158

 反正所有狗屎垃圾都擺晒上嚟，唔掙在

Owner of 萬邦行

----------------

Another cigar butt.  tl;dr is this is basically a holding company for 萬邦行 and nothing else. No debt, no financial assets, no funny stuff.

The stock has gone down a *lot* in recent months, and it doesn't seem to follow the ebbs and flows of the Hang Seng Index.  Volume is at minimum, so this would have to be a long term investment if we buy since it's unlikely we could sell the stock.

PB 0.228.  NO DEBT. Most gross profit (not including revaluation of properties) used for dividends . Yield ~5%

Basically all the book value of the company is in "Investment properties 投資物業" @ 7,064,000  @ 2023

Dividend history is consistent at 3.6 per year (1.8 per half-year) for the past 4 years, but it had been higher at 5.1 per year in previous years.  Looking at previous annual reports, it seems that they just distribute most of their gross profit (revenue - costs, not counting adjustments in property values) as dividend. Nothing else happens in the company AFAICT.

Most of its "losses" are adjustments to property prices. Cash flow is positive otherwise.

> Net cash from operating activities 營業活動所得現金淨額 102,243 

Dividends paid:

> Dividends paid 已派股息 (90,000)

Which seems fine.

So basically the proposition is whether the rent of 萬邦行 is going to significantly go down further.

Revenue is basically 100% rental and management fees.

The investment property portfolio is basically just 萬邦行 and two other irrelevant properties.

鄭裕彤's New World and Chow Tai Fook owns ~42% of the shares.

It's probably worth waiting a couple months to see whether the price continues to go down.  I suspect some cigar butt investors are buying up the stock cheap so the price hasn't gone down for a ~2 months now...  That said, currently yields at 5% isn't that great of a deal given that Treasury yields are similar and I'm personally not expecting significant rate cuts any time soon, so ~5% yields in USD are probably around, and yet there are still risks in HK commercial rentals at least in the short term, despite the great location of the property. Probably more of a safe buy at $50. (Note: at $50, the dividend yield if kept at similar levels would be 3.6/50 = 7.2%, which *could* justify the risk of further deterioration of rental income.)

Let's wait a couple months and see.

We might want to go there to take a look before buying as well.

Archivist

以前會成日好擔心啲資訊唔見咗，成日諗啲珍貴資訊應該點樣保存。

近年發現原來真係需要啲古代存檔資訊嗰陣，係會變到出嚟嘅。

所以就已經冇咁在意。

唔知咁嘅轉變算唔算係一種 CLS....

自由意志

 「我應該咁樣做嗎？呢條路適合我嗎？ 神有無野需要我去做？」

「無話咩適唔適合，妳真心想嘅話就去做吧。

如果妳相信神係創天造地，無所不能，點解妳覺得神會需要妳去做啲咩？

妳有啲咩做到嘅嘢係神做唔到？

妳做到嘅嘢，神可以更強勁10000倍咁去做。

好多人尋求『神嘅旨意』，想跟所謂正確嘅方向行，

其實只係源自人嘅不安。

人類害怕犯錯、害怕失敗、唔敢面對自己、唔敢面對真正嘅現實。

但妳唔需要侷限係呢個不安裡面了，

妳諗到有咩真係想做，下定決心嘅我就會幫妳。

妳需要嘅話，神就會供應。

妳尋找，就會尋見。

呢個係應許黎㗎。」

上面個故仔偷返嚟嘅。

一般人條天線冇調較得冇咁暢通，通常係聽唔到咁細緻嘅回應，大概只會覺得係一片空白。

咁一片空白係咪證明自己係被抛棄嘅小朋友呢？

記得我都好似迷茫過兩分鐘，但好快就諗起幾樣嘢：

(1) 真係接收到「任務」嗰陣我係會感應得好撚清楚。(呢啲嘢應該人人都感受到嘅，你諗下連林鄭都話上帝叫佢做特首...)

(2) 好多通靈撚因為體質特別啲，會成日接到「任務」搞到要周圍走，全職做跑腿，冇咗私人時間。

因為本老師係看透撚，攞住上面兩點就已經推論出晒上面整個訊息。（所以呢，條天線都唔係咁緊要㗎啫 :0）

其實仲有 (3) 嘅。呢幾個月我時不時就感應到天地同我講：「你係自由嘅」。

Soap Experiments #1

 Experiments:

• Control: pure olive, std 5% superfat, 30% lye conc
• Pure olive with potassium citrate
• Pure olive with potassium citrate and crushed salt add half after batter
• Pure olive with potassium citrate, crushed salt and lotus
• Pure olive with potassium citrate, crushed salt, and conc tea

