For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | marojejian's commentsregister

Having read a lot about symbiosis, I still found a bunch of novel interesting stuff here. e.g. how acacia makes ants dependent on them:

>These acacias are quite notorious for another reason: The nectar they provide contains an enzyme that makes it harder for the ants to digest the nectar of other plants. Yes, the nectar contains an enzyme, chitinase, that makes the ant’s invertase, a sucrose-cleaving enzyme, inefficient. This essentially forces the ant to feed on the acacia’s nectar, which is poor in sucrose, rather than foraging on other nectars.


Originally heard about this via Nature podcast's interview with the researcher: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02367-x

This is a continuation of many findings in this direction. It's wonderful to imagine the many societies humans have created, and sad that we'll be able to learn so little about them.


Omitted the Betteridge's law part of the headline, since we all know the answer.

This sounds like only a drop in the bucket.

But nevertheless it is a hopeful sign that Congress is at least able to agree on the the right thing to put in the right bucket.

Perhaps we should provide feedback to encourage pouring more in...



Why should a retail investor never buy derivatives? spreads?


Retail investors do not have access to systems that calculate risk, margins, pnl, etc... and generally also don't have the necessary knowledge and market data to price such instruments correctly.

Most ppl are better off KISSing and lowering risk by selling equity for fixed income.


Ironically you can use AI tools to get some idea of how to trade puts.


this hasn’t been true for years. retail investors can’t get advanced risk suites from any normie broker these days


Not the parent but I'm guessing: a) it's expensive and b) you can shoot your feet off.


You almost always lose a lot of money if you're seeking safety. Protection from downside risk on your S&P500 investments may cost 20-30% of your investment at which point you're better off just selling the investment and hoping it doesn't go up by that much.


> Protection from downside risk on your S&P500 investments may cost 20-30% of your investment

What? Absolutely not.


What did you buy and for how much?


You would buy puts. How much to spend is really up to you, but you can definitely get meaningful downside protection for much much less than that.


And what is the cost of full downside protection? It necessarily exceeds the full upside, or else everyone would do it.


It’s scaremongering, you can learn all this stuff.

However! If you don’t want to learn and want to get rich quick instead, stay away.


It's all about getting a call from the dreaded Margin.



archive: https://archive.is/mai5w

Impressed by the progress. Also interesting how much stronger depression is as a risk factor, vs. all others.


That Archive link isn't about dementia



This is why men don't ask for directions :P


Sister shared this with me. Actually looks cool.

They try to verify you are taking a live picture, so you get real cats.

more info: https://cheezburger.com/45806853/pokmon-go-but-for-cats-free...


archive: https://archive.is/zx8Ba

Here's the full research article, from the researcher's website: https://hu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/rdiamond_fas_harvard_e...

>Single women’s marriage/cohabitation rates rise by 29 percentage points and employment among baseline nonemployed women rises 27 percentage points after six or more quarters.

These effect sizes are huge. That and the drama of the findings provokes general skepticism. So I welcome some experienced folks picking this apart.


Women with lower body mass have more partner options and have access to more employment opportunities and compensation potential due to human factors. This gives them more agency, autonomy, and freedom.

Related:

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-eco...

(~45-50% of women 25-44 are projected to be single and childfree by 2035)


It has me wondering if plummeting fertility rates, even in third-world countries, has a causal relationship with everyone eating more.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You