TL;DR

- Since before the first ape, our fates have been inextricably linked with our poop, and it's about time for a breakthrough in poop technology.
- There's a popular saying with holistic medicine types, 'food is medicine'. Food becomes poop. Ergo, poop is medicine.
- Our poop is entering a new age of technological progress and Seres Therapeutics ($MCRB) is the clear leader in the multi-billion dollar opportunity of poop-based medicine, with catalyzing data coming in the next few weeks. The McRib is back in a big way.

Smart apes also use tools. Having capitalized on their first milestone, taking 35k to 270k in options, this formerly broke as shit ape used modern statistical methods to construct conservative quantitative risk models for the next phase of development in poop technology, with the results validating continuing to go full ape mode YOLO on MCRB.
MCRB is overwhelmingly likely to double to previous highs on new data in a pivotal breakthrough indication (ulcerative colitis), with further long term growth potential in oncology, inflammation, immunity, and more. They are also having an investor day presentation today here.

https://preview.redd.it/m5cj1eqaxl671.jpg?width=580&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46a617097a6d8d2325c41f9d8af0dc5caad0cfb6

Abstract
Seres Therapeutics ($MCRB) is a Cathie Wood Approved™ microbiome therapeutics platform company developing a novel class of biological drugs. Their therapy for SER-109 in persistent bacterial GI infection (C. Diff) is nearing approval after a successful Phase 3, demonstrating that the company can deliver on less complicated applications for the technology and has the process and manufacturing to address more lucrative indications. Phase 2 of clinical trials is a pivotal de-risking milestone and is typically where most of the value of a clinical stage asset is realized. The upcoming readout for SER-287 in ulcerative colitis (UC) represents a substantial growth opportunity for MCRB, more than doubling the potential addressable market size. Published disease response rates were evaluated to construct a quantitative risk model in PYMC3, which shows a very high likelihood (~88%) of positive resul

For tl;dr, jump to the bottom of the post in the Summary section.

Primary issue/conclusion: After Tutanota's domain verification change, it is still possible to link multiple domains to the same Tutanota user (although harder), and it is now also possible for an attacker to link these domains/Tutanota account to your real name and address based on information Tutanota gives out. There is no reason Tutanota needs to set up their system so that this is possible (see Solutions section).

What follows is my analysis of the ways attackers can expose user identities and link all custom domains to the same person under Tutanota's current setup. I saw some Reddit conversations about privacy concerns with Tutanota's custom domain verification method, even after their recent update to the way it works. As a result, I dove into the implications and possible attack vectors to see what really could (and could not) be exposed, what Tutanota users need to know, and how Tutanota can improve. This is NOT a doomsday warning, nor is it a call to leave Tutanota. Read the post and understand the exact concerns.

Background and Initial Issue

When adding a custom domain, you need to add a Tutanota-generated verification code to your DNS settings. A Reddit user pointed out that Tutanota used the same domain verification code for each domain, meaning the domains "can easily be linked" which "becomes a privacy issue." Tutanota agreed, and a Tutanota employee tutajow (self-identified to me via email as Tutanota developer [REDACTED]*) said they would implement a domain-specific or random code in the future. They went the domain-specific route. In the current system, the verification code is a hash of account ID and domain name. To link any number of domains to a single Tutanota account, the only information needed is a user's account ID, which Tutanota called "inside knowledge."

Issue with New Domain-Specific Method

Later, a Reddit user explained the following. By not going the randomly-generated route, Tutanota made it possible for someone to still link two domains to the same account. Tutajow confirmed this issue existed but said that it would require an attacker with "sufficient knowledge and computing power" in order to "brute force your user id" for this to be a problem a

Jacked up my shoulder from a slam off a 3ft quarter (tripped on my feet trying to 180 off the coping from a frontside grind). Landed straight on the shoulder (basically a twisting motion trying to avoid slamming my wrist). Now I can’t help my wife with the kids for a while during rehab.

How many of y’all Bladerdads out there considered cutting back, dialing down or altogether quitting after restarting, because of injuries? I’d like to hear stories, adjustments.