From https://www.lyecalc.com/ 

Calculations

• Extra water that can be added later = 147.41 - 63.18 (assuming 1:1) = 84.23
• We have 5 experiments, so each should have ~16.84 water max
• We give the conc lye solution some buffer, so each experiment can afford 15g water, we give back (16.84-15)*5 = 9.2g to the lye
• Conclusion:
• Each experiment uses 15g extra liquids add after batch trace
• Actual water for lye solution = 63.18+9.2g = 72.38g

Steps

1. Prepare lye solution
• WATER 72.38g
• LYE 63.18g
2. Experimental additives in paper cups
• A Water 15g (control)
• B Water 15g + Potassium Citrate 3g? = 4 of my capsules (out of 100g oil) - Note that my capsules have some silica anticaking agent...
• C Water 15g + Potassium Citrate 3g = 4 of my capsules + 5g salt (dissolved) + [[[ + 5g crushed salt for after trace ]]]
• D Water 15g + Potassium Citrate 3g = 4 of my capsules + 5g salt (dissolved) + [[[ + 5g crushed salt for after trace + Lotus Oil ]]]
• E Water 15g + Potassium Citrate 3g = 4 of my capsules + 5g salt (dissolved) + [[[ + 5g crushed salt for after trace + Tumeric
• Note that CDE can be prepared at the same time.
3. Olive Oil 500g
4. Mix lye solution with Olive oil until trace
5. Poor into cups containing the additives
6. Mix each cup
7. Pour into mold? (or just leave in cup?)

Results 

A: Somewhat gooey, and sticky. Softer than all the other soaps. Feels a bit yuck to use.

B: Despise having no salt, it feels pretty hard and solid. Perhaps the potassium citrate also functions as salt of some kind.

C: Feels the same as B above. Salt crystals seem to sink to the bottom.

D: saponification much faster than the rest. It basically cooked itself when I was stirring the salt and essences in. Lotus scent much stronger (somewhat overwhelming) than I anticipated, probably a couple teaspoons is enough even for a mid to large sized batch

E: the turmeric did not contribute too much to the color, but it seems to have created an interesting sandy texture. There is no scent detectable, or perhaps it was overpowered by the Lotus essence.

Conclusion: potassium citrate is a good substitute for plain salt. Pure olive oil soap some editors to make it not gooey and sticky. Turmeric does not give the yellow color as anticipated. Perhaps I should have infused the tumeric in oil instead of water. Have yet to actually try using the soap of B and C, maybe they will feel different?

Update Aug 2024: 

- When cut, C has a "chalky" or "grainy" texture compared with B, which is smooth. We probably don't want to dissolve so much crap in the water.... This observation seems to hold for D and E too.

Needs, precision, abundance

It is pretty suspect if we "need" something but only in precise, specific amounts.

"The dose makes the poison", they say. What that seems to imply is that everything we need in precise measurements is actually inherently a form of poison.

The question is then, what do we really need where the more the better, and abundance does not cause poisonous effects?

What???

 What???????

(Apparently the answer is to use URI instead of URL...)

Deducing abundance

If we reject antagonistic dualism, there cannot be "just enough".

When there is enough, there must be abundance.

Intelligence is "easy"

It seems like we might as well just conclude that it's easier to write poetry than to do laundry and wash dishes.

The fascinating Cell and the evil person

 There are many mesmerizing videos of things happening in a cell 

So cute, so intricate, so fascinating.

And yet , they might belong to the most “evil” person in the world.

And once we are able to reconcile these, we’d have learned something.

soap

呢幾日學咗點整手工梘

又係啲中學化學知識忽然變得有用嘅時刻

有個好奇怪嘅現像，就係啲人覺得靈界訊息一定係準。

呢啲嘢，同你上連登講股台事但搵個9upper信佢信到十足個情況一樣。

Simulation theory 2

 This is a gem.

Especially if we substitute "we" with "I".

Two past selves battling in the present

- https://existentialcomics.com/comic/13

Existential comics have always had good content before they devolved into tropes. "How to quit smoking" was a rather deep story about what "will power" means in the context of smoking.

I think the missing piece in the paradox is that, while the comic correctly identifies that the smoker was struggling with his "past", specifically his past who had an idle thought about it being nice to quit smoking some time in the future -- but the thing it missed is that the *addiction* is also a thing of the past as well.

So the real struggle is not the present self who wants to smoke vs the past self who "decided" to quit -- it is more like the past addiction struggling with a past decision to quit.  The past struggling with each other, in the present.

But that clearly doesn't make sense. The past doesn't exist.  The past decision and past addiction are only projections of our idea that the past exists and that we identify with the flawed personality we remember in the past.

