You can see that for holding periods of less than 9 years the stock strategy is a lot more risky than the bond. However if your holding period exceeds 9 years the stock strategy is both, less risky and yielding better returns. Also notice that in long term, the width of the yield distribution for the stock strategy is about the same as for bonds, but overall it is located above bond yield distribution.
What does it all mean for regular folks that are trying to save for the retirement? Don't worry about whether the market is trending up or down, it's in a bubble or a recession is coming. You will never be able to time the market. But putting money in stocks and not touching them (other than reinvesting dividends) for long periods of time will ensure that your hard-earned money will not be lost, also giving you a chance to earn quite a healthy return - no downside and all the upside.
Objectives: increase monthly streams on my Spotify artist page so I can get picked up by Spotify algorithms better. Which in turn means I get on even bigger playlists which in turn means… er… profit?
Did it work?
Yes, but with massive caveats. I got onto lots of playlists and my monthly Spotify plays went from under 10 to over 2,000. I have yet to be picked up by the big Spotify algorithms though.
Which are the best supplements to take to enhance your health and wellbeing? We visualised all evidence for all health supplements in one chart. Now regularly updated with revitalising boosts of fresh data.
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2018/1/8/16863656/childhood-mortality-united-states, posted 2018 by peter in health politics statistics usa
Perhaps most startling, children between the ages of 15 and 19 are 82 times more likely to die from gun homicide in the United States than in peer countries.
America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world. Research shows that the more guns in a country, the more gun deaths. Conversely, states with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.
https://blog.cardiogr.am/2016/02/12/do-you-really-need-10000-steps-a-day-2/, posted 2016 by peter in health monitoring statistics
In cardiovascular terms, the drop in heart rate from 1000 steps/day to 2000 steps/day is significant: a full 3 bpm decrease. And as step count increases, resting heart rate steadily drops—until you reach about 5000 steps per day. After that—6000, 7000, even up to 10,000 steps—the curve flattens.
Piwik is the leading open-source analytics platform that gives you more than just powerful analytics: * Free open-source software * 100% data ownership * User privacy protection * User-centric insights * Customisable and extensible
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong, posted 2015 by peter in math science statistics toread
It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing.
Hereâ€™s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers, posted 2015 by peter in environment science statistics
You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
Interestingly, both groups are using the same data, and both groups claim that the other is misrepresenting the data for their own purposes. As I will demonstrate, however, it is the anti-vaccers which are ignoring the rules of statistical analysis and manipulating the data to tell an inaccurate story.
To run a test that asks an important question, that uses a large enough sample size to come to a reliable conclusion, and that can do so amidst a minefield of different ways to be lead astray, takes a lot of resources.
You have to design the test, implement the technology, and come up with the various options. If you’re running a lean organization, there are few cases where this is worth the effort.
Why create a half-assed “A” and a half-assed “B,” when you could just make a full-assed “A?”