More than anything, I wish there was some instructional videos on how to fall safely on transition.

Edit: coincidence of coincidences. Just got this p-rail in today. Maybe I’ll just stand on it with my skates on… P-Rail

“ Abstract

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes is a strong risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the absence of a clear reduction in CAD by intensive glucose lowering in randomized controlled trials has fuelled uncertainty regarding the causal role of dysglycaemia and CAD.

Objective: To assess whether Mendelian randomization supports a causal role of dysglycaemia and diabetes for risk of CAD.

Methods: Effect size estimates of common genetic variants associated with fasting glucose (FG), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and diabetes were obtained from the Meta-Analyses of Glucose and Insulin-Related Traits Consortium and Diabetes Genetics Replication and Meta-Analysis consortia. The corresponding effect estimates of these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on the risk of CAD were then evaluated in CARDIOGRAMplusC4D.

Results: SNPs associated with HbA1c and diabetes were associated with an increased risk of CAD. Using information from 59 genetic variants associated with diabetes, the causal effect of diabetes on the risk of CAD was estimated at an odds ratio (OR) of 1.63 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.23-2.07; P = 0.002). On the other hand, nine genetic variants associated with HbA1c were associated with an OR of 1.53 per 1% HbA1c increase (95% CI: 1.14-2.05; P = 0.023) in the risk of CAD while this effect was non-significant among 30 genetic variants associated with FG per mmol/L (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.97-1.42; P = 0.102). No significant differences were observed when categorizing genetic loci according to their effect on either β-cell dysfunction or insulin resistance.

Conclusions: These Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for diabetes and its associated high glucose levels on CAD, and suggest that long-term glucose lowering may reduce CAD events.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25825043/

GameStop Performance Analysis

- On 2021-05-28, GME closed at 222.00, 54.0% below its 52-week high and 5789% above its 52-week low.

- GME shares are currently trading 28.2% above their 50-day moving average of 173.12, and 183.3% above their 200-day moving average of 78.37.

- The S&P SMALLCAP 600 index is currently 1.8% below its 52-week high and 74.0% above its 52-week low.

GameStop Options Analysis

- Increased unusual options activity on far OTM Jun 18th, 2021 expirations.

- On 5/28 GME had 84 bullish options orders with $26.68M in premium. On 5/28 GME had 51 bearish options orders with $22.48M in premium.

GameStop Risk Analysis

GameStop Corp currently has a Risk Rating of 3, which is significantly below the S&P 500 index average rating of 8.5.

- On days when the market is up, GME shares typically decrease. On the other hand, on days when the market is down, GME shares generally climb.

- In the short term, GME has shown low correlation (>= -0.1 and < 0.2) with the S&P 500 index. The stock has, however, shown an average correlation (>= 0.2 and < 0.4) with the market in the long term.

- Over the last 90 days, GME shares have been more volatile than the overall market. The stock's daily price fluctuations have exceeded that of all S&P 500 index firms.

Risk Suummary

GameStop Fundamental Analysis

- GameStop Corp currently has a Fundamental Rating of 4. The average Fundamental Rating for its Computer & Elec. Retailers industry is 5.8 and the S&P 500 index average is 5.9.

- The net margin of -4.2% for GME is the lowest within its Computer & Elec. Retailers industry. The current ratio of 1.2 for GME is the lowest within its Computer & Elec. Retailers industry. The accruals ratio for GME is the lowest within its Computer & Elec. Retailers industry.

- The company's dividend coverage has been lower than its industry average for each of the past five years.

Fundamental Summary

GameStop Insider Trading Analysis

- GameStop Corp currently has an Insider Trading Rating of 4, while the Computer & Elec. Retailers industry average is 5.20.

- Executives at GameStop Corp have not purchased or sold any shares thu

“ Key Points Question In statin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk with elevated triglyceride levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol treated with ω-3 fatty acids, are achieved levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) associated with cardiovascular outcomes?

