Screwball

The only reason the media is fixated on GDP is because that's what narrative they want to push. It's easy to massage into what they want to propagandize using GDP numbers instead of more rigid metrics. This hack is just putting lipstick on a pig. *** Crude oil getting hammered today, down over %6. Small Business Expectations for Future Conditions Hits All-Time Low - June report Related and interesting; Kaiser Aluminum Declares Force Majeure at its Warrick Rolling Mill Due to Limited Availability of Magnesium Can shortage? Oh goody. Shit ain't good, go long lipstick (and bullshit).

GDP, a blast from the past. GDP was argued by pages in the old boards investment page. Was it in fact a good indicator of our economy, or not, or whatever? *** Speaking of which, that brings back memories. Del started the "Investment" thread on the old board. I remember some of the people. Rhino, Ballmich, Greenwit, a guy named Dan I think, and others I can't remember because I'm old and stupid. Those guys were badasses. *** The guy who wrote this article is a clueless fuck. Why is he trying to define a recession? It doesn't matter what you call it (or how you define it (example; 2 negative GDP prints)) - what matters are the numbers we see going forward - and what happens to the American consuming public. This is a wild time. There are jobs out there, and the labor numbers are not fugly, when you just look at the stats - so I will give him that. But too many jobs (or 2) aren't getting it done. People are struggling. I don't see any "wage earner's outlook" looking too good. Sure, some will make more, won't matter, costs eat it up. They even fuck us old people. We get a few percent SS raise, but our supplemental goes up X3. Thanks. All we need to watch is how we treat our veterans, our elderly, and our homeless. Besides, why invest in people when you can print gobs of money and make the right people rich? *** FTR; I spent 5 hours Friday and today dealing with my bank. All because of a purchase I made (have done several times before with no issues) that, this time, threw up a flag. Benny Hill would be proud And I'm a bit pissy

I looked for a mainstream source, but the rumors have been out since the Twitter/Musk deal blew up. This is ABC. Twitter says it will sue Elon Musk to complete the $44B merger he just rejected and is "confident" it will prevail I guess we'll see when and if the paperwork is filed, but go long popcorn if it does.

Released today from the Fed; Consumer Credit - G.19 Also contains a chart on other credit stuff.

-1.9 And since we must bring politics into it - fuck your politics

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice to see her skewering banksters on the financial services committee? I think that would be grand, but no dice. From February; Why Katie Porter Isn’t on the House Financial Services Committee

Always a great question, and since G2 brought me up I will take a stab at this. I bolded the part I want to address. In a word; no. At least not at the beginning. If they put forth that kind of work over a period of time that could change. First, we must quality how they go about beating the market. Are they like most people and control their 401k account (or whatever) through their work? Or do they have a live trading account and maybe on margin (betting money you don't have in your account). Margin accounts can make you filthy rich in a short period of time, but the inverse is also in play. Margin accounts use option contracts to lever up money, while at the same time protect against the downside. Shit goes south and someone is going to get ripped, and it won't be Wall Street. But let me give an example. I'm retired so I have nothing to hide and don't much give one good shit about too many things at this point anyway. I don't remember the exact year (when this happened), but 2015-2016 maybe. I worked for WHR. We had Vanguard as our retirement caretaker. We could change our plan every three months. I put in what they matched, and every 3 months we could change what they did with our account. They would stick all the three month money in WHR stock. At the time the stock was going up, and the people I worked with were buying the snot out of it, and of course I was making money too, but I knew it was an illusion. In February of that year the stock price hit $204 after an earning report (listen to them, so cool and informative) and a month later hit $211. The people were buying the shit out of it, while I was selling the shit out of it. Why? Because the top 10 execs, who must disclose buys/sells were also selling the shit out of it. In July it was $145. Until you really have a grasp on how things really work your going to get you ass handed to you. We are now finding out how bad the Robinhood people and other scams have raped people. Image that! They have no fucking clue what they are doing, and more importantly, what they are dealing with. Read about fiduciary duty. They probably took it out of the dictionary. To the technical side of trading; charts are history, they show what happened, and a really clever way of doing so. Great read on how it became popular, Japan was a large contributor. It's about how to "look around the corner." Trades are easy when you know what's going to happen, but we don't. Great effort has been spent trying to figure out an "edge." TA is an offspring. They serve as indicators, entry/exit points, and very worthwhile. And why not, Wall Street uses it (the algos (HAL 9000)), so do all the traders. Examples above posted of charts. TA is a tool, not a get rich scheme, but a worthy tool just the same.

Follow up, been a long time. Did you ever do anything Red?

Those guys are nuts, but all racers are nuts. They are adrenaline junkies. I raced on a couple of local dirt tracks a few times. It's all about how big your balls are. It's as simple as that.

