Rule The Waves Forum

[Janoc Florez]

Thebest entry in a stock is when it breaks out in Stage 2 and exit should be made when it enters Stage 4.

Stages are clear in the above pic.

Elliot Wave Theory:

Caterpillar is in Stage 2 and now also in bigger Wave 3 . EW can help in calculating the future targets - for example , CAT (CMP -235) may go upto 500 in coming months as per equality principle of EW .

As gold has global economic implications- the movement and timelines can be very different as compared to individual stock-movements ( though 3rd waves happen to move faster than wave 1 or Wave 5 , but still in case of gold the speed is relatively slower as compared to any individual stock)

Keep in cosideration that overall sector movement/trend is also improtant when we track a stock.

Risk Management

One can ride till it does not break 30 week moving average , but if someone really wanna stick for very long term , 40 week moving average can be used as a risk-management tool.

TexMaco is far above the moving averages, RSI overheated, heading towards channel-resistance -EW also lot of 1-2,1-2 waves -as per technicalanalysis rules, one should avoid fresh entry .

toneAC() operates the speedometer on pin 9, while pin 3 runs the tachometer.

I figured it out to a degree using the code below, but trying to go any lower than 31Hz on the tach causes it to peg out to the max. I've already switched the speedo and the tach around to rule out a fault with the cluster itself.

Both waves need to be different frequencies with the speedo on a range from 0Hz to 135Hz, while the tach is on a range from 0Hz to 265 Hz. Part of my problem maybe that the timers are conflicting, but I'm not 100% positive. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

But, anyway, the frequencies you are working with are quite low so you can easily do something yourself to get both instruments working together. For example, you could get timer1 (if you are working with a Uno etc.) to deliver an interrupt every 100 microseconds and you could decide in the interuupt service routine in the pins (in your case 3 and 9 ) should be high or low to achieve the 50% duty cycle at the required frequency for the current road/engine speed.

Does it? The implementation by OP forces floating point calculations, so should not be losing much if any precision. Your solution may save a lot of memory and be much faster for using integers only, but tbh I don't know how it actually compiles.

My only issue now is that I want to axe the toneAC() method for manually changing the state of the pin. The problem is the speedometer seems to only like the waveform toneAC() produces. I'm trying to replace the speedo() function with the one below and it's not working.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has promoted the use of forum selection clauses in corporate charters since its 2010 opinion In re Revlon Inc. Shareholders Litigation. Three years later, in Boilermakers v. Chevron, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that forum selection clauses in corporate bylaws are facially valid for types of shareholder litigation, including derivative claims, fiduciary claims, statutory claims under the Delaware General Corporation Law, and claims regarding internal affairs. In light of these decisions, Delaware forum selection clauses contained in corporate charters or bylaws of the type found facially valid in Boilermakers have been enforced by state courts in many states. But a recent decision from a California appellate court suggests that some California courts may be resistant to such provisions based on California public policy in favor of the right to a jury trial.

This is the animated waves library presented earlier in the forum. Scenery developers can add objects from this library to give more realism and animation to shores, beaches, and ocean water to scenery packages.

Currently there are just a few object types as described in the video, but I will try to keep this project alive by adding more wave types over time. I could have waited to add/correct more objects before posting but it will take me too much time and I think many people would like to try the library version 1.0 since it already gives nice results.

Some quirks appear sometimes when you place a 200m waves object too close to the shore, probably due to z-buffer trash issues, but there's nothing we can do about it since it seems to be due to the technology in X-plane. The best thing to do is to try and see if you get problems with a wave, then move the wave slightly away from the shore in OE through trial and error until you get something acceptable as shown in the video.

You can feel free to use objects from this library for any of your scenery projects you share online, provided you give me credits by mentioning my name. Payware scenery developers are also welcome to use it but please ask permission before.

I agree that we're now in a third wave, but I think this post is missing an essential aspect of the new wave, which is that EA's reputation has taken a massive hit. EA doesn't just have less money because of SBF; it has less trust and prestige, less optimism about becoming a mass movement (or even a mass-elite movement), and fewer potential allies because of SBF, Bostrom's email/apology, and the Time article.

