Based on that would it be safer to set your protective stops at an uneven amount, something like $180.60, so that the market doesn't blow past your stop?
I've always introduced this type of random noise in all my limits for exactly this reason, unless I want to be part of the herd. You essentially stated my reasoning. I still don't know how effective it is; I've almost never tried otherwise, to compare (and have only recently started doing so (picking round numbers) when I think I can get away with it, just to see how it works).
---
Alert sounds? Really, Congress?
WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Transportation
Department on Monday finalized long-delayed rules that will
require "quiet cars" like electric vehicles and hybrids to emit
alert sounds at speeds of up to 18 miles per hour.
The rules, which were required by Congress, will require
automakers like Tesla Motors Inc <TSLA.O>, Nissan Motor Co
<7201.T> and Toyota Motor Corp <7203.T> to add alert sounds to
all vehicles by September 2019. The Transportation Department
said it expects the rules will prevent 2,400 injuries a year in
2020 and will require the adding of alert sounds to about
530,000 vehicles.
Esk8mw, I don't think this will move SP much, but it is anti-EV. I think it is also anti-ped. This is why: if I know my car sounds like an ass-wipe potty mouth whenever I'm under 18MPH (wth kind of number is that?), I'm going to make damn sure I never go under 20MPH. Others who have a similar attitude will probably not be as careful in compensation for making sure peds are not in the way. Suddenly, higher speed pedestrian accidents will happen and more often, with no beeping at all. This regulation may backfire.
---
After years of only getting rare communication from Tesla I have now received 3 different emails in the past week on random topics
11/11/2016 "Tesla Update - November 2016" Which was about some new changes regarding the Supercharger system, price changes for Model S and the new AP2.
11/12/2016 "Charge Effortlessly"
11/14/2016 "Next Generation Performance"
Is this a new direction for Tesla Communications because of employee changes or or a new lever to try to expand sales or both? The first was expected as Tesla has sent out similar news announcements before, but the other two are different. They are promotional pieces specifically for the Model S ending with links for ordering, trade in, and scheduling a test drive.
I can offer one more possibility in conjecture: that as an organization they have been getting much larger, and using rumors less and less as methods of communication, and have to rely upon actual public communications in order to compensate for that opaqueness, and have come to fully realize that in actuality. Furthermore, all the other things you said. It would be especially easy if all of those things are happening in parallel, even organically (if not also intentionally): the "new employee training" to the occasionally new communications persons would obviously be slanted by whatever current teacher (boss) they have by whatever current situation they have. This would allow step changes in a gently changing environment (as well as in an abruptly changing environment). In other words, I delineated how I have no idea.
---
Note to myself: Gyna = China
---
There really isn't a whole lot Trump can do outside of discovering a time machine and going back in time and undoing the ratifying of the various stages of WTO. China can effectively retaliate to anything Trump tries to do and a trade war has always been bad for the economy.
Treaties are very easy to sidestep, ignore, etc. It's what we do. And everyone else. Treaties are like diplomatic statements, essentially. The fact WTO has been holding court about them is amazing, but immaterial in many ways that can be surprising to us all.
Also it has been theorized for some time in economics that the nation with reserve world currency status will result in having trade deficits(
e.g., Triffin dilemma).
I've always thought this was one of the disadvantages of being King. But in that TImes article, they said we get more avocados. What if the avocados come at too high a cost? What if we are actually better off with more money for the cars and less avocados? We only need so much nutrients; anything more, and it's potentially making cancer worse. It's not necessarily a great investment to have a higher quantity of avocados. I think the same thing is true on a macro level: it's not necessarily a better deal to have more goods coming in from overseas; factory know-how moves out. Ability to introduce USA-inspired USA-uplifting, USA-targeted and USA-greatening products goes down. For instance, the other day I was in that grocery store that used to be San Francisco owned, Safeway, that was always considered a good middle class store, but was subsequently owned by some Scandanavian conglomerate (and now by some super low-class company). You go today to check out, and in an era of Apple Pay, Safeway has just upgraded to last year's new thing, Chips. They have new paying terminals. You stick the card in, and the keys are hard to press: they are made for smaller fingers. You try to interact with the terminal to tell it you do not want to donate to some sham "charity", and you might press "take all my money" instead, because of bad user interface. There's 50 things worse about the experience that make the new terminals a lot worse than the older (and also awful) terminals of last year. A lot of these big companies don't care about USA. But, if USA is great again, then suddenly we'd have more opportunities to treat ourselves well. I think this extends to our cars, our energy, to everything. Remember when Enron manipulated California energy prices? That's an outsider not caring what happens to a far away land. That happens across national borders, but in languages and cultures we don't even understand, through time zones that cross all our schedules.