Once we get through the illusions, it's clear that our present self is still in control. The influence of the past is only as much as we identify with the past.  It's not so much as a question of will, than of a question of "which self" we want to identify with -- but that's a misnomer, because we don't necessarily have to identify with a past self at all.

Noise, Signal and Correlation in Democratic Politics

It's straightforward to observe that good decisions can be made in noisy situations as long as the noise in general cancel out and the signal permeates through the noise.

This was basically the case before the Internet and online social media, where communities were relatively small, generally opposing views cancelled each other out, and the learned elite were networked enough that their views became the majority most of the time.

These days noise is becoming false signals because they are so inter-correlated by the internet and online social media. The system is not supposed to work as it did.

Emergency Exit as a fundamental law

This is one example where the book echos what I write.

Essentially it says -- heaven is eternal and unchanging, but if you somehow wanted to travel to hell out of your free will, you could -- but you could never shut off the path to return to heaven.

https://hnfong.github.io/public-crap/writings/2024/07-Simulation.html  

港股

發現港股只需睇一樣嘢：資產負債表。主要係負債表。

買港股你都唔係諗住間公司短期業績有咩大增長㗎啦，但息口(USD)係咁升喎。所以望住 (1) 間公司有冇負債 (2) 呢兩年負債有冇多到，基本上就可以預見佢呢幾年收唔收得皮。

而家美股貴到痴線，歐洲夕陽緊，得中港股可以中長線投資，但望住港股真係得返 cigar butt 玩法，真係幾無奈⋯

temp=1 > temp=0?

擺住喺度先。WHY???

 

Notes on non-contagious nature of separation

Mechanistically, only the positive (“love”) can extend, the negative separates and thus is not inherently “contagious”. 

Evil if it exists cannot be shared, and "hell" if it exists are separate prisons. There is no common experience.

Extension can be done by recognizing that (1) truth is everywhere and (2) it is not limited to the “self”.

P=NP depends on the compressibility of interesting questions we want to ask??!?!?!?!?!?!

This is just a record of unsubstantiated ideas

So, it's well known that BPP=P if strong random generators exist, essentially because we could use it to simulate random numbers, and if they make a difference (in P time?), it would contradict the assumption that strong random generators exist.

And generally speaking people do believe strong random generators exist.

And I suddenly had a weird thought. Why isn't it possible to apply a similar (a *huge* stretch, admittedly) idea but towards NP problems? I mean, there's nothing that prevents us from accidentally getting an answer to an instance of a NP problem by seeding a PRNG with a magic number.

Of course, the output of the PRNG should not be expected to be legible -- in fact it's almost guaranteed to be gibberish, by definition.

But wait I thought -- isn't this just a compression/decompression problem?  Suppose we have temporary access to "god" and somehow was able to gain access to all the questions in NP ever asked by humans and all their answers.... Is it possible to write a compression function to map the questions into the answers?

The thing is, we think P!=NP because we think we need a function that can give answers to ALL possible questions in the problem space... but in fact, we actually can't feasibly ask ALL questions because that would be in EXP. So in fact the size of the problems we want to ask (or formally, the size of all the languages we want to decide whether is accepted?)  is in a tractable size, so the answers are also tractable. Of course we believe we don't know the answers, but we already know that it is possible to very luckily stumble into the answer (we have an exponentially small chance, which is what the "N" in NP stands for).

So it seems it is entirely possible that we could accidentally devise a decompression algorithm that somehow decompresses seemingly random bits from a PRNG into answers to NP queries? (As of writing I don't know why I think it's possible...)

Classical Philosophy: Causation and Knowledge

The following text was sitting in my notes. I don't know where I copied it from:

""" Philosophically, the collapse of metaphysics can be traced back to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), who argued that we never actually perceive one event causing another. We only experience the 'constant conjunction' of events, and do not perceive a metaphysical 'cause'. Similarly, Hume argues (without using the actual terms) that we never know the self as object, only the self as subject, and we are thus blind to our true natures.[18] More generally, if we only 'know' through sensory experience (seeing, touching, etc.), then we cannot 'know' or make metaphysical claims. """

Self-affirming logic?

The only reason we believe in the past is because our past experience tell us it needs to be regarded as real...

As in, literally, 從前有個小朋友唔聽話，有一日，佢死咗。

interactive book

 ACIM 最屈機係讀落去個感覺係互動嘅

我諗啲乜過兩頁佢就講啲乜

當然正常解釋係大道理得一個，所以內容係會converge，但個感覺仍然係有少少spooky 

天道無親，常與善人

望住呢句廿年，今日先發現原來真係字面咁解

聽傳說，天地真係會偏心啲立志行善嘅人。當然偏心係有限度嘅，世界大勢唔係只靠呢啲扭轉