Findings In a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial studying a carboxylic acid formulation of ω-3 fatty acids, plasma levels of EPA and DHA were measured 12 months after randomization in 10 382 patients. There was no association between achieved or change in level of either ω-3 fatty acid and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Meaning These findings do not support the concept that achieving higher EPA plasma levels through pharmacological means reduces adverse cardiovascular outcomes, nor were higher DHA levels associated with harm.

Abstract Importance In patients treated with ω-3 fatty acids, it remains uncertain whether achieved levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are associated with cardiovascular outcomes.

Objective To determine the association between plasma levels of EPA and DHA and cardiovascular outcomes in a trial of ω-3 fatty acids compared with corn oil placebo.

Design, Setting, and Participants A double-blind, multicenter trial enrolled patients at high cardiovascular risk with elevated triglyceride levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 675 centers (enrollment from October 30, 2014, to June 14, 2017; study termination January 8, 2020; last visit May 14, 2020).

Interventions Participants were randomized to receive 4 g daily of ω-3 carboxylic acid (CA) or an inert comparator, corn oil.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary prespecified end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. The primary outcome measure was the hazard ratio, adjusted for baseline characteristics, for patients treated with the ω-3 CA compared with corn oil for the top tertile of achieved EPA and DHA plasma levels 12 months after randomization.

Results Of the 13 078 total participants, 6539 (50%) were randomized to receive ω-3 CA and 6539 (50%) randomized to corn oil. ω-3 Fatty acid levels were available at both baseline and 12 months after randomization in 10 382 participants (5175 ω-3 CA patients [49.8%] and 5207 corn oil–treated patients [50.2%];

https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(21)00247-1/fulltext

Highlights (main key points, one or more bullet points)

•Dietary proteins are an important part of a healthy diet. •Higher protein diets showed favourable effects on cardiometabolic risk factors. •The effects were small and more research on the long-term impacts is needed. Abstract

Background and aims

Higher protein (HP) diets may lead to lower cardiometabolic risk than lower protein (LP) diets. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of HP vs. LP diets on cardiometabolic risk factors in adults, using most up-to-date evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in electronic databases, up to November 2020. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The main outcomes were weight loss, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, fat mass, systolic and diastolic BP, total cholesterol, HDL-and LDL-cholesterol, triacylglycerol, fasting glucose and insulin, and glycated haemoglobin. Results

Fifty-seven articles reporting on 54 RCTs were included, involving 4,344 participants (65% female, mean age: 46 (SD 10) years, mean BMI: 33 (SD 3) kg/m2), with a mean study duration of 18 weeks (range: 4 to 156). Compared to LP diets (range protein (E%):10-23%), HP diets (range protein (E%): 20-45%) led to more weight loss (SMD -0.13, 95% CI: -0.23, -0.03), greater reductions in fat mass (SMD -0.14, 95% CI: -0.24, -0.04), systolic BP (SMD -0.12, 95% CI: -0.21, -0.02), total cholesterol (SMD -0.11, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.02), triacylglycerol (SMD -0.22, 95% CI: -0.30, -0.14) and insulin (SMD -0.12, 95% CI: -0.22, -0.03). No significant differences were observed for the other outcomes. Conclusions

Higher protein diets showed small, but favourable effects on weight loss, fat mass loss, systolic blood pressure, some lipid outcomes and insulin, compared to lower protein diets.

I keep seeing a similar thread pop up in reviews and on this subreddit: people skip malignant items, and say the "risk is not worth it". I think part of that thinking is from people that have not played many roguelikes, and don't have a good understanding of the risk/reward strategies that should be employed in this genre. Malignant items are really good, particularly early in a run.

