Investing

[Tiger337]

30 minutes ago, Screwball said:

I'm on the list, but I knew that already.  I don't know if they can adequately replace mathematicians and data scientists any time soon, but if they think they can, they will.   I hope to get through a couple more years and then be in position to retire if necessary.  AI has a lot of potential, but I know that it will be used so that the wealthy can get wealthier and short cuts will be made to eliminate as much labor as they can.  

Edited Monday at 06:40 PM by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

28 minutes ago, Screwball said:

'Financial Advisor' I wonder about. I would guess people with enough means to managed will continue to afford themselves the luxury of a warm body to interact with. But maybe that will be a generational thing.

[oblong]

I think a lot of those are already in danger just as people become smarter and have access to more info.  I haven't used an airline booking agent since 2002, and that was a corporate booking thing thru American Express.  The company made us do it.

For some of it, I suspect it's similar to people thinking calculators and computers would get rid of engineers since it replaced slide rules.  No.  It was just a tool to help them be better.

[Screwball]

6 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I'm on the list, but I knew that already.  I don't know if they can adequately replace mathematicians and data scientists any time soon, but if they think they can, they will.   I hope to get through a couple more years and then be in position to retire if necessary.  AI has a lot of potential, but I know that it will be used so that the wealthy can get wealthier and short cuts will be made to eliminate as much labor as they can.  

The bold is the key.

Coming from someone who started making engineering drawings with paper, pencil, a mechanical arm, and a cheap calculator, to the highest 3D CAD systems in the world. Thanks to computers, the transition from paper to CAD changed the world. The days of football field size drafting rooms with hundreds of tables (and people) were replaced with AutoCad (went DOS 1992) at first, then the 3D stuff. Once it went digital, many jobs and support systems were lost. This will continue with AI.

We have the great things we have today due to the progression in this technology - we could draw some complex parts years ago with a pencil and mechanical arm (had to scale as well) - but nobody could make it. Today, with our CAD/CAM machines we can do incredible things. All about cost.

I bolded we. We isn't AI. That is the scary part.

What should scare the living **** out of all of us is what these inept corporate worms are cooking up to convince their corporate worm bosses this AI horse**** is going to make record profits for years to come and they will suck it up like a Hoover vacuum cleaner. Hey - look at the stock price and all the bonuses and these dickhead getting rich. What's not to like?

Then the whole ****house blows up because it was a scam from the start. Dot-com mania on roids (when it comes to the market). All driven by technical BS by arrogant greedy clueless assholes and an ignorant populous. AI can't replace people, and never will.

Crazy Teddy Kaczynski is laughing in his grave.

[Screwball]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

'Financial Advisor' I wonder about. I would guess people with enough means to managed will continue to afford themselves the luxury of a warm body to interact with. But maybe that will be a generational thing.

I wouldn't trust any of them either.

[romad1]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

'Financial Advisor' I wonder about. I would guess people with enough means to managed will continue to afford themselves the luxury of a warm body to interact with. But maybe that will be a generational thing.

How in the f is historian at risk?  If you can write good history that people agree is well researched and sourced and explain it to people in a compelling way, possibly injecting your political biases (Feminist history, Marxist history, RW history) you can sell books. 

[1776]

On 8/18/2025 at 2:42 PM, gehringer_2 said:

'Financial Advisor' I wonder about. I would guess people with enough means to managed will continue to afford themselves the luxury of a warm body to interact with. But maybe that will be a generational thing.

YouTube is inundated with financial advice videos. Some of the sites are good, some others, maybe not. Many of the sites are those of registered financial advisors. I listen to these all along just to glean what I can in particular areas. 

[Screwball]

CME Group and FanDuel Join Forces to Let Investors Bet on Financial Market Outcomes

What could possibly go wrong. I'll save you the click.

 

Quote

 

Flutter Entertainment’s (FLUT) online gambling division FanDuel is joining forces with derivatives exchange CME Group Inc. to offer wagers on a range of financial market outcomes, from predictions on the S&P 500 to cryptocurrencies.

