bet. how much. bet too little and you die of old age. bet too much and one flip ends you. that same coin is every trade, every hand, every prediction market. a tiny edge, flipped a million times. the whole machine fits on his board, and he charged nothing for it. no slides. no notes. one coin and a stick of chalk. a quant I know says this old Indian lecture taught him probability better than his entire degree. the coin is free. the equation is free. the discipline to size it is the only thing left to earn.
1:01:55

An Indian physicist put the entire secret behind Renaissance's $100 billion on one chalkboard: a coin that barely beats 50/50. he is V. Balakrishnan, and his lecture went viral years after he recorded it. it has been free the whole time. almost nobody who trades has watched it. lecture one is the humblest thing in all of finance. a coin that lands your way a little more than half the time. that is the entire edge. that is all Renaissance ever had. the post above is the one equation for what to do with that coin. not what to bet. how much. bet too little and you die of old age. bet too much and one flip ends you. that same coin is every trade, every hand, every prediction market. a tiny edge, flipped a million times. the whole machine fits on his board, and he charged nothing for it. no slides. no notes. one coin and a stick of chalk. a quant I know says this old Indian lecture taught him probability better than his entire degree. the coin is free. the equation is free. the discipline to size it is the only thing left to earn.

Rossst.03

159,345 views • 21 days ago

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.
29:44

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Rossst.03

281,905 views • 1 month ago

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.
40:58

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Rossst.03

214,907 views • 1 month ago

Persi Diaconis walked into a lecture at the University of Washington, held up a coin, and told a room of physicists that Richard Feynman was fooled by it his entire life. He was right. In 2007, Diaconis proved a coin flip is not 50/50. It lands on the side it started on about 51 percent of the time. The bias comes from the physics of rotation under gravity. Every physicist since Newton had assumed 50/50 without ever testing it. Every trading model built on that assumption is running on the same lie. The lecture was on Feynman's book "The Meaning of it All." Diaconis quoted the most famous line in it: "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Then he pointed out that Feynman himself was fooled by every coin he ever flipped. Feynman's own rule would have killed the 50/50 assumption on day one. The market is the same setup at scale. Every model that assumes independent 50/50 outcomes at the base layer is built on a physical impossibility. Order flow, positioning, forced flows, expiries all leave biases larger than 1 percent. Your gut cannot see them. The math already knows they are there. Diaconis's rule: before you trust a random process, check it. Actually check it. Not with a simulation. With a proof or an experiment. The coin is where you start. The chart is where the same rule pays. The only random thing about markets is how thoroughly you refuse to check them.
47:48

Persi Diaconis walked into a lecture at the University of Washington, held up a coin, and told a room of physicists that Richard Feynman was fooled by it his entire life. He was right. In 2007, Diaconis proved a coin flip is not 50/50. It lands on the side it started on about 51 percent of the time. The bias comes from the physics of rotation under gravity. Every physicist since Newton had assumed 50/50 without ever testing it. Every trading model built on that assumption is running on the same lie. The lecture was on Feynman's book "The Meaning of it All." Diaconis quoted the most famous line in it: "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Then he pointed out that Feynman himself was fooled by every coin he ever flipped. Feynman's own rule would have killed the 50/50 assumption on day one. The market is the same setup at scale. Every model that assumes independent 50/50 outcomes at the base layer is built on a physical impossibility. Order flow, positioning, forced flows, expiries all leave biases larger than 1 percent. Your gut cannot see them. The math already knows they are there. Diaconis's rule: before you trust a random process, check it. Actually check it. Not with a simulation. With a proof or an experiment. The coin is where you start. The chart is where the same rule pays. The only random thing about markets is how thoroughly you refuse to check them.

veles

18,798 views • 1 month ago

Persi Diaconis, Stanford mathematician and former professional magician: "I spent fifty years proving one thing: almost nothing is as random as it looks. The 50.75% that built Renaissance wasn't luck. It was a tiny crack in the randomness, found and repeated a million times." this free lecture holds the exact idea the thread above is built on. and the man giving it isn't a trader. he's a stanford professor and former professional magician who spent his career on one question: where does real randomness end, and where does a hidden edge begin. here is his life's finding. a coin, a shuffle, a market, all look random, yet each hides a faint, measurable bias. on its own that bias is nothing, indistinguishable from luck. repeat it enough times and it stops being luck and becomes a law. that faint crack, found and repeated, is the whole distance between a 50.75% win rate and a hundred billion dollars. none of this is new or hidden. diaconis has taught it for decades, the math runs back to 1713, and the lecture is free. i mapped the full system in my article, expected value, kelly, and this. same point the thread makes: the edge was sitting in plain sight. here is the part the gurus skip. a faint edge only pays if you survive long enough to reach it, and that takes correct sizing and the patience to trust it through thousands of losing-looking trades. most quit while it still looks like randomness. the math is free. the nerve to hold it is the edge.
48:41