There are a few math models we can use to show the best way to assess when malignant items should/shouldn't be taken (such as Decision Analysis, which is EV = (Probability A * Expected Payoff A) + (Probability B * Expected Payoff A)), but that would require a lot of math for probability of particular items and measuring a lot of variables, so the easiest way to boil it down is like this:

• When you first start a run, you should have the highest willingness to engage in risk, particularly opening malignant chests. That is because the negative outcome (running out of health and having to restart) has the lowest penalty early in a run. And malignant items have a good chance of being cleared early in the game when enemies are weaker and items are abundant (perform 4 melee kills, kill 15 hostiles, open 2 chests, etc). Best case scenario is if you find a room with 3 malignant chests right off the bat on a new run: start opening them up! More commonly you will find an occasional chest, or obolite chunks, or keys. Still grab those, and if chest is HIGHLY malignant then all the better- that means the reward inside is more likely to be really strong, like a high quality artifact. Worst case scenario, you get a really bad malfunction and then must restart the run, you only lose 5-10 minutes of gameplay. In many cases you may find yourself with a powerful artifact or weapon early that will allow you to snowball the first biome or two. Or you may get a malignant key that you can use in a later biome for good items
• On the opposite end of the spectrum, once you are having a strong run with good items/weapons/artifacts and plenty of health, you probably will want to avoid malignant items and reduce your general risk. The higher your confidence is that you can beat the boss of your biome, the fewer encounters you should pursue, and the fewer malignant items you should interact with, unless you have a backup way to deal with them (the consumable item that purges all malfunctions is great).
• As for Gold challenge rooms, the risk assessment is slightly different. It is difficult to go in

The "geek'" in me is enjoying learning about something new like Chia and starting to plot/farm. Fortunately, I had several old computers/HDDs I'm able to use to start farming with a low startup cost. Since this more hobby/entertainment for me , I set a $100 investment threshold to support my Chia engagement. Now that the current estimated network workspace is > 1 EiB I find it amazing that so many are spending significant amount of $s for a low return. I understand that this is the early-in crowd, we're all in different financial postures & the Chia price isn't established yet . But............Thoughts?

Perhaps they can microchip the bars to ensure they are used for industrial purpose..... What do you guys think?

Edit: TLDR

If the AUD were to move to the extreme ends of its long term average (say it moved down to 45c USD or up to 1.1 USD), would you consider adjusting your asset allocation to be overweight in the shares that would benefit most by the aud reverting to its mean? If so, by how much? And what would be your trigger values?

OP (sorry it is not very concise)

Hi all,

Keen to hear thoughts on the following strategy, or if you've done something similar:

AA: 100% stocks (increase bond % closer to retirement which is ~30yrs off)

20% VAS

70% VGS/VGAD

10% VGE

I've reached a sticking point on how to divide the VGS/VGAD allocation.

My PPOR, wage, emergency fund, and insurance are all in AUD, so I was originally planning on putting the 70% VGS/VGAD completely into VGS, giving currency exposure of:

20% AUD (VAS) 80% Global currency (VGS + VGE)

Total assets would be more like ~50/50 given ppor etc.

However, after reading more about hedging, and this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fiaustralia/comments/fwz0q3/anyone_thought_of_currency_overbalancing/

I'm considering the following strategy for managing the 70% VGS/VGAD.

If 1AUD is >= 65c USD - buy VGS

If 1AUD is <= 65c USD - buy VGAD

If 1AUD is <50c USD - Rebalance VGS/VGAD to 20% VGS 50% VGAD (VGS/VGAD is 70% of portfolio)

If 1AUD is >90c USD - Rebalance VGS/VGAD to 50% VGS 20%VGAD (VGS/VGAD is 70% of portfolio)

I'm still very much in the accumulation phase and most balancing will be done with inflows, but the 50c and 90c limits allow for rebalancing during currency movements outside the longer term average.

If either of the previous two scenarios occur, rebalance to 50/50 VGS/VGAD (so 35%/35% of total portfolio) once AUD rises back to 65c USD (from below 50) or falls from >90c USD to 75c USD. This would bring currency exposure to 55/45 in stock portfolio (20% VAS + 35% VGAD) but more like 75/25 AUD:USD of total assets (ppor etc) which seems overexposed to downside currency risk.

On the flipside, I'm probably prone to sabotage by tinkering, and part of me is thinking I should just stick to the original 20VAS/70VGS/10 VGE plan with no hedging.

It just seems like it would be disadvantageous to be buying VGS over VGAD if the AUD were to drop below 50c USD, and the reverse if it were to go above 90c USD.

Cheers