I was speaking in general about the costs, and I do remember the STP car. Andy Granatelli was the car owner, won two I think. Your first paragraph is what makes racing what it is. Rules, how to beat the rules. That's where it gets fun (and innovative), which is what I like. Racers are passionate about winning. Technology benefits, as does the rest of us. Some call it cheating, some call it rules interpretation. 😉 When they put a battery in a race car I will be done with whatever sport it may be. There is nothing like the smell of spent methanol after a 50 lap feature. Hat tip "Apocalypse Now."

I also liked the 70s and 80s because of the "innovations" they did to the cars. It was a fun time, and those guys were pretty sharp. Nitrous was part of the conversation in those days, but nobody talked about it. 😉 That said, the rule changes made the sport more competitive (and expensive, but that is inevitable anyway). Today the competition is as good as I've witnessed since I started going in 1968(9). For example. a couple of weeks ago was the Ohio Sprint Speedweek; 8 straight nights of racing at 8 different tracks in Ohio. In 8 nights there were 6 different winners. As far as Indy, I still watch it every year. To me it is still the ultimate oval open wheel race of the year. But IMO, they have ruined it over the years. This year only saw 33 entries, just enough to fill the field. I remember when the "month of May" had over 100 cars trying to find the speed to make the top 33. Not anymore. And the drivers....never heard of many, although some had pretty good resumes, but I could name a half dozen guys who are really good on the tar (asphalt) who I think should be there. Either not enough money, or they don't have a connection to the money. All of is has gotten too expensive, but as the old saying goes "speed cost money, how fast you wanna go?"

I apologize for being off topic here, but I want to share this. I'm a huge race fan and I understand and respect the F1 stuff. Open wheel, high horsepower to weight ratio. F1 is the leader of the field in every category as far as technology. That's good for humanity as well. Then there is the crude version of horsepower to weight ratio. The video below is from a race last night in ND featuring the World of Outlaws, the dirt track version of F1. 1425 pound cars with 900+ horsepower engines running around a dirt oval. Some of the NASCAR guys run with these guys at times, including last years champion Kyle Larson. The #17 car goes from 6th to 1st in the last 4 or 5 laps.

Well, they did just come out with a short BTC ETF. 😉

Yes, that is very cool, but not what we are talking about here. His work is about using the 3D printer AS the main manufacturing devise. In our conversation here that Red is asking about is an entirely different animal as we are only making simple parts, even though the 3D printer in this case, is, the primary source of manufactured part. The video is an example of where this technology has come over the last X amount of years, and the things it can make when the parts are too complex to be built in other ways (materials and the ability of different printers to use these different materials which has opened the door to these fancy type parts). In our "normal" manufacturing processes to make our lives better via cheaper more affordable products (look around your house - almost everything is 3D modeled) prototyping is one of the first stages of the design process and the small 3D printers have been a huge help in time to market for our products. And in this case, the weekend warrior who wants to make simple parts on a desktop printer is the audience.

That is strange because I don't know anyone who does that. Let's walk through this one more time. This is a simple part 3D modeled in Solidworks (since you used that as an example). This is what you do first, no matter what 3D solid modeling package you have access to. This part is then "exported" to the 3D printer using a .stl file which the printer can import and optimize. By optimize (for lack of a better word), it will create the layering used for the printing process. Think old dot matrix printer than can move up as well (z). It starts at a point (home) and moves right and left (better yet x and y) on a flat plane laying down small droplets of plastic (for lack of a better word) to build the first layer of the part. Once the first layer is put down, it indexes a few thousands upward, and prints another layer on the shape. This is how the shape (part) is built. The software will also do the stress analysis (if that's what you want to call it) for you. For example; let's say you wanted to create a small airplane. The body of the plane is fairly rigid, but the wings are not. The software may choose to add a support/gusset/column at the ends of the plane wing because their own weight (as small as it is) may cause the wing to bend slightly therefore messing up the finished part. Again, this should be left up to the 3D printing software, with exceptions of course. A stress analysis program should be run on the real part, and is a very common part of the entire design process. FEA (finite element analysis) is a great tool, but like 3D printers there are good ones and bad ones. And yes, after the model is sent to the printer and optimized by the software, the finished model that is printed might have quite a bit of extra weird looking stuff attached. This is why I explained above how you might have to sand, file, or massage the final part to get what you want. Some of the supports/gussets/etc can be broken off if you are careful. That is the most common way they do things the last time I was allowed anywhere near corporate America.

True, but you don't design to it. You 3D model a part for what will be needed if it goes far enough to be put in production. The 3D printer, using it's own software will do the layering and optimization of the part to be printed (the prototype). No different if it was a non prototype (non-production) part that you wanted for your lawn mower. You don't design to the layers even though it's all about X,Y,Z. It's starts at 0,0, lays a substance of some sort along the X,Y plane, then indexes upward (Z) by whatever the software tells it (thousands of an inch), and repeats. This builds the part. Their software will figure that out. This technology helped us manufactures learn if a design is viable in a shorter period of time. R&D money is hard to get so time is as usual - priority one. We bought one because time on the corporate machines were backlogged and hard on the projects budget. Learning how to do things right should start from the very get-go. Nobody said it would be easy. Prepare accordingly. But to be honest, after watching corporate America over the last 40 years, I wondered many times how the hell they made or developed anything.