Persi Diaconis, Stanford mathematician and former professional magician: "I spent fifty years proving one thing: almost nothing is as random as it looks. The 50.75% that built Renaissance wasn't luck. It was a tiny crack in the randomness, found and repeated a million times." this free lecture holds the exact idea the thread above is built on. and the man giving it isn't a trader. he's a stanford professor and former professional magician who spent his career on one question: where does real randomness end, and where does a hidden edge begin. here is his life's finding. a coin, a shuffle, a market, all look random, yet each hides a faint, measurable bias. on its own that bias is nothing, indistinguishable from luck. repeat it enough times and it stops being luck and becomes a law. that faint crack, found and repeated, is the whole distance between a 50.75% win rate and a hundred billion dollars. none of this is new or hidden. diaconis has taught it for decades, the math runs back to 1713, and the lecture is free. i mapped the full system in my article, expected value, kelly, and this. same point the thread makes: the edge was sitting in plain sight. here is the part the gurus skip. a faint edge only pays if you survive long enough to reach it, and that takes correct sizing and the patience to trust it through thousands of losing-looking trades. most quit while it still looks like randomness. the math is free. the nerve to hold it is the edge.

Rossst.03

230,779 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 One-third of the normal ship traffic is moving through the Strait of Hormuz right now, and prices are barely reacting. Professor Steve Hanke calls it anomalous, and says the math simply doesn't add up. "If inventories are low, which they are now, we know that that's something we know. You find the price structure should be one in which you observe spot prices above futures prices by a considerable level." The market is pricing in a world that doesn't exist yet. Steve Hanke
1:17

🇺🇸🇮🇷 One-third of the normal ship traffic is moving through the Strait of Hormuz right now, and prices are barely reacting. Professor Steve Hanke calls it anomalous, and says the math simply doesn't add up. "If inventories are low, which they are now, we know that that's something we know. You find the price structure should be one in which you observe spot prices above futures prices by a considerable level." The market is pricing in a world that doesn't exist yet. Steve Hanke

Mario Nawfal

56,586 views • 1 month ago

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.
50:03

Nassim Taleb, options trader and author of "The Black Swan": "Wall Street pays $500K for a five-year track record. I traded options for two decades and watched records like that vanish in a single afternoon." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. taleb built his whole career and his books on one warning: a track record is the weakest evidence there is. a trader can win every single day for years and still be sitting on a hidden risk. the five good years don't prove skill, they just haven't met the one bad day yet. that is the entire "fooled by randomness" trap, dressed up as a resume. and you only ever see the survivors. for every rich trader with a spotless record, thousands ran the same reckless bet and quietly blew up. the graveyard is silent, so the lucky fool looks like a genius. none of this is new, taleb has said it for 25 years and the talk is free. same point as my article: a winning streak is not evidence. here is the edge, and it isn't a hot record. it's surviving. sizing so your one bad day can't erase you, and staying skeptical of your own success while everyone else worships theirs.

Rossst.03

77,501 views • 1 month ago

Harry Markowitz, the Nobel laureate who invented modern portfolio theory: "Every fund from Bridgewater to Citadel runs on one equation I wrote as a 25-year-old grad student. Wall Street pays quants $500K to use it. It's free." the thread above teaches you to build a portfolio the real way, with the mathematics of capital allocation. every line of it traces back to one paper markowitz wrote in 1952. before him, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" was folklore. he turned it into algebra. he proved a portfolio's risk isn't the average of its parts, it's driven by how the parts move together, the covariance. combine assets that don't move in lockstep and you cut risk without giving up return. that is the closest thing to a free lunch in all of finance, and he wrote the exact equation for how much of it you get. that single insight, mean-variance optimization, is the engine under every serious fund on earth. renaissance, bridgewater, citadel, your pension, all of them size risk with markowitz's math. he published it in 1952, won the nobel in 1990, and it sits in every textbook and this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the math that runs the trillion-dollar machine has been public and free for seventy years. here is the part markowitz himself warned about. the equation is only as good as the numbers you feed it, your estimates of return and covariance. feed it garbage and the "optimal" portfolio it hands back is confidently, precisely wrong, and it detonates in the exact crisis it was built to survive. the optimizer is free. estimating the future honestly, and knowing when to distrust your own inputs, is the entire job.
22:10

