#quantitative trading

[algos11]

Over the past couple of decades, the stock market has fast developed due to the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in trading. Tools supported by AI technology have changed the entire playing field for traders in terms of the quality and speed of data analysis, trend detection, and transaction processing to approximately zero for the human today.

[hmatrading]

Are you tired of manually analyzing market trends and making trading decisions? Are you ready to embrace the power of technology to enhance your trading game? Look no further than algo trading software

[bitcoinversus]

Quantitative Analysis vs. Technical Chart Analysis in Cryptocurrency Markets

Cryptocurrency markets are notoriously volatile, and traders have long relied on technical chart analysis to make decisions. This method involves identifying patterns, using indicators like moving averages and RSI, and drawing trendlines to predict future price movements. However, as markets evolve, many traders are turning to quantitative analysis (quant analysis) for a more data-driven…

[poojalate]

A Closer Look at Options B.R.O. Build, Research and Optimise

Options BRO, Samco's new flagship feature, is a revolutionary tool to improve options trading success. Discover how to build, research and optimise your strategies today.

[stockmarketanalysis]

Mastering Quantitative Analysis: Navigating the World of Data-Driven Decision Making

In the ever-evolving landscape of business, economics, and research, the term "quantitative analysis" has become increasingly prominent. This analytical methodology focuses on the objective measurement and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques. The essence of quantitative analysis lies in its ability to turn complex phenomena into simple, quantifiable units, which can be systematically measured and analyzed for patterns, trends, and predictions.

The Genesis and Evolution of Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis has its roots in the early methods of statistics and mathematics. However, its real development started with the advent of computers and advanced statistical software, allowing for more complex data analysis than ever before. Today, it encompasses a wide range of statistical and mathematical techniques, from basic models like linear regression to sophisticated algorithms used in machine learning and artificial intelligence.

Applications in Diverse Fields

The utility of quantitative analysis spans across various sectors. In finance, it is used to assess risk, evaluate the performance of stocks, and optimize investment portfolios. In marketing, quantitative techniques help in understanding consumer behavior, market segmentation, and product positioning.

In public health, it assists in analyzing epidemiological data, improving patient outcomes, and policy planning. The field of economics uses quantitative analysis for modeling economic data, forecasting market trends, and informing policy decisions.

Tools and Techniques

Quantitative analysis relies on a plethora of tools and techniques. Statistical software like SPSS, SAS, R, and Python are commonly used for data analysis. These tools offer capabilities for data manipulation, statistical modeling, and visualization, making them indispensable for quantitative analysts. Techniques like regression analysis, hypothesis testing, factor analysis, and time series analysis are some of the fundamental methods used to explore and make inferences from data.

The Importance of Data Quality

The validity of quantitative analysis heavily depends on the quality of data. Data accuracy, completeness, and consistency are critical. Poor data can lead to incorrect conclusions, making data verification and validation an essential step in the quantitative analysis process.

Challenges and Considerations

Quantitative analysis, while powerful, is not without challenges. The interpretation of data can be complex, and the results are often sensitive to the choice of model and assumptions made during the analysis. Additionally, the reliance on numerical data means that qualitative aspects like context, emotion, and subjective experiences are often overlooked.

Ethical and Privacy Concerns

With the rise in data availability, ethical and privacy concerns are paramount. Analysts must ensure data confidentiality, consent, and comply with data protection laws. The misuse of data, especially in sensitive areas like healthcare and finance, can have significant consequences.

The Future of Quantitative Analysis

The future of quantitative analysis is intertwined with advancements in technology. Big data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are pushing the boundaries of what can be quantified and analyzed. These technologies enable the analysis of unstructured data, like text and images, opening new avenues for quantitative research.

Quantitative Analysis in Education

In education, quantitative analysis is gaining importance. It helps in assessing student performance, evaluating educational policies, and understanding learning behaviors. This data-driven approach can lead to more effective educational strategies and policies.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Analysis

While quantitative analysis provides a numerical insight, qualitative analysis offers depth and context. A combined approach, known as mixed methods research, leverages the strengths of both, providing a more holistic understanding of the research subject.

Conclusion

Quantitative analysis is a critical tool in modern decision-making. Its ability to provide clear, objective, and data-driven insights makes it invaluable across various fields. However, it is essential to use this tool judiciously, considering the quality of data, the appropriateness of methods, and the ethical implications.

As we move forward, the integration of new technologies and methodologies will undoubtedly expand the scope and impact of quantitative analysis, making it an even more potent instrument in understanding and shaping the world around us.

[strategyapex]

Advanced Applications of Williams Moving Average in Modern Futures Trading

The Williams Moving Average has evolved into a sophisticated tool used by professional futures traders, algorithmic trading systems, and institutional investors. Its advanced capabilities in trend detection and market timing make it particularly valuable in modern trading environments.