For that reason, I'd put the date of the third wave around the 10th of November 2022, when it became clear that FTX was not only experiencing a "liquidity crisis" but had misled customers, investors, and the EA community and likely committed massive fraud, and when the Future Fund team resigned. The other features of the Third Wave (the additional scandals and the rise in public interest in AI safety due to ChatGPT, GPT-4, the FLI letter, the CAIS statement, and so on) took a few months to emerge, but that week seems like the turning point.

But I think the more important question is: what will the ultimate impact on public image be when EA really needs public support (e.g., for AI regulation) against powerful interests (e.g., big tech companies pushing toward AGI) who have every incentive to educate (fairly or otherwise) the public about SBF/EA connections?

Right now, the question has low salience even for the minority who have heard of EA. I'm not sure how well low-salience opinion will correlate to opinion after all sides take their best shots on a high-salience issue.

That is a useful post, thanks. It changes my mind somewhat about EA's overall reputational damage, but I still think the FTX crisis exploded the self-narrative of ascendancy (both in money and influence), and the prospects have worsened for attracting allies, especially in adversarial environments like politics.

I would be tempted to divide the second wave in two. I think there was a distinct period where career choice and talent constraints became a dominant theme, but before longtermism took off. So I'd say:

Also, I think an interesting row for your table would be "Prominent thinkers". It's interesting that in other movements the waves are typically spearheaded by new people and thinkers, whereas in our case it's often the same people again. Some extremely incomplete lists:

I also think this can help us with the question of "where is the next wave going?". We can instead ask "who are the thinkers who are gaining prominence?". It seems to me that there's a bit of a void, except in the AIS space, so maybe that will dominate by default.

I like the distinction between overreacting and underreacting as being "in the world" vs. "memes" - another way of saying this is something like "object level reality" vs. "social reality".

If the longtermism wave is real, then that was pretty about social reality, at least within EA, and changed how money was spent and things people said (as I understand it, I wasn't really socially involved at the time).

So to the extent that this is about "what's happening to EA" I think there's clearly a third wave here, where people are running and getting funded to run AI specific groups, people are doing policy and advocacy in a way I've never seen before.

I see a world that still desperately needs Wave 1, and I see a lot of work still to be done in that area.

I look at the effectivealtriusm.org homepage, and a lot of what is mentioned there is still what you're referring to as wave 1.

I would even venture that in most of the world (perhaps outside the hubs), people are drawn to EA first by Wave 1 concepts. We get frustrated at the poverty and disease and war and poor governance and refugee crises and famines and ... and we wonder why can't we do more to fix these with the significant resources we do devote to them. We see a group like EA looking at how to use limited resources to help people in the most effective way possible and it seems like a critical answer to a long-neglected question.

Is it possible that what you're describing here is the cutting-edge aspects of EA - the areas where EA is breaking new ground philosophically and analytically, the areas which create lively, passionate debates on this forum, for example? And so, naturally, the ideas for the future come from areas like AI and longtermism. But a lot of vital EA work doesn't have to be cutting-edge research.

But IMHO there is still a massive opportunity to help most of the world's population in very concrete, tangible ways, and effective altruists can make vital contributions. You write the the goal of wave 1 was "donations to effective charities" - but this is a quite limited reading of what EA can do. How about influencing how governments spend their aid budgets, which is often very differently from how they would be most effective? There are a few groups doing this kind of work (e.g. Gates Foundation), but there is still so much aid and donations being inefficiently spent. Ideas as simple as how to convince governments to just give people in developing countries cash rather than spending 10X that much trying to solve their problems for them.

I know that part of the vision is to focus on areas which are neglected, but I see a big difference between working in an area that is neglected (which is not true of global poverty and disease, for example) and working in a way that is neglected (quantitative, analytical, data-driven) even in areas which receive a lot of attention and even (badly-spent) money.

3a8082e126