1) Seroprevalance of antibodies in just 5% of the population in one of the hardest hit European countries
2) No difference in infection rates based on gender
3) Large variations in seroprevalence based on symptoms:
No symptoms - 2.8%;
Several Symptoms - 12.3%;
Loss of smell - 40.1%
Actual cases 8x the official count and IFR of just over 1%
This study is the largest yet and weakens the case for the pursuit of herd immunity without vaccines (28k fatalities with an infection rate of just 5%)
> 1) Seroprevalance of antibodies in just 5% of the population in one of the hardest hit European countries
I think this is only partly relevant. SARS-CoV-2 did not spread like a molecule in a solution. Since the spread is not uniform, seroprevalence in the individual regions is far more important, and IIRC the regional data were up to 3x the national amount in some specific regions.
Disney Owns Star India which has subsidiary company Novi Digital Entertainment that operates Hotstar. Hotstar is the exclusive syndicating partner of HBO, Showtime and ABC in India. Around this time next month, Hotstar will also have all the content of Disney Plus in India.
The fact that Chronic procrastination = Likely ADHD i.e. an inherent neurological issue, needs to be propagated more widely so people can stop feeling guilty about it and not treat it like some emotional/moral/work ethic failure.
I'm afraid I'm on undiagnosed adult ADHD, however it's difficult to get diagnosed here - expecially since I had no symptoms at a younger age - probably due to biking 3-5km to school every day and doing martial arts 2-3x a week - If I'm exercising regulary I'm procrastinating less after a few weeks - but as you can imagine I can't keep up the schedule...
I think the guilt itself exacerbates procrastination. Perversely, I only stopped procrastinating once I stopped beating myself up about it.
Now, I tell myself that some problems just need to marinate, or that I have some other need that I'm not addressing. I use procrastination as a signal that something else is wrong. It's been very helpful.
Instead of punishing yourself for not doing something, take a moment to appreciate yourself when you do something.
When I go to the gym, I used get annoyed at myself for not doing enough work. I didn't even go often enough in the first place. Now I say that any day I go is a good gym day, and I feel only good thoughts about going and exercising, and when I am not exercising I occasionally remember that if I do go I'll feel good, and that's motivating.
> Every president has declared the ICJ irrelevant. The Pentagon would send tanks to the White House if a President so much as hinted at accepting ICJ jurisdiction.
Uhm...as far as 'even hinting' goes President Clinton did sign on to The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court without any tanks being rolled out.
Signing and accepting jurisdiction are two different things. Clinton's contemporaneous statement (from Wikipedia):
The United States should have the chance to observe and
assess the functioning of the court, over time, before
choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these
concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my
successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and
consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.
Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this
point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured
International Criminal Court would make a profound
contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses
worldwide, and that signature increases the chances for
productive discussions with other governments to advance
these goals in the months and years ahead.
Clinton thought that being a signatory with contingent intent would lend the ICC legitimacy even if the U.S. would never submit itself to its jurisdiction, and even if it was obvious to everybody it wouldn't submit itself to its jurisdiction. It's like the opposite of plausible deniability--plausible ratification. According to his logic, the fiction mattered. To others it was pointless.
1) Section 497 in The Indian Penal Code
Adultery.—Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.
2) 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.—Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
3) Having consensual sex with someone you promised to marry becomes rape retrospectively if you renege on the promise of marriage
4) And of course - Marital rape is legal. A husband (even an enstranged one) cannot be charged with raping his wife
They sell orders/trading data of small retail investors to Big High Frequency Traders so that they can gain an edge in the zero sum game of day trading. 'Robinhood' seems like an apt name.
In my experience, if you stick to highly liquid stocks/options (SPY for example) the bid/ask is a penny and you don’t experience much slippage, less liquid stocks you can end up getting a worse price (0.01-0.02, in my experience)
The amount of capital I actively trade with makes Robinhood a good fit for me, the amount of contracts/shares I trade in an average position would need to gain 1-2% more to get the same profit if I was paying fees (particularly on options)
I have heard from the horse's mouth that small retail investors orders/trading data is used as a contrarian signal. In other words the Big Traders see what the small retail investors are doing, and do the opposite.
Assume you are a market maker - you make money off of the bid-ask spread. Specifically, you supply liquidity by issuing standing orders: To buy at the bid, and sell at the ask.
For a market maker, you typically want the price to "stable", and you set your bid/ask to reflect the current order flow supply/demand - this is the "equilibrium" price.
When prices are volatile, your risk is greater. Typically, market makers have to maintain some position in the securities they transact in, and if they don't effectively hedge this position and the price moves against them, they could take big losses.
The optimal condition for a market maker is to have supply and demand balanced, and unchanging. Then you can simply make money off the bid-ask spread without much risk. (All else being equal, having fast access, i.e. HFT, and fast processing systems to detect upcoming likely prices changes also helps)
Market makers are worried about adverse selection; that is, if a huge buy order comes into them, they are worried that the buyer knows more about the price of the security than they do. If they sell to them, the price could subsequently increase, and they could take a loss. (The same applies for a big sell order)
That is why they would prefer not to transact on the open market - i.e. the exchange. It's difficult to tell who are the informed traders.
Instead, they would rather transact against "uninformed" traders. "Uninformed" here does not imply "stupid", but rather just implies that, on average, these traders don't possess any special information or any more information than they do.
In the optimal sense, market makers would prefer to transact against an order flow that is unbiased; one example of this would be an order flow where there are equal numbers of buy and sell orders.
This is why market making firms pay for retail order flow. Retail order flow is assumed to be uninformed, and therefore unbiased relative to the information that the market makers themselves have. Being able to transact against retail order flow thus gives them a relatively unbiased order flow from which they can profit off of the bid-ask spread with much lower risk.
None of the market makers as far as I know consider retail orders to carry any information at all, which is precisely why they love then so much.
They can fill retail orders with no real concern about adverse selection (unlike on an exchange where an informed institution is trading against you) and make much more of the spread per trade. Hence why they pay for the orders and give price improvement
Speaking from personal experience, for first time founders rasing early rounds I would actually recommend going through an associate as you likely have no idea what you are doing and associates have more time and patience to hand-hold you through the process and prepare you for the partner meeting. You only get one shot with the decision makers and if you have no previous experience you are almost certain to blow it even if you have read every piece of advice on the internet.
Sure if you are Justin Kan you don't want to bother with another gatekeeper but if you are not then convincing the gatekeeper may actually prepare you to convince the decision maker.
1) Seroprevalance of antibodies in just 5% of the population in one of the hardest hit European countries
2) No difference in infection rates based on gender
3) Large variations in seroprevalence based on symptoms:
No symptoms - 2.8%; Several Symptoms - 12.3%; Loss of smell - 40.1%
Actual cases 8x the official count and IFR of just over 1%
This study is the largest yet and weakens the case for the pursuit of herd immunity without vaccines (28k fatalities with an infection rate of just 5%)