Advanced applications of the WMA include multi-timeframe analysis, volatility adaptation, dynamic support/resistance levels, momentum confirmation, and risk management implementation. These techniques are especially effective in high-volume futures markets, commodity trading, index futures, currency futures, and energy futures.

These sophisticated applications provide more precise entry/exit points, better risk management, reduced false signals, enhanced trend confirmation, and improved overall trading performance.

Advanced WMA Implementation Strategies:

Adaptive Time-Frame System:

Use multiple WMAs of different lengths

Adjust WMA periods based on market volatility

Implement dynamic crossover signals

Create composite trend signals

Volatility-Based Strategy:

Modify WMA length based on ATR

Adjust position sizing with volatility

Implement variable stop-loss levels

Use volatility filters for trade entry

Advanced Automated Implementation:

Code multiple WMA variations

Create adaptive parameter adjustments

Implement machine learning optimization

Develop sophisticated exit strategies

The advanced applications of the Williams Moving Average demonstrate its versatility and continued relevance in today's sophisticated trading landscape. As markets evolve and trading becomes increasingly automated, the ability to implement adaptive and dynamic strategies becomes crucial. The WMA's flexibility in accommodating these advanced applications makes it an invaluable tool for modern traders. By incorporating these sophisticated techniques into automated trading systems, traders can potentially achieve more consistent results while maintaining the ability to adapt to changing market conditions. As technology continues to advance, we can expect to see even more innovative applications of this versatile indicator in futures trading.

[algos11]

In today’s fast-paced financial markets, trading at any time and as fast as possible has become the key to success in trading. Since the majority of traders are adopting algorithmic trading as the most preferred volume of trading, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in this aspect has further enhanced efficiency and enhanced accuracy.

[lares-algotech]

We are discussing the key points such as the basics, the right software to choose, backtesting, strategies implementation in risk management, and the last important practice is to stay informed.

[intensethought]

In this video we look at comparisons between the S&P 500, US Dollar, 10-Year Treasury, and Nasdaq time cycles to determine the possible shape of the move coming tomorrow and over the next few months.

[apas-95]

How do you not realize your Marxist ideology is false when it says shit like a trans black woman small business owner is oppressing her cis white man employees?

I don't think you're, like, genuinely asking, or are curious, here, but I'll answer anyways, for everyone else who might be confused on issues like this: it's intersectionality.

You could make this argument about essentialy any axis of oppression - 'how do you not realise your LGBT ideology is false when it says shit like a cishet black person is oppressing their white trans gay employees', or, conversely, 'how do you not realise your racial ideology is false when it says shit like a white trans gay person is oppressing their cishet black employees'.

The point here isn't to have a rock-paper-scissors, Pokémon type-effectiveness ranking of which axes of oppression 'outrank' which others, it's to understand that each axis of oppression is an entirely distinct social system that overlaps with the other. A black business owner suffers from the social system of antiblackness, and benefits from the social system of capitalism. The specific overlap of their blackness and their class character also gives them an entirely unique character with regards to their segment of society. If they are USAmerican, for example, in their specific case the state and progress of the national liberation movement in the US means that they make up the rear of the revolutionary movement, despite being themselves petit-bourgeois. These systems of oppression are qualitatively different, and cannot be simply, quantitatively, summed up against each other.

With this in mind, it should be understood that the Marxist understanding of class as the principal contradiction does not mean that class is the most important, overruling factor, and that other axes should be ignored. Class is considered the principal contradiction because it is the contradiction that all other axes of oppression, genuine in their own rights, grew out of. Antiblackness was created by the slave trade (not vice-versa), and the slave trade was created by the growing European bourgeoisie's need to extract surplus-value, in the collapse of the Feudal economy. In the example you gave, the petit-bourgeois business owner exploits the labour of her workers, and is supported in doing so by an entire legal, political, and philosophical system based on the expropriation of the proletariat. She is also herself repressed and exploited on the basis of race, gender, and transness. These do not cancel each other out. However, given the ultimate source of racial, patriarchal, and cissexist oppress is political-economic class, her ability to genuinely fight for her interests in those fields will be hamstrung by her class position - just as her ability to attain and maintain that class position in the first place is itself hamstrung by her oppression in other fields.

Ultimately, there are no simple rules that society can be flattened down by. Each and every instance and scenario must be investigated in its own right. The idea that people are driven to Marxism because it provides an easy or simplified way of looking at the world is (perhaps unfortunately!) wrong, it actually means a lot more work!

[niqhtlord01]

Humans are weird: The Long War

( Please come see me on my new patreon and support me for early access to stories and personal story requests :D https://www.patreon.com/NiqhtLord Every bit helps)

War’s often did not last long when fought between warring galactic powers. They often fell within one of two categories.

