Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD)

Homo sapiens| 1 of 8 Billion| Traveling at Celerity in Spacetime| PhD (Dr. of Philosovesting)| CFA (Certified Financial Ape)| CMT (Certified Monkey Technician)

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

1/
What an unbelievable Q2. What was despair in Q1 turned into euphoria in the last 3 months.

Up 22% YtD after being down ~9% at the end of Q1

Holdings exiting Q2:

$GTLB $PSNL $BNTX $TCEHY $NBIX $SAP $P $ADBE $NOVO $MRNA $SONY $TEM $BSX $NTDOY $U $ABVX $VKTX

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@ButchCalloway I'd be willing to revisit this after Q3 print. Check my profile for a longer write up on $BSX and use my old @flippyfloppy52 tag in the search

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

So checking back on this..

I'm really glad I just cut $BSX after the latest print. You just don't want to buy into a story where no turnaround is yet in sight.

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

I sold out here completely after taking some more time to think about it..

Just the whole story this year appears to be mgmt not being truthful about the size of the competition and strength of their PF.
I booked up 3% on avg. in PM.

Will still listen to $BSX call..

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@ButchCalloway Yes lots of negativity priced in but this turnaround story will take longer than I am willing to hold. The problem with this mgmt is that you cannot be sure of whether this cyberattack is the actual cause or they are using it as a veil. Next print will be ugly

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

$ADBE

@taobanker another throw of the die ?

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@Johnie36149708

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

So I have been very quiet since last Friday because I am on vacation (will be until next Thursday so probably the Monday after I'll get back to my X addiction), but I just can't help but posting about:

US/EU yields
OIL/GAS prices
commodities breaking out

Is something breaking?

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@JCanNuSH https://t.co/7hgBVY1YE0

Not sure you read this too 🤣

[Mehdi (e/λ) @BetterCallMedhi]

go fuck yourself @sama

claiming that you solved navier stokes because 10000 agents ran in circles for 88hours on a multimillion dollar gpu cluster to formalize in lean a blowup case under controlled external forcing is pure scientific vulgarity the clay mathematics institute millennium prize does not ask m whether you can artificially force a singularity in a fluid by injecting an ad hoc smooth external forcing term f(x,t) to twist the vortex until it breaks the real problem questions the fundamental stability and global smooth existence for 3dimensional incompressible euler & navier stokes equations under natural conservation laws and viscous dissipation alone using a mathematical loophole on forced equations to parade a century old victory is a major conceptual scam Altman

technically & epistemologically what you present as an agi breakthrough is nothing more than bruteforce combinatorial autoformalization the ai did not understand fluid mechanics it simply navigated a continuous search space previously mapped out and constrained by the monumental work of human mathematicians like tristan buckmaster/ levent alpöge / diego córdoba or tarek elgindi coordinating 10000 agents to check the logical consistency of a 100 page proof via lean is a software engineering feat and computational parallelization triumph not an intrinsic scientific discovery it is the victory of the compute bulldozer over abstract human intuition repackaged for the public as a higher mathematical consciousness

to this theoretical imposture you add a disgusting ethical and industrial cynicism taking advantage of private codex sessions and informal preprints from academic researchers to siphon their research leads and then trying to redact or erase the contribution of levent alpöge under the pretext that he works at rival anthropic is intellectual serfdom openai behaves like a feudal lord of silicon appropriating the cognitive subsistence of independent scholars threatening their careers behind closed doors if they protest and turning community academic labor into a privatized pressrelease

this entire staged event serves a desperate financial agenda in a pre ipo panic facing the slowdown of scaling laws and growing investor skepticism over the profitability of foundational models openai needs to manufacture an artificial sputnik moment claiming to solve a millennium prize without immediately submitting the proof to traditional peer review means using the prestige of fundamental mathematics as cheap marketing fuel to inflate a delusional valuation!!!

real science is not a clout chase on social media or a compute spike spent to rob the clay mathematics institute it is a quest for elegance physical truth and universal rigor to decode reality true artificial intelligence will not emerge from hostile corporate takeover of academic work hidden behind computational bruteforce but from architectures capable of generating new conceptual paradigms by masquerading constrained formalization as the collapse of physics greatest mysteries you did not solve navier stokes you only proved how far silicon valley will go to prostitute scientific integrity for capitalist spectacle

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@Johnie36149708 Best wishes

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

TL;DR as a general rule for the layman:

Do not directly trust headlines in what they make you feel about what the implications would be.

I am very close to Navier-Stokes (CFD modelling) at work. The quoted post also reflects what I think.

[Chris Combs (iterative design enjoyer) @DrChrisCombs]

Some thoughts on the Navier-Stokes news from a professor of aerospace engineering:
1) take a deep breath
2) posts indicating we "solved Navier-Stokes" are incorrect and overblown. A very specific mathematical proof involving a niche scenario for Navier-Stokes has *potentially* been shown (that a perfectly smooth incompressible initial condition with finite energy could produce a singularity--note the assumptions here piled on to an equation set that already involves some assumptions).
3) there is no general closed form solution for N-S and that's not what this news is about
4) this is more of a mathematical curiosity than anything else and could matter a lot to mathematicians but basically changes nothing in the way N-S are used in practice
5) there are already very useful exact solutions to Navier-Stokes that greatly simplify the equation set with the right boundary conditions/geometry like laminar flow through a pipe or a 2D Taylor-Green vortex
6) in aerospace, we already treat N-S as an approximation in many instances and are well aware of its limitations. we don't outright solve these equations anyway and regularly chop off terms or simplify parts (at the expense of accuracy) to make them easier to deal with.
7) to be honest I have never found this specific problem to be particularly interesting because we know a core assumption of N-S is a "continuum" fluid where you ignore molecules and assume hydrodynamic scales >>> molecular scales. We know a real fluid cannot have infinite velocity or energy. But clearly you can push equations outside of their bound of validity and make them produce funky results and singularities.

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@MelindaBChu1 @BetterCallMedhi @sama Do you actually understand fluid mechanics? I am really curious not attacking you here. Have you derived the NSE by hand and understood the physics behind them?

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@JCanNuSH @Mufaso7 👀 I mean muscle cells also have memory so why not fat cells also 😂😂

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@JCanNuSH @Mufaso7 The question remains for me:

What are the factors that contribute to this equilibrium? are they in any way under our control? if so, how can we influence our body's signaling so that we don't get these cravings? Will incretin agonists help patients steer in that direction?

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@JCanNuSH @Mufaso7 I would've hoped that maybe being on a incretin agonist could drive enough of the underlying dietary and activity changes to support some longer term changes in underlying "equilibrium" body fat..

Anywho, I totally am of the view that the body forces an "equilibrium" BF %

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@Mufaso7 @JCanNuSH That the changes in eating behavior of the patients are only directly coupled with the incretin agonist being administered without any changes beyond that.

I think this is a non-trivial question.

[Dr. CFA|CMT (PhD) @doctorcfa]

@Mufaso7 @JCanNuSH I found what @JCanNuSH wrote about the regression to the asympotitc long run 5 mg WL effect independent of the initial WL and doses during the therapeutic window quite interesting. It's something to look for/at. It makes sense ofc under the assumption...