Harry Markowitz, the Nobel laureate who invented modern portfolio theory: "Every fund from Bridgewater to Citadel runs on one equation I wrote as a 25-year-old grad student. Wall Street pays quants $500K to use it. It's free." the thread above teaches you to build a portfolio the real way, with the mathematics of capital allocation. every line of it traces back to one paper markowitz wrote in 1952. before him, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" was folklore. he turned it into algebra. he proved a portfolio's risk isn't the average of its parts, it's driven by how the parts move together, the covariance. combine assets that don't move in lockstep and you cut risk without giving up return. that is the closest thing to a free lunch in all of finance, and he wrote the exact equation for how much of it you get. that single insight, mean-variance optimization, is the engine under every serious fund on earth. renaissance, bridgewater, citadel, your pension, all of them size risk with markowitz's math. he published it in 1952, won the nobel in 1990, and it sits in every textbook and this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the math that runs the trillion-dollar machine has been public and free for seventy years. here is the part markowitz himself warned about. the equation is only as good as the numbers you feed it, your estimates of return and covariance. feed it garbage and the "optimal" portfolio it hands back is confidently, precisely wrong, and it detonates in the exact crisis it was built to survive. the optimizer is free. estimating the future honestly, and knowing when to distrust your own inputs, is the entire job.

Rossst.03

44,259 views • 1 month ago

NBC News’ Kristen Welker: “You’re talking about 140 million barrels of Iranian oil, and that’s just a little bit more than what the world uses in one day. How much can that really change prices here at home —” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Again, Kristen, terrible framing, terrible framing. No, no, no — prices here at home?” “Let me explain. 140 million barrels — about 20 million barrels a day — comes out of the Gulf. About five million has been the uh, repurposed by the Saudis, by the UAE. So, we’re at a 15 deficit. About 1.5 is Iranian oil that comes out. So, we are at between a 10 and 14 million deficit on a daily basis.” “If you think about 140 million barrels, that’s between 10 days and two weeks of supply. And one of the reasons, one of the reasons that prices in the U.S. of West Texas crude are below $100 — and we have not seen this massive spike as we did during the beginning of Russia/Ukraine — is because we are well supplied in the market, whether it is the Russian oil, whether it is the Iranian oil, or it is the largest the SPR release in history done by a coalition of 32 countries, 400 million barrels.”
1:25

NBC News’ Kristen Welker: “You’re talking about 140 million barrels of Iranian oil, and that’s just a little bit more than what the world uses in one day. How much can that really change prices here at home —” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Again, Kristen, terrible framing, terrible framing. No, no, no — prices here at home?” “Let me explain. 140 million barrels — about 20 million barrels a day — comes out of the Gulf. About five million has been the uh, repurposed by the Saudis, by the UAE. So, we’re at a 15 deficit. About 1.5 is Iranian oil that comes out. So, we are at between a 10 and 14 million deficit on a daily basis.” “If you think about 140 million barrels, that’s between 10 days and two weeks of supply. And one of the reasons, one of the reasons that prices in the U.S. of West Texas crude are below $100 — and we have not seen this massive spike as we did during the beginning of Russia/Ukraine — is because we are well supplied in the market, whether it is the Russian oil, whether it is the Iranian oil, or it is the largest the SPR release in history done by a coalition of 32 countries, 400 million barrels.”

RedWave Press

664,072 views • 5 months ago

An MIT professor explained the one idea funds pay $500K for, and he does it in the first hour of freshman calculus. MIT put the whole lecture online. it has been free for twenty years. almost nobody finishes it. his point: calculus is not a hundred formulas to memorize. it is one idea. take two points on a curve, slide them together until the gap vanishes, and the slope you are left with is the derivative. everything else is just consequences. he is David Jerison, and his 18.01 lectures have taught more people calculus than any room on earth. skip to the board, where the power rule, the product rule, the chain rule, the fifty things you were forced to memorize, all fall out of that one limit. no formula sheet. no tricks. one definition, reused. that same slope is velocity. it is marginal cost. it is the gradient that trains a neural network. one operation, hiding everywhere something moves. the math is free. what nobody can sell you is the patience to understand the one limit instead of cramming the fifty formulas that fall out of it. that hour is the foundation, and it is the only part that ever pays.
50:54