The first would be a short but brutal war in which one side had overwhelming superiority over their rival and would decimate them within a short period of time either resulting in the defeated offering concessions for peace or being incorporated into the victors realm as a new territory.

The second and less frequent of the two would be a drawn out conflict that would reach a stalemate at some point due to the near equal power of the opposing sides resulting in a peace treaty or more likely a cease fire that would last for a few years before resuming hostilities.

These two outcomes were the most frequent as with the age of space travel often came great leaps and bounds in other forms of technology; many times said technology being diverted to respective military industrial complexes.

Weapons that could carve up continents from orbit or snap starships in two like twigs left little in room for anything else.

Humans did not share this notion.

In quite a contrast to the standard norm human military planners also considered lengthier drawn out conflicts. Data sheets and computer banks were filled with projections for supply consumption, industrial production capacities, troop conscription rates, and even the designated planetary ration levels that would be acceptable before general population revolts within their own territory.

This practice was first demonstrated when conflict broke out between the Drumengi and the Terran Republic after a series of trade disputes resulted in the Drumengi seizing several dozen human trade vessels and demanding a ransom for their return. This was a grave insult and the Terran Republic responded the next day with an open declaration of war.

While the Drumengi did not have a sizable fleet, they had invested in a wide range of defensive orbital installations that dotted their territory in what was known as the “Halo of Iron”. No fleet had ever been able to breach the defenses of the Halo and so previous wars had gone for little more than a year before a peace treaty was negotiated. The Drumengi expected as much and planned to force humanity to the negotiation table.

It was unfortunate no one had informed the humans of this plan as the terran’s had already devised a plan to crack the halo.

 Establishing a vast network of relay stations, automated satellite weapons platforms, and mobile fleet waystation’s that were brought in and placed along key trade routes into Drumengi territory, humanity established an iron halo of their own. Once the human ring was completed warning beacons were activated and a message was broadcasted in every language declaring the territory an active warzone and refused passage for any ship to try and cross through it.

Initially the Drumengi were inclined this was the prelude to a massive invasion fleet and prepared themselves, but as the months turned to years still no attack came. Human fleets patrolled the surrounding systems and intercepted all ships that tried to breach their lines with the help of the relay stations that were constantly scanning the surrounding space for ships.

Three years passed and soon every ship learned to avoid Drumengi space for fear of human retaliation; and that is when the Drumengi learned the true plan of humanity.

They never intended to besiege their defensive ring in some full frontal do or die charge. Instead they had formed a blockade that now was choking the very life of the Drumengi economy month by month.

It was never intended for the war to last more than a year, two at max, but now humanity was still showing no signs of relenting as the war dragged on to the fourth year. Critical supplies had not been stored in sufficient quantities for an extended war and while the public was assured of an eventual victory, Drumengi planners were beginning to panic. Worlds within Drumengi space were reporting that their stockpiles had dropped 32% since the war began and were increasingly demanding to open negotiations with the humans.

With little offensive capabilities the Drumengi were forced to sit behind their iron halo and continue to wait out the humans. Several delegations had been sent to other powers to open up channels and begin laying the ground work for peace talks, but each time they were informed that the talks were stalled by human counterparts who proceeded to drag their feet over every minor detail. One delegation went so far to report that a human diplomat would not accept any document unless it was written with a “Ballpoint Pen, color blue”. No one had any idea what that was exactly and even after researching it the device took another three weeks to be shipped in only for the human to reject it again saying that they had imported red pens instead.

The war dragged into the fifth year and supply levels had reached critical across the entire Drumengi domain. Supply levels had decreased by 67% for most worlds while fuel levels now were at a critical 13%. Travel was limited to military personnel, government officials, and what limited transportation still remained. Food riots had broken out in several major metropolitan areas on numerous planets and were becoming increasingly difficult to put down. In some cases the magistrates sent to neutralize the riots switched sides and joined the rioters, beckoning the military to get involved as well. That did little to settle the matter however as then the government worried how long it would be until the military switched sides as well.

With heavy hearts and empty bellies the Drumengi leadership finally came to humanity directly and offered to surrender. No terms were asked for save the resumption of trade and the dismantling of the human ring of iron.

The humans agreed to the first measure, but denied the second. Their ring of iron would remain, as a reminder of how easily humanity could cripple them again should the Drumengi ever show their hand again. They also insisted on reparations for maintaining such an extensive grid and exacted a high sum of credits as well. The Drumengi were outraged at this. They were told not only to surrender but to also pay for their imprisonment? The government would be overthrown within a fortnight when the general population heard the news.

Their pleas fell on deaf ears as the humans reiterated their demands once more.

As they had planned ahead for their long war, so too had they planned for the end result. They had changed the nature of the war and had steered it to the point where either outcome would be in their benefit. If the Drumengi agreed to the terms the current government would collapse in on itself as the general population railed against humanities demands, but if they refused their supplies would run out at the general public would once again violently rise up across their entire domain and their territory would become nothing more than mere pocket kingdoms for despots and criminals.