“Individual investors are increasingly sophisticated and continually pursuing new financial opportunities,” CME Group CEO Terry Duffy said. 

The offerings will be launched later this year and allow bets for as low as $1. Among products the venture will offer are “benchmarks such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100, prices of oil and gas, gold, cryptocurrencies, and key economic indicators such as GDP and CPI, with further details of additional offerings to be determined in the coming months.”

Companies are taking advantage of retail investor interest in prediction markets. Early this week, online brokerage Robinhood Markets (HOOD) announced its clients could now trade on pro and college football game outcomes.

Flutter's stock is little changed in premarket trading and is up about 14% for the year.

 

 

[Tiger337]

23 minutes ago, Screwball said:

CME Group and FanDuel Join Forces to Let Investors Bet on Financial Market Outcomes

What could possibly go wrong. I'll save you the click.

 

 

Oh boy...

[Dan Gilmore]

I’ll stick with my tulip futures, thank you very much.

[GalagaGuy]

Yeah, surely the tech bros on Wall Street won't conspire to rig the markets so they can win their S&P parlay.  

[Screwball]

I'm old, and used to be a baseball fanatic. I played for around 15 years until my body wouldn't allow me to play anymore.  Then I got into coaching. From little league to high school. Because I loved the game. Finally got out in 1995 after I started playing around 1965. So maybe 30 years of my life was baseball.

During this time the game changed. Strikes, lock-outs, the roid era, the rule changes, the ups and downs. One thing that was always a constant was gambling. Anyone that played understood. It wasn't questioned - it was evil and not in any way should be part of the game.

I slowly got away from the game due to all the crap, and eventually turned it off altogether. I didn't miss it one bit. Once in a while I would watch a game and not get through it. Made me mad. Great athletes for sure. Great baseball players, I'm not so sure. Different game, played different, rules different. So much has changed, and so much I didn't like.

Then last year I was rejuvenated. My beloved Tigers had a chance to make the playoffs - a shocking development to me at the time - so I started watching again. Finished the last part of last season, and then a month or so ago I got on the bandwagon again. But it's tough. It's no longer the game I knew and loved. Too much has changed.  And now this gambling ****.

Want to watch? Buy though a gambling site. Get peppered (pepper used to be a baseball drill) with gambling adds all game long. No thanks. Hear about guys getting suspended for gambling violations. Really? What's next?  What have they done to what was once the greatest game on planet earth?  And most of all WHY?

A truly sad affair.  <SPIT>

Edited Thursday at 07:15 PM by Screwball
EDITED because I wasn't done.

[Tiger337]

34 minutes ago, Screwball said:

I'm old, and used to be a baseball fanatic. I played for around 15 years until my body wouldn't allow me to play anymore.  Then I got into coaching. From little league to high school. Because I loved the game. Finally got out in 1995 after I started playing around 1965. So maybe 30 years of my life was baseball.

During this time the game changed. Strikes, lock-outs, the roid era, the rule changes, the ups and downs. One thing that was always a constant was gambling. Anyone that played understood. It wasn't questioned - it was evil and not in any way should be part of the game.

I slowly got away from the game due to all the crap, and eventually turned it off altogether. I didn't miss it one bit. Once in a while I would watch a game and not get through it. Made me mad. Great athletes for sure. Great baseball players, I'm not so sure. Different game, played different, rules different. So much has changed, and so much I didn't like.

Then last year I was rejuvenated. My beloved Tigers had a chance to make the playoffs - a shocking development to me at the time - so I started watching again. Finished the last part of last season, and then a month or so ago I got on the bandwagon again. But it's tough. It's no longer the game I knew and loved. Too much has changed.  And now this gambling ****.

Want to watch? Buy though a gambling site. Get peppered (pepper used to be a baseball drill) with gambling adds all game long. No thanks. Hear about guys getting suspended for gambling violations. Really? What's next?  What have they done to what was once the greatest game on planet earth?  And most of all WHY?