An MIT professor explained the one idea funds pay $500K for, and he does it in the first hour of freshman calculus. MIT put the whole lecture online. it has been free for twenty years. almost nobody finishes it. his point: calculus is not a hundred formulas to memorize. it is one idea. take two points on a curve, slide them together until the gap vanishes, and the slope you are left with is the derivative. everything else is just consequences. he is David Jerison, and his 18.01 lectures have taught more people calculus than any room on earth. skip to the board, where the power rule, the product rule, the chain rule, the fifty things you were forced to memorize, all fall out of that one limit. no formula sheet. no tricks. one definition, reused. that same slope is velocity. it is marginal cost. it is the gradient that trains a neural network. one operation, hiding everywhere something moves. the math is free. what nobody can sell you is the patience to understand the one limit instead of cramming the fifty formulas that fall out of it. that hour is the foundation, and it is the only part that ever pays.

Loran

1,073,838 views • 1 month ago

Australia’s housing obsession is one of its greatest weaknesses. Rising house prices are not a sign of prosperity. What they actually tell you is that more money is being borrowed from the banking sector to buy homes. The cause of rising house prices is rising household debt, and that is unproductive. House prices are now five times more expensive than consumer goods compared to 1970. We should never have allowed that to happen. Housing should not be an asset. It is not something you should profit out of. It is something you should live in. The people who really benefit from rising house prices are real estate agents and property developers, not the families who live in them. We are paupers living inside castles. Paying a fortune on the mortgage, a fortune on private schools, and out of the remainder, just trying to live. For the more information, check out the comment section, #SteveKeen #AustraliaProperty #HousingCrisis #MortgageDebt #Economics #HousingAffordability
0:53

Australia’s housing obsession is one of its greatest weaknesses. Rising house prices are not a sign of prosperity. What they actually tell you is that more money is being borrowed from the banking sector to buy homes. The cause of rising house prices is rising household debt, and that is unproductive. House prices are now five times more expensive than consumer goods compared to 1970. We should never have allowed that to happen. Housing should not be an asset. It is not something you should profit out of. It is something you should live in. The people who really benefit from rising house prices are real estate agents and property developers, not the families who live in them. We are paupers living inside castles. Paying a fortune on the mortgage, a fortune on private schools, and out of the remainder, just trying to live. For the more information, check out the comment section, #SteveKeen #AustraliaProperty #HousingCrisis #MortgageDebt #Economics #HousingAffordability

Prof. Steve Keen

60,030 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.
0:33

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Dustin

61,244 views • 1 month ago

KAMALA: "Prices for every day things like groceries are still too high. When I am President, it will be a day one priority to fight to bring down prices." (Kamala is the one that brought these prices up in the first place)
0:50

KAMALA: "Prices for every day things like groceries are still too high. When I am President, it will be a day one priority to fight to bring down prices." (Kamala is the one that brought these prices up in the first place)

Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅

581,785 views • 2 years ago

Trump: It was announced by one of the nation's most historically accurate and respected pollsters Rasmussen that the number of Americans that believe our country is on the right track now exceeds those that think it’s heading in the wrong direction is heading in the wrong direction for the first time in 20 years. Can you believe that? 20 years. Really this is a seismic 27 point swing from just before the election.
0:24

Trump: It was announced by one of the nation's most historically accurate and respected pollsters Rasmussen that the number of Americans that believe our country is on the right track now exceeds those that think it’s heading in the wrong direction is heading in the wrong direction for the first time in 20 years. Can you believe that? 20 years. Really this is a seismic 27 point swing from just before the election.