Regardless of the choice, the long war would finally be at an end.  

[zvaigzdelasas]

that's probably fine! [8 Aug 24]

[kiwiana-writes]

Fic Writing Review 2024

Bringing this back from 2023 even though the year isn't over yet!

Rules: Feel free to show whatever stats you have. Only want to show Ao3 stats? Rock on. Want to include some quantitative info instead of stats? Please do this. Want to change how yours is presented? Absolutely do that. Would rather eat glass than do this? Please don’t eat glass but don’t feel like you have to do this either.

Words and Fics (fics written in 2024 only)

124,619 words published to AO3. Down a bit from 2023 for sure. Turns out transing your whole gender and also writing an original novel slows your fic progress a bit. Who'd have thought.

132,218 total words written in 2024 (so far; the year isn't over yet!), 11,288 words written in 2024 that have not yet been published, 7,990 words written in 2023 that have STILL not been published (RIP).

4 published fandoms: Red White & Royal Blue (book), Red White & Royal Blue (film), The Pairing, Cendrillon | Cinderella

Most recent drop: We gonna need some brand-new jeans, my last-minute Smutsgiving contribution aka 930 words of straight-up feederism porn

Longest (published) fic: Years of dreams just can't be wrong (the Anastasia AU), still a WIP, currently at 13,330 words

Longest (published) oneshot: Like loving the stars themselves (the Doctor Who AU) at 7,219 words.

Top Fics by Kudos (fics written in 2024 only)

Warm like the glow that you feel head to toe [RWRB, Alex/Henry, rated E, 5,131 words]

All the Lonely Starbucks Lovers [RWRB, Alex/Henry, rated E, 5,895 words]

None of my love will go to waste [RWRB, Alex/Henry, rated E, 5,306 words]

I pictured you with other girls in love [RWRB, Alex/Henry, rated E, 5,187 words]

A midnight medication (just show me where it hurts) [RWRB, Alex/Henry, rated E, 2,121 words]

Miscellaneous Data From My Unhinged Spreadsheet about 2024 fics

The highest percentage of private bookmarks goes to I can't relate to desperation, the kinktober omorashi/humiliation combo prompt fic. Which is… not exactly surprising lmao.

Out of 54 fics published in 2023, 47 were explicit, 1 was mature, 4 were teen and up, and 2 were general audiences

As well as the juggernaut Alex/Henry, I also wrote: Alex/Alex/Henry (no, that's not a typo), Alex/Nora, June/Nora/Pez, Oscar/Rafael, Zahra/Shaan, Kit/Theo, and Cinderella/Cinderella's Prince

1 fic didn't have a title sourced from anywhere. 2 were sourced from the media/AU fusion source, 2 were puns, 4 were from literature/poetry, and the remaining 45 were song lyrics. Of the song lyrics, 7 were Taylor Swift; 5 were Matt Nathanson; 2 each from Sabrina Carpenter, Mýa, Hozier, Bon Jovi, and The Jane Austen Argument. Then just a shitload of artists with 1 each.

My highest kudos/hits ratio was on A midnight medication (just show me where it hurts), the paediatrician Henry AU - this one did surprise me!

Stats specifically about Kinktober

30 works, exactly 40,000 words (I was proud of that one lmao)

26 were Alex/Henry - including the one that was also Alex/Alex/Henry. 1 each for: Alex/Nora, June/Nora/Pez, Oscar/Rafael, and Zahra/Shaan.

16 Alex POV (including the Alex/Nora), 11 Henry POV, 1 Nora POV, 1 Rafael POV, 1 Shaan POV

The longest was Every version of yourself tonight, the Alex/Alex/Henry selfcest/time travelling threesome fic

Most popular by both hits and kudos was Always seeing colours 'cause you showed them to me, the artist!Henry waxplay fic

Least popular by both hits and kudos were the non-FirstPrince ones, which I wasn't surprised about - I knew that was the likely trade-off!

Highest kudos/hits ratio was One touch (but you felt enough), the one with Henry's magical healing dick

Highest percentage of guest kudos was on Like the dancing smoke that rose, the Oscar/Rafael cigar play

Podfic stats

Total recorded and posted podfic length this year was 7:03:11

Average podfic length was 47:01

Average words per minute was 146.66

The rest of 2024:

I still have a few Fandom Trumps Hate fics to post, as well as one Christmas exchange fic, and I'm hoping to have Anastasia AU finished posting by year-end as well!