A truly sad affair.  <SPIT>

I agree.  I still like the game and its history.  It's been a big part of my life since I was a kid, but they have been doing everything they can to water down the experience for me.  It seemed like baseball kept its continuity and tradition longer than any other sport, but they eventually sold out.  Being inundated with gambling promotions throughout every game is really turning me off more than anything.  It really cheapens the game, exposes MLB as a hypocritical profit making machine with no feel for the game and its history and threatens the integrity of the sport.   

[gehringer_2]

Our society has fallen to where money is the only value and victory is the only reason to play the game. So this is what we get.

Now sure, there are plenty  - millions - of people for whom that is not what real life is about, but those people no longer control the economy or the culture, or the office of the commissioner of baseball.

[Screwball]

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I agree.  I still like the game and its history.  It's been a big part of my life since I was a kid, but they have been doing everything they can to water down the experience for me.  It seemed like baseball kept its continuity and tradition longer than any other sport, but they eventually sold out.  Being inundated with gambling promotions throughout every game is really turning me off more than anything.  It really cheapens the game, exposes MLB as a hypocritical profit making machine with no feel for the game and its history and threatens the integrity of the sport.   

Nicely said. I'm old, so a traditionalist. We always respected the game. When you walked between the white lines you entered hallow grounds. Same place as our hero's played. And it was played a certain way. Period.

More gimmicks - like gambling - yea, that's the ticket. <SPIT>

[Screwball]

Just for fun, thinking about the game today vs. the way it was, say 1984. How would our boys of those days do against the 2024 WS champs. Let's ask our AI buddies, just for fun. The stat guys will love this. I used GROK just cause I had Twitter open. Question;

Who would win the world series if the 1984 Tigers played the 2024 mlb champions? 

It will give us extensive data we already know, so I'll only post the conclusion. Interesting to be honest.

Quote

Analytical ComparisonTo estimate the outcome, we can use run differential as a proxy for team strength, adjusted for era. The 1984 Tigers had a +147 run differential (829 runs scored, 682 allowed), while the 2024 Dodgers had a +136 run differential (842 scored, 706 allowed). By Pythagorean win expectation (which estimates wins based on runs scored and allowed), the Tigers would project to about 103 wins in a 162-game season, slightly better than the Dodgers’ 98 wins. However, the Dodgers faced a tougher postseason field (Mets, Yankees) compared to the Tigers’ ALCS sweep of the Royals and five-game win over the Padres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simulating a seven-game series, the Tigers’ starting pitching (Morris, Petry, Wilcox) could keep games low-scoring, but the Dodgers’ bullpen depth and Ohtani’s offensive dominance would likely tilt close games. The Tigers’ contact-oriented approach might neutralize high-strikeout pitchers like Glasnow, but their lack of experience against modern pitching strategies (e.g., pitch sequencing, high-velocity relievers) could be a disadvantage.OutcomeIn a seven-game series, the 2024 Dodgers would likely have a slight edge due to their offensive depth, bullpen versatility, and Ohtani’s unique impact. The 1984 Tigers’ pitching and defense would make it competitive, potentially pushing the series to six or seven games, but the Dodgers’ modern approach and star power would probably prevail. A reasonable prediction is Dodgers in 6, with Ohtani and Freeman outslugging the Tigers’ balanced attack and the Dodgers’ bullpen outlasting Detroit’s starters.This conclusion assumes both teams play under 2024 rules (universal DH, pitch clock) and accounts for the Dodgers’ familiarity with modern analytics and pitching strategies, which the Tigers would struggle to adapt to without preparation. If played under 1984 rules (no DH in NL parks, no pitch clock), the Tigers’ edge in complete games and defensive consistency could make it closer, possibly flipping to a Tigers win in 7. Ultimately, the Dodgers’ overall talent and adaptability give them the nod, but the Tigers’ grit and clutch performers ensure it’s no blowout.

 

[Screwball]

And their off....