Designing shapes to fit 3D printing is a bad approach. You design a part for form, fit, and function. ASME y14.5-19XX (year) would be a good place to start if they are teaching that stuff.

I just saw this thread. I used a 3D printer but it was about 4-5 years ago, so things are probably much different now. We bought one for making prototype parts. I was working for an appliance manufacturer. We bought it off Amazon for about 2 grand. It was a little larger than a toaster, so the size of the parts were limited. It had different spools of plastic line in different colors. The line looked similar to line for a weed whacker and came on spools. You can make fairly complicated parts, but many times they would have to be sanded, filed, etc. to get the desired finished product, depending on the function. That may have gotten better now that the technology is better. But let's back up a little. Whatever you want to make needs to start with a 3D model. That's the toughest part IMO. To create a 3D model you need some sort of 3D software. That wasn't a problem for us as we had a high end 3D CAD software available at all times - this was our primary design software as it was. Once you have a 3D model, it is exported as a .stl file to the 3D printer. An .stl file stands for stereolithography type file. Some may also use a SLA file. This file gives the printer information so it can start at some point and lay down layers of plastic. Once you send the file to the 3D printer, the software optimizes the exported model for the printer. Our printer came with this software. Depending on the shape, sometimes the software would add supports, gussets, or whatever to help it create the final shape. This is also why you may need to final finish the part. It is not hard to learn the process IMO, and trail and error will also help. I don't know what is available today, and I'm sure they have gotten better for the price. Depending on what you want to make, the 3D software might be key IMO. There are all kinds of free and highly available 3D modeling packages, but they are not all the same. Some are very cumbersome and hard to learn. What is available for free I have no idea, but any commercial CAD package is better than the free stuff IMO, but you can't just go buy one of those - well you could if you wanted to spend the money - but not practical unless you are using it all the time. My advice would be to look 3D modeling packages over and find one that you like, and will make the kinds of models you want. Or, if you know someone with access to commercial 3D software, they could make you a model and export the .stl file. One place you might look is a local school or college that teaches CAD. They could maybe make you a model and export the file. The 3D modeling is the hard part IMO. Once created and exported, the printer and software will take care of the rest. Hope this help, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I live probably 40 miles from the Davis Besse nuke plant in Port Clinton ,Ohio. To the east somewhere, but I'm not sure where anymore, there is a company that deals with beryllium. There have been many reports and even a book about what some call "cancer clusters' in residents of a local town (Clyde, Ohio) have experienced. There are rumors (maybe facts I don't remember) that there is a couple of deep underground waste dumps for either spent nuclear and/or beryllium, which some think has something to do with these problems. I don't know and they never seem to come to a solid conclusion. My point, any form of energy source comes with a downside in one form or another. As we have read from all the damage done by fracking, and it's impact of our land and water, especially when not done properly, or neglect. We better have a bunch of Erin Brockovich's.

I'm all for alternative sources of energy, but it's not as easy and quick as some seem to want us to believe. How much minerals (lithium, cobalt, etc) are needed for all the batteries (lots) and how do we get them (mining). How do we dispose of/recycle them once used, and how much energy will that take? What about the grid required for significant EV usage to charge at home, or on our roadways, and what is the cost and timeline to fund, plan, and create the infrastructure to do so? The grid should also integrate with wind, solar, nuclear, and whatever other energy sources we have now. It's all about EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). You don't mine 500 tons of lithium without energy, and lots of it, and 500 tons is nothing compared to what is needed, and it's not cheap. We have oil derricks all over the county, but they don't pump. Too expensive to come empty the tanks and haul away the oil. EROEI is not worth it. For investors, the key (IMO) is watching the transformational plan from what we have now to what we end up with in the future, to see what companies/sectors are going to see the funding to move forward. In other words, there will no doubt companies who benefit from the transformation and could be a very profitable trade/investment. The question will be who and when. I have not followed the push for green energy space but I would start with finding what the plan actually is. Is there such a plan that spells out the step by step transition to green energy and what methods will be utilized and what infrastructure will be required to do so? Maybe there is, I have no idea, but I would start there looking to find something that my be of value to an investor, and the timing it will require. My 2 cents.

Let me know when they have battery powered excavators too.

Not the Onion *** While I'm here. The other problem with the house across the street is it's not worth that much to begin with. Cheap credit and easy money does this. Not like we haven't watched this movie before. This is Cornhole, where things are cheap compared to the median and this is overpriced. *** It will be fun to watch the tape tomorrow for the FOMC release. Will be be 50 or 75 bps? If they go 50 I expect a strong move to the upside as I think the market has priced in at least 50, for now.

Historical 30 yr rates going back to 1971 from Freddie Mac 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgages Since 1971 I would do historical banking interest rates but I'm out of Kleenex right now. Thanks assholes!