Tagging @blueeyedgrlwrites @cactusdragon517 @celeritas2997 @cha-melodius @clottedcreamfudge

@cricketnationrise @dumbpeachjuice @everwitch-magiks @firenati0n @getmehighonmagic 

@hgejfmw-hgejhsf @indestructibleheart @inexplicablymine @lilythesilly 

@myheartalivewrites @nontoxic-writes @notspecialbabe @orchidscript 

@piratefalls @rmd-writes @sherryvalli @sparklepocalypse @stereopticons 

@thesleepyskipper @thighzp @tintagel-or-cockleshells @welcometololaland @whimsymanaged and, as always, anyone who wants to play! 

[dailyanarchistposts]

The question of organisation

How do we coordinate with one another, comrades and beyond, in order to transform society? The history of anarchism – especially its most revolutionary moments – is rich with examples of large, formal organisations that concentrated most or all aspects of the struggle within a single structure. These were organisations of synthesis, some of which still exist: they promote a specific political programme, hold periodic congresses to make unified decisions, and aim to serve as a mediator between power and the masses. However, it would be a big mistake for anarchists to place such an organisation – indeed, the route of formal organisation altogether – at the centre of revolutionary struggle today. At the very least, the option should be considered only in light of some major risks.

Consider, for one, the central tension of any anarchist organisation: the trade-off between size and horizontality. The larger an organisation becomes, the more hierarchy becomes necessary to maintain its basic functions – in other words, the more quantitatively successful the organisation, the less anarchist it can be. This is something no amount of conscious procedures, such as consensus decision-making or a rigid constitution, can successfully alleviate. As a matter of necessity, any organisation incorporating thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of members can maintain direction and coherence only at the cost of extensive specialisation. In particular, those tasks that command the most influence – mediation, accounting, publicity – begin to stagnate in the hands of a few experts, either implicitly or explicitly. And what a sorry outcome that offers: any large anarchist organisation soon becomes incapable of prefiguring the very world it’s supposed to be building, the principle of nonhierarchical association relegated to a mere abstraction. If there’s any doubt on this point, that can only be because the vast majority of anarchist organisations remain woefully small nowadays. An honest look at the towering bureaucracy of the CNT in Spain during the 1930s – the largest anarchist organisation there’s ever been, incorporating a million and a half members – provides an unambiguous picture.

The link between formal organisation and hierarchy runs deeper yet; besides internal hierarchies, a second major problem concerns external ones. Built into the logic of the organisation of synthesis is the hidden assumption that ordinary people are incapable of organising themselves. Society is split between the passive masses on the one hand, and the enlightened revolutionaries on the other; the role of revolutionaries cannot be to engage horizontally with the rest of the population, but instead to approach them from the point of view of recruitment or education, to make them one of us. All potential social realities are distilled into a single way of doing things, as if we alone hold the one true set of revolutionary aims and principles. Such a monolithic approach was never realistic, much less so today: honestly speaking, most people will never see the need to join our organisation, to stomach all the long meetings and tedious subculture. The 21st century has ushered in a human condition that’s unfathomably complex, calling for a much richer diversity of organisational forms than the “one big union” model that worked so well in the past. That means opening ourselves up to a more pluralistic notion of struggle, one that abandons any notions of revolutionary primacy, especially that of the organisation of synthesis.

It isn’t even as if what formal organisations lack in principle they make up for in pragmatism. Merely in terms of their capacity to actually engage in struggle, the organisation of synthesis has proven ineffective. Any structure of significant size must spend the bulk of its time and energy merely on maintaining itself, the task of physically confronting power always coming second. Meetings are now insufferably long, and the only viable collective decisions have become increasingly timid and legalistic, members always going for the lowest common denominator just so everyone can agree. Having succumbed to the quantitative game of putting recruitment before all else, reputation has become a prime virtue, and combative actions are normally condemned in the name of not upsetting public opinion. Compromise and conciliation are instead always favoured by the emerging bureaucracy, the rank and file of the organisation betrayed time and time again. Nor could it be any other way: with obvious leaders, headquarters, and membership lists, the threat of state repression is forever present, severely limiting the scope of militant activity. What you’re left with, therefore, after funnelling so much time and effort into a grand synthesising effort, is a lumbering, introspective mass that can be used for little more than putting the brakes on real struggle.

With this critique in mind, some would respond that the risks posed by the organisation of synthesis are indeed a necessary evil. Perhaps this route offers us something quite indispensable, namely, the prospect of unity itself? The nation state towers over us more ominously than ever, its military, police force, and repressive technology contained within a single, cohesive structure. It might seem like folly not to build our own structure, rigid and undivided, to contend with power on its own terms – an organisation stronger and more unified than the state itself.