Acyn

25,310 views • 1 year ago

Flip a coin. Heads, your account goes up 50 percent. Tails, it goes down 40 percent. Expected value is plus 5 percent a flip, so you take the bet a hundred times. Expected value says your $10,000 becomes $1.3 million. The most likely path leaves you with $52. An MIT professor explains the entire gap in one sentence, in a free undergraduate lecture, then moves on like it was nothing. His name is John Tsitsiklis. He teaches undergraduate probability at MIT. He also proved in 1994 that Q-learning converges, the result that says the algorithm under modern reinforcement learning does not merely happen to work, it has to. INFORMS gave him the von Neumann Theory Prize for that line of work in 2018. He runs the lecture on the students for an hour. First he takes the average apart. A random variable is not a number, it is a function. A bar graph of probabilities is a PMF. Expectation is the center of gravity of that bar graph, the single point where you slide a pen underneath and the thing balances. He is slow and patient about it. By minute 35 you trust the average completely. Then he stops and says he wants to give "one general word of caution." "The average of a function of a random variable, in general, is not the same as the function of the average... in general, you can not reason on the average." Everything before that sentence was the trap. Go back to the coin. Compounding is not addition. Up 50 then down 40 is not plus 10. It is 1.5 times 0.6, which is 0.9. You are down 10 percent. Do that 50 times each way and you have 0.9 to the fiftieth power. Fifty-two dollars. So where did the $1.3 million go? It is real. It is parked at the very top of the distribution. Run the hundred flips and only about one path in seven finishes above where you started. Only about one in a hundred ever reaches that $1.3 million. Those few runs are gigantic, and they carry the average for everybody else. You will not be in them. In February 2018 that trade had a ticker. XIV, short volatility, $1.9 billion in it. It had paid on the average day for seven years. On February 5 the VIX rose 115.6 percent, the biggest one-day jump ever recorded. XIV went from $115.55 to $4.22 overnight. Credit Suisse shut the note two weeks later. Nobody in it was wrong about the average. They were wrong about which path they were standing on. The usable version: your compound return is your average return minus roughly half your variance. A system averaging 20 percent a year at 40 percent vol does not compound at 20. It compounds at 12. That missing 8 is not fees or slippage. Tsitsiklis delivers the most expensive sentence in finance, finishes the variance section, and ends with "see you on Wednesday." The lecture is free. The average is free. Knowing which path you are standing on is the trade.
47:45

Flip a coin. Heads, your account goes up 50 percent. Tails, it goes down 40 percent. Expected value is plus 5 percent a flip, so you take the bet a hundred times. Expected value says your $10,000 becomes $1.3 million. The most likely path leaves you with $52. An MIT professor explains the entire gap in one sentence, in a free undergraduate lecture, then moves on like it was nothing. His name is John Tsitsiklis. He teaches undergraduate probability at MIT. He also proved in 1994 that Q-learning converges, the result that says the algorithm under modern reinforcement learning does not merely happen to work, it has to. INFORMS gave him the von Neumann Theory Prize for that line of work in 2018. He runs the lecture on the students for an hour. First he takes the average apart. A random variable is not a number, it is a function. A bar graph of probabilities is a PMF. Expectation is the center of gravity of that bar graph, the single point where you slide a pen underneath and the thing balances. He is slow and patient about it. By minute 35 you trust the average completely. Then he stops and says he wants to give "one general word of caution." "The average of a function of a random variable, in general, is not the same as the function of the average... in general, you can not reason on the average." Everything before that sentence was the trap. Go back to the coin. Compounding is not addition. Up 50 then down 40 is not plus 10. It is 1.5 times 0.6, which is 0.9. You are down 10 percent. Do that 50 times each way and you have 0.9 to the fiftieth power. Fifty-two dollars. So where did the $1.3 million go? It is real. It is parked at the very top of the distribution. Run the hundred flips and only about one path in seven finishes above where you started. Only about one in a hundred ever reaches that $1.3 million. Those few runs are gigantic, and they carry the average for everybody else. You will not be in them. In February 2018 that trade had a ticker. XIV, short volatility, $1.9 billion in it. It had paid on the average day for seven years. On February 5 the VIX rose 115.6 percent, the biggest one-day jump ever recorded. XIV went from $115.55 to $4.22 overnight. Credit Suisse shut the note two weeks later. Nobody in it was wrong about the average. They were wrong about which path they were standing on. The usable version: your compound return is your average return minus roughly half your variance. A system averaging 20 percent a year at 40 percent vol does not compound at 20. It compounds at 12. That missing 8 is not fees or slippage. Tsitsiklis delivers the most expensive sentence in finance, finishes the variance section, and ends with "see you on Wednesday." The lecture is free. The average is free. Knowing which path you are standing on is the trade.

Veles

628,984 views • 25 days ago

Moynihan: There is a vast trove of reporting over the last few years saying that the president shouldn't be responsible for gas prices—when Biden was in office… Phillip: Did President Trump initiate a war that led to higher gas prices? Moynihan: It depends who you ask. Phillip: Who initiated this conflict? Jennings: The answer is yes but the question is: is it a worthy cause?
1:55

Moynihan: There is a vast trove of reporting over the last few years saying that the president shouldn't be responsible for gas prices—when Biden was in office… Phillip: Did President Trump initiate a war that led to higher gas prices? Moynihan: It depends who you ask. Phillip: Who initiated this conflict? Jennings: The answer is yes but the question is: is it a worthy cause?

Acyn

33,779 views • 5 months ago