It seems to me that I'm not alone when I sort of express some skepticism about big data,

which is sort of the opposite of what we do.

We take the price trends, the price, historical prices only, and follow the trends.

Maybe we look at volume or some other things, but it's pretty much going to be driven by the prices and the trends.

And it seems that people are, at least my followers, are very skeptical of big data, being able to come in and do better than trend.

So I got a lot of like from this tweet.

It was a quote from an article.

They have a mindset that we're going to conquer the world with big data.

In finance, though, the market regime is not static.

And markets aren't closed systems like a chess game.

You can have one little pin drop that can basically make you lose over 20 years of returns. Now, I don't know about that

last sentence, but it is nice to see that people are skeptical of, and understand and realize that it's really two different things.

The markets are very unique in what has worked maybe in other areas of life with big data and AI and machine learning may not work with the markets.

And of course, a week or two ago, we talked about one of my favorites was my own

brilliant tweet about maybe something like maybe the final step of a decision-making process

of AI would be wait for the breakout. I think I recommend, I recommend that highly for almost any,

anything less than what we do, pay attention only to prices. Regardless of how you make your

decisions, you may want to have that last step. Let's just wait for the breakout to confirm at all.

Yeah. Well, I think we saw that in a couple of interesting ways. Once we talked last

week, I think it was about the interview with Stanley Drucken Miller and how he was describing his

process and that was exactly what it was. You know, you build a thesis, you wait for the momentum and

once it's clear, you pile in. So certainly sounded trend following issue to me. The other

...