However, the problem with taking unity as an end it itself, rather than simply as a tool to be applied depending on the situation, is that it actively invites the concentration of power. Any structure that fancies itself to be building the new world in the shell of the old can only turn out to be a state in waiting. Remember that social hierarchy, besides being localised in certain physical objects, is also a state of mind; it’s always seeking to revive itself, and nobody is immune to the threat, anarchists included. We need not repeat the painful lessons of the past: there’s never been a large organisation of synthesis that hasn’t also been stale and bureaucratic, even subtly authoritarian, functioning like a political party to the extent it grows in size, ultimately favouring to collaborate with power rather than destroy it. This is no attempt to denigrate some of the most inspiring moments of anarchist history, but we also need to learn some hard lessons; let’s not forget the integration of the CNT into the government during the Spanish Civil War, to the extent that even an anarcho-syndicalist trade union ended up running its own forced labour camps.

Fortunately, though, this critique warrants no strategic compromise. In short, the quality of unity is essential only for those movements attempting to seize power rather than dismantle it. Amongst Marxists, liberals, and fascists alike, unity is the vital ingredient of their organising, the intention almost always being to assume the functions of the state in one sense or another. Without unity, the state is inconceivable; such a complex structure can only function properly when operating in a centralised way, forming a robust whole that maintains cohesion by relaying orders to the different parts. Any genuine shows of diversity are a threat to its integrity, because they undermine the singularity of the social body, lessening the capacity for a single will to be imposed upon it. But remember just how little applicability this framework has to our own desires: the point isn’t to emulate the state, as if to treat it as a rival, but instead to destroy it. And for this project a fundamentally different logic is required.

Here’s an idea: as far as effective libertarian struggle is concerned, a high degree of multiformity is the essential ingredient. There’s much to be said for social movements that are messy and fragmented, even to the extent that you’re not looking at a single movement any more, but many different ones with fuzzy lines between them. Building strong links between different fronts of the struggle is essential for encouraging one another to go further, yet the circulation of energies must also remain decentralised, diffuse, or else risk denying vigour to key areas of engagement. The repressive task undertaken by power – by the media, especially – will always be to sculpt us into a cohesive subject, something with discernible leaders and demands, which can thus be easily crushed or assimilated. This is why the struggle must always prize a diversity of tactics and perspectives, empowering all participants to fight on their own basis, and for their own reasons, yet nonetheless against a common enemy.

Multiform struggles are far too disjointed and unpredictable for the state to repress in a straightforward way, and also for the Left to co-opt. They’re more inviting to newcomers as well, offering massive variation of potential involvement, allowing everyone to find their niche without compromising. And multiform struggles, finally, are much more effective at going on the offensive, given that the structures of domination are nowadays far too multifaceted and complex – quite devoid of any centre – for a monolithic approach to successfully unhinge. It would be far better to avoid the fatal error made both by formal organisations and armed struggle groups, namely, to engage with the state symmetrically, in a frontal assault, which is precisely where it will always be militarily superior.

Often we see a split between comrades as a disaster, but that depends entirely on your perspective: diversity is only a curse only when crammed into the stubborn rubric of a movement demanding unity. Remember that it’s rarely the differences between us that cause conflict, but instead one’s refusal to respect them. Such differences are inevitable, and we should be thankful, too, because disagreement is one of the surest signs of vitality, if not of freedom itself. Especially with the struggle for total liberation – defined, in part, by the plurality of its concerns – these unavoidable differences can only be a blessing. The challenge is merely to nurture disagreement respectfully, bearing in mind that, despite the divergent methods we employ, each of these is ultimately grounded in a shared need to dismantle social hierarchy altogether.

* * *

This critique surely begs the question: if not formal organisation, what instead? For some time already, insurrectionary anarchists have been organising the attack mainly through small affinity groups, often incorporating around half a dozen (or fewer) comrades. Affinity here refers to reciprocal knowledge and mutual bonds of trust, as well as a shared project for intervening in society. Affinity groups are temporary and informal, incorporating no official members or branches, refusing to take numerical growth as a basic goal. One doesn’t “join” an affinity group any more than you join a group of friends; the act of signing up to an organisation is done away with, including the largely symbolic notion of involvement it offers. Theoretical agreement is often a good starting point for building affinity, but the vital thing is to find those with whom one can combine long-term trajectories for practical engagement – an ongoing process in which discussion is only the first step.

By remaining small and tightly-knit, affinity groups remain unhindered by the cumbersome procedures that inevitably come with organising as a mass. They can respond to any situation with utmost rapidity, continually revising the plan in light of unexpected developments, melting away whenever faced with unfavourable odds. This fluid, informal terrain of struggle is also immensely difficult for law enforcement to map out and undermine, especially when it comes to infiltration. A decentralised anatomy shouldn’t discourage groups from coordinating with one another horizontally, fostering the broader networks of friendship and complicity necessary to undermine power on a large scale. The point is only that affinity groups remain fully autonomous, in no way bound to sacrifice spontaneity for the sake of cohesion, always waiting for the green light from some higher body prior to taking action. Perhaps this description sounds familiar: anonymous, flexible, and leaderless, such is exactly the informal composition utilised with great success by the ALF/ELF. The main difference is that insurrectional struggle includes a broader range of activity, the question of how best to generalise revolt always taken into consideration.

