I mean it seems like you have some ideas. So thats a start.

I’m just gonna put it out there, that I don’t invest in things I don’t know about. So I have no opinions about any of the plays you just suggested.

I have a very different strategy than probably everyone else here. I only hold a few positions, maybe as few as 1-2, plus cash, at times. Its definitely not for everyone and its definitely not the “game theory” most efficient.

If you have limited funds and are just picking up a stock here or there, my utterly unqualified advice (if you like extremely high risk) is to buy the things you think are genuine quality, especially if it pays a dividend. Some classics (may or may not have dividends) are things like Costco, Apple, Home Depot. Also, is there anything in-particular you know or follow that might be available for trading?

For example I follow some dorky ass tech-youtubers, and I watch the products stuff pretty religiously. I was able to catch AMD when it around $20 (like 2017), because I was following the industry and the news, and when the threadripper/ Zen architecture came out and kind-of shocked the community. It was like, some “wow” level performance, and I picked up some shares. I didn’t do any crazy technical analysis. I just thought “Wow I want one of those crazy threadrippers. I’m a people. I bet other peoples do too!”. That ended up being a five bagger. When ARM went live earlier this year, I bought that as well. Its had some ups and downs since Intel kind-of shit in the microprocessor pool, but its still been a good ROI (it was a 4 bagger for a minute, now its down to a 2 bagger).

The real challenge on trading or buying and holding on limited funds is that, well, good shit is more expensive. Thats kind-of how the market works. Quality stocks that go up and to the right are expensive.

So some dont’ s that I learned (and I started with just 1’s and 2’s of stocks; literally was putting in $20 a week).

Don’t buy cheap shit just because you get “lots” of it. Its cheap for a reason. Try to think in dollars not shares.

Stop touching things. Or at least, understand, for yourself, why you are doing this. It can really turn into an addiction and you absolutely will lose all your money just fucking around moving shit. The apps are engineered to turn your money, into their money. The person giving you market isn’t your friend, they are your opponent. Company’s like Schwabb, Robinhood, fucking all of them are literally selling the information in your account to high frequency traders. Payment for order flow is why they are letting you trade for free. Keep that in mind. The app wants to turn your money into their money.

And if you are just doing this for fun, then have fun and lose money. Its a blast to ride a 20x option. I’ve watched 2k go to 50k, then to 10k, then 0 in like, minutes because who the fuck know why. But its a fucking emotional roller coaster. Know for yourself why you are doing this thing.

Three, have a plan. This plan needs to be like a story. It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Like, get a rubber duck and tell it a story of why it makes sense to do what you are thinking of doing (be-it buying or selling a position). Don’t lie to yourself about why you want to do some thing. Why are you entering a position? What are you going to wait for while you are holding that position? When will you leave that position? Whats the plan?

Fourth, have a schedule (kind of feeds into point #2). Don’t check this thing every fucking day or every hour. Have a day of the week where you are going to check in on things (or a time of day). I say this because intra versus inter day trading can really fuck with your perception. When I was day trading, I would get up early to be ready for opening bell and only trade the first hour. This was incredibly emotionally stressful and I hated it. I ended up moving to a time zone where I couldn’t accommodate that, so I started only trading in the last hour. I buy completely different stocks with a totally different strategy now.

If you are looking for something extremely passive, you might just buy SPY until you feel like you’ve really got enough to do something interesting to you.

Europe staring across the pond:

This seems like something that should be printed on the back of business cards, or bus time tables.

You know, just in case.

once you get it (…) it’s pretty clear

Thats… thats not what that means.

I love the concept of this figure, and I like how the right panel is built to present, but the actual results mapped onto the triangle are hard to figure out. Like this is the actual experiment they ran , but its not clear what represents what. Seems like maybe a density map might be more appropriate.

competitiveness

Wild.

Just, from a data is beautiful perspective, if I have to watch a video to understand one of your figures; that ain’t beautiful.

Its actually not a super complicated figure, the point its making is just obfuscated by its presentation.

I’m sorry but what the hell is this figure trying to say?

Its like an inverted stacked area plot, but I’m yet to figure out how I should be interpreting it.

A ‘beautiful’ presentation should be immediately obvious in terms of how to interpret it.

From what I can tell, this is saying that…

I can’t tell what the hell this is saying…

This should not be a stacked area plot. this should be a line plot, and the data surely should not be stacked. I think its a total misrepresentation of whats going on here. These lines are not cumulative, unless you are considering some kind of optimization curve, in which case ‘cost’ should be flipped to ‘price’. But then why is that axis in giga tonnes when it states that it is in cost per metric tonne, then how is it tonnes on the Y axis? Should be dollars?

And even then it doesn’t make sense because the scale of the y axis is backwards. if it was ‘price’, it could be reconfigured to make sense.

Looks like something one of my students would turn in when they are just guessing on how to make a plot in excel without engaging with the material (although its clearly made in R). Remake and resubmit for half credit.

(I’ve read the methods. This figure should be remade by swapping x and y. Y should be labeled cost per mega gram to deploy (and should be in megagrams, not gt), x should be carbon offset capacity. If this was done, it would be easily interpreted as the points and price points (in units of $/ megagram of carbon) at which a given technology becomes cost effective.)

I know up and to the right is boring, but its intuitive and there is no need to have drawn this curve in this way.