In any case, large anarchist organisations are apparently a thing of the past, having disintegrated in unison with the workerist glue that once held them together. But that doesn’t mean we’re in the clear. There’s still a very real risk of exactly the mindset underpinning the organisation of synthesis – the emphasis on uniformity and respectability, as well as the subtle mistrust of autonomous struggle – merely reinventing itself in whatever contemporary form, as it will always attempt to do. We saw exactly that manifest in the bureaucratic, centralising tendencies that stifled much of the energy of Occupy and Nuit Debout (most memorably, there were those who refused to condone absolutely anything that hadn’t first received permission from the general assembly). This insistence on sculpting a multiform population into a monolithic subject – in essence, the determination to lay down the law – is always lurking amongst movements with revolutionary potential. Perhaps it’s no exaggeration to say that such an attitude, writ large, is exactly what devoured the initial beauty of the 1789 French Revolution, 1917 Russian Revolution, and 2011 Egyptian Revolution alike. Almost all previous revolutions were defined at first by a spontaneous, ungovernable outpouring of discontent; once that energy lost pace, however, it was gradually remoulded into representational forms – elections, negotiations, bureaucracy – and its original content decisively choked out. Between these two phases, the possibility of a revolution that gets to the root of dismantling power, rather than merely reshuffling it, depends on eliminating this second phase completely. In its place, the first must be extended towards encompassing the whole of everyday life. Informal organisation facilitates this outcome to the highest degree, precisely because it promotes a terrain of struggle that is inconvertible to the functions of state power.

In any case, nothing offered here amounts to a complete blueprint. This is not a programme! Comrades might well decide, according to their local circumstances, that some degree of formal organisation remains indispensable for tasks such as getting new people involved, planning aboveground events, and procuring resources. Which is to say, once again, that the conclusion offered here is only a minimal one: formal organisations cannot be considered the locus of revolutionary struggle altogether, as may have been the case in years gone by. They must instead be ready to adopt a more modest, supportive role, sticking to objectives both specific and temporary, remaining eager to take a step back or even disband entirely if needed. Rather than falling back on outdated formulas, tired and inflexible, total liberation means embracing the fullest multiformity, wild and ungovernable – the only kind of energy capable of bringing social hierarchy to ruin.

[thursdayisbetterthanfriday]

Cybernetics with Chinese Characteristics & why we suck at the real Grand Strategy Game

Part 2 - The Quickening

Back in 2023, I wrote this more blog-like post about the mid 20th century McCarthyite purges of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the knock on effects that had - Namely the inception of the Chinese nuclear program, one-child policy and Chinese computing scene.

Since nothing is new under the sun, we have recently witnessed yet another example of America shooting itself in the foot, yet again, due to it's McCarthyite style purge of Chinese technology.

The release of the Chinese created AI system DeepSeek R1 last week has lead to the largest US stock market loss in history with NVIDIA stock decimated.

A record $465 Billion was wiped off its valuation in a single day. In 2024, the government of Turkey spent this much in a year on it's responsibilities?

Why did this happen?

As always, a lot can be put down to US foreign policy, and the in-intended implications of seemingly positive actions.

Do you want to start a trade war?

Back in the relatively uncontroversial days of the first Trump Presidency (Yes it does feel odd saying that) there were scandals with hardware provided by Chinese company Huawei. This led to the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 which explicitly banned Huawei and ZTE's hardware from use in US Government institutions. It also meant the US had to authorise US component manufacturer purchases by these companies.

Crucially this had a 27 month window. This allowed both companies to switch suppliers, and production to domestic suppliers. This actually led to Chinese chip advances. Following on from this came the 2022 move by the US Department of Commerce: "Commerce Implements New Export Controls on Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ". This further limited the supply of semiconductor, supercomputer, and similar hardware to the PRC and associated countries.

Ok, well so far this is fairly dry stuff. You might think it would hamper Chinese development and, to some extent, it did.

It also proved to be the main catalyst for one financial quant.

Meet the Quant

Meet Liang Wenfeng (梁文锋). Educated to masters level, Liang was keen to apply machine learning methods to various field, but couldn't get a break. Finally, in the mid 2000's, he settled on a career investigating quantitative trading using machine learning techniques.

He became successful, founding several trading firms based around using machine learning methods, but his interest in base AI never seemed to cease. It was in 2021 that he started purchasing multiple NVIDIA GPUs to create a side project, leading to the creation of DeepSeek in 2023.

Now, due to import limitations, there were limitations on computation. This, however, did not stop DeepSeek's programming team.

Instead they used it as their strength.

Constrains Breed Innovation

For many years, the Western model of AI releases have focussed on making ever larger and larger models.

Why?

Let's break this down from an evolutionary point of view. Modern Western technology companies are largely monopolistic and monolithic. Many of these companies have previously hired staff at higher salaries not to fill roles, but to deny their competitors, and middle market firms, high-flying staff.

They also closely guard trade secrets. What's the training data? What algorithms were used in construction? Guess you'd better chat up some Silicon Valley bros at parties to find out.

For these kinds of firms, having control over large models, housed in data centres makes perfect sense. Controlling model deployment on their own computing systems, and not using local machines, means that they can not only control their systems more carefully, it also means that they can gatekeep access.

If your business model is to allow people to access your models on your servers, and your employees are focussed on making the biggest, best, models, there is no impetus to innovate more efficient, smaller models.

Companies such as OpenAI therefore have the following traits:

Research/Model focus on size over efficiency

Profit driven culture, with emphasis on closed source code

OpenAI's initial focus was as a non-for-profit developing Artificial General Intelligence. This became a for-profit driven company over time. - “I personally chose the price and thought we would make some money.” - Sam Altman

Staff working within paradigm they set in the early 2020's with established code libraries and direct contact with hardware companies creating chips

Significant capital investment - Upwards of several $ billions

DeepSeek, in comparison, is slightly different

For DeepSeek, necessity made innovation necessary. In order to create similar, or better models, than their counterparts, they needed to significantly optimise their code. This requires significantly more work to create, and write, libraries compared to OpenAI.

DeepSeek was started by financial quants, with backgrounds in mainly mathematics and AI. With a focus on mathematics and research, the main drive of many in the company has been exploration of the research space over concerns about profitability.

DeepSeek has also done what OpenAI stopped years ago: actually releasing the code and data for their models. Not only can these models therefore be run via their own gated servers, anyone can replicate their work and make their own system.

For DeepSeek, their traits were:

Research/Model focus on both efficiency and accuracy

Research driven culture, with open nature - “Basic science research rarely offers high returns on investment” - Liang Wenfeng

Strong mathematical background of staff, with ability to work around software, and hardware, constraints

Low capital investment of around $5.5 million

From an evolutionary point of view, DeepSeek's traits have outcompeted those of OpenAI.

More efficient models cost less to run. They also more portable to local machines.

The strong ability of DeepSeek's research focussed staff allowed them to innovate around hardware constraints

Opening up the code to everyone allows anyone (still with the right hardware) to make their own version.

To top it off, the cost to make, and run, DeepSeek R1 is a fraction of the cost of OpenAI's model

House of Cards

Now we can return to today. NVIDIA has lost significant market value. It's not just limited to NVIDIA, but to the entire US technology sector with the most AI adjacent companies losing from 10% to 30% of their valuation in a single day.

The culture, and business model, of OpenAI isn't just limited to OpenAI, but to the entire US technology ecosystem. The US model has been to create rentier-style financial instruments at sky-high valuations.

US tech stocks have been one of the only success stories for America over the past few decades, ever since the offshoring of many manufacturing industries. Like a lost long-unemployed Detroit auto-worker the US has been mainlining technology like Fentanyl, ignoring the anti-trust doctors advice, injecting pure deregulated substances into its veins.

The new AI boom? A new stronger hit, ready for Wall Street, and Private Equity to tie the tourniquet around its arm and pump it right into the arteries.

Like Prometheus, DeepSeek has delved deep and retrieved fire from the algorithmic gods, and shown it's creation to the world. The stock market is on fire, as the traders are coming off of their high, realising they still live in the ruin of barren, decrepit, warehouses and manufactories. The corporate heads, and company leaders reigning over the wreckage like feudal lords, collecting tithes from the serfs working their domain.

A Tale of Two Cities

The rise of DeepSeek isn't just a one-off story of derring-do in the AI world: It's a symbolic representation of the changing world order. DeepSeek is but one company among many who are outcompeting the US, and the world, in innovation.

Where once US free-markets led the world in manufacturing, technology and military capability, now the US is a country devoid of coherent state regulated free-market principles - its place as the singular world power decimated by destroying the very systems which made it great.

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

By selling the jobs of working class communities to overseas businesses, destroying unions and creating rentier based business models without significant anti-trust measures, US business and political elites have sealed the present fate of the country.

The CCP led, but strongly anti-trust enforcing, China has been able to innovate, ironically, using the free-market principles of Adam Smith to rise up and create some of the world's best innovations. The factories, opened by Western business leaders to avoid union/worker labour costs in their own countries, have led Shenzhen, and similar cities, to become hubs of technological innovation - compounding their ability to determine the future of technologies across the world.

Will America be able to regain its position on top? It's too early to say, but the innovative, talented, people who made America in the 20th century can certainly do it again.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself...

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

Until then, here's a farewell to the American Century 在那之前, 再见美国世纪