This has been bugging me for some time and i'm not sure how to approach it. I've attempted several times. I'm trying to create the lines similar to the compositions in the picture shown:
PS - If anyone could identify the designer who made these I would appreciate it.
Not sure if this is the proper place for this question. In my opinion, it is related to user experience, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you have a site/application that separate users with admin-access (the right to change settings, add new users etc.) from those who do not have admin-access (basically only have read access to the data). It's quite easy to name those with admin-access and just call them "Administrators", but what would you call those without admin-access? I'm looking for a word, both to use in the UI and within specs and code, to separate the two types of users.
I thought of names like "Normal", "Regular", "Ordinary" and so forth, but non of them feel right. They all have some sort of negative or undesirable tone, I believe. Just calling them "User" doesn't seem right either, as users with admin-access are users as well.
I'd love some input on a name, where the purpose of it is clear, but without adding some sort of undesired value.
Update:
The context I'm facing is similar to the one of Google Analytics. A user can create a user account, and then work with one or many applications associated with her account. For some of the applications she might be an Administrator, for some she might not.
Looking through the terminology used by Google Analytics, they call the users either Administrator or User, so that seems to be an established terminology and might not be that bad, but I'm not entirely sold, so any better suggestion is appreciated.
At the moment I'm leaning towards the suggestion by Peter, to name the role based on what they do (something related to viewing statistics about the app).
Answer
What's your app about? There is probably some natural term from the domain. For example, if it was a forum that might be "member". For this site we might call ourselves UXers, designers (oh, hell, I've opened a huge can of worms there!).
The other thing to think about is roles instead of users. For example, I have an application which has a workflow in several distinct stages. The first step is known as collection, so users who perform that role are called collectors. The next step is assembly, so users there are called assemblers and so on. But in fact quite a few users are both collectors and assemblers. As it happens there are also admins, but that's just another role in the system. So the term we use varies throughout the system depending on the role the user is performing in that part of the system.
In my application if we want to talk about the permissions system itself then, yes we fall back to the word users - e.g. users can only access those parts of the system for which they have permission. But for the team using that application we rarely talk about "users", typically we're more specific.
The author in this article -- http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=7294 -- states that an increase in stock borrowing costs decreases a stock's forward price:
In the absence of manipulation, the forward price of a stock should be the current spot price plus the cost of financing the position at the prevailing interest rate until the delivery date on the forward. In the absence of a squeeze, the cost/fee to borrow the stock should be small. However, in a squeeze, it is costly to borrow the stock: the bigger the squeeze, the bigger the cost of borrowing. This borrowing cost depresses the forward price. Thus, during a squeeze, the forward price is below the spot price plus financing costs.
But why? Shouldn't the effect be similar to increased dollar financing rates, namely an increase in the forward price?
Answer
The rate of interest on cash and the cost of borrowing the stock work in opposite directions. Think of the cost of borrowing the stock as a kind of "dividend" that the stock pays off to its holders. As a stock owner you receive this amount [if you lend the shares] while you pay the interest rate if you hold the stock on margin.
I keep hearing the word "beat" in Writers.SE, as in "... break your scene into beats" from this question. What is a beat? How is it different from a scene?
Answer
Since "break your scene into beats" was from my comment, let me see if I can add anything to the discussion here:
You originally wrote "I divide my story into scenes, and put those scenes into chapters." So you understand how to break a story into smaller pieces. Let's create an example:
SCENE: James just found out that he's been promoted, and is sharing the news with his best friend Sam. James didn't know Sam was going for the same promotion. Sam is both pleased and jealous, and trying to hide his jealousy.
[My original suggestion here was "forget about word count, and ask yourself 'Did I accomplish the task(s) in my outline in this scene?' " Let's assume that the tasks you want to accomplish are:
So to create beats, you kind of micro-outline your story.
Those are beats. They are bubbles of action, of thought, of mood, which each contribute something to character or plot.
I want to add a context-sensitive help to my interface. It's a complex of numerous screens and data fields, intended for the trained enterprise user.
Following this question and this one about why people don't use help of different kind, my fear is that adding a question mark or "i" button would not do the job either, due to the following reasons:
I'm not sure if these are the results of my own experience with software, or that it might be that many are sharing these expectations. Anyone aware of harder fact proving or contradicting?
Do you have any advice or best practices of planting these little help providers in a manner that would actually be used?
I think I covered everything this site has to offer, but no question I could find addressed this particular issue. The two closest ones were about displaying the help text automatically aside the main UI. This solution is sometimes known as "micro-copy", or "hints". see e.g. this question, and this one. I believe it works mainly for form-filling.
Answer
When I see site-wide 'Help' links/buttons I tend to assume I'll be taken to a huge knowledge-base of articles where I'll have to search to find the answer to my question. I assume the search will be inaccurate and that it'll take me a while to find the answer I'm looking for, if it's there at all.
While working at Facebook I felt they had this issue, and I designed their contextual Help.
The user clicks Help, and is presented with options based on the page they're on. On their News Feed, they're given Help options of managing their news feed, sharing, notifications etc. On their Timeline, the help options are adding a cover photo, updating profile info etc. They can view FAQs from these topics and expand the answers all without leaving the page, and they can always visit the full Help Centre or search all Help articles if their question isn't covered.
However, most users won't get far enough to see this if they assume the Help will be poor. If you have space, your menu Help button/link could adapt to the page you're on, for example, "Help with profile".
You mentioned your UI has numerous screens and data fields. Although I ignore site-wide Help links usually, I sometimes use the "?" or "i" links/buttons next to or inside text inputs. When answers appear instantly in a tooltip and are tailored to the field I'm filling in, these can be really useful. If you don't want to have always-visible help on focus like this, and want to keep your interface clean, perhaps something like this?
Here we give more visual prominence to Help when the user is more likely to actually need it. When the input is focused, the '?' turns into a button, and after X seconds of inactivity we add the word 'Help' to the button to make it even more obvious where help can be found.
First: I did look for similar questions and this is the closest one I could find, and it's not quite answering the question I'm asking: Legalities about fictionalizing current events
Here's the question: pretty much every fiction title I've read includes a disclaimer to the effect of "all persons, places, incidents and actions in this book are a work of fiction. Any similarity to real persons, places, incidents or actions is coincidental".
OK, but what if your book is not entirely a work of fiction? That is, what if you loosely model the narrative on something from a news story, but fictionalize the names of the people involved and create new plot elements, characters, etc. How should your disclaimer read then? And will publishers accept a work of this nature? Is there any extra friction involved with getting such a book out (assuming it's otherwise publishable)? Any other pitfalls one should be aware of it making a story which models on real world events?
Note that I'm not looking for an answer to the general question of "how do disclaimers work". I'm interested in knowing more about how they work in a specific situation. And not just the strict legal aspects, but the implications as far as how publishers view a work that has this "loosely based on real world events" element to it.
I am looking for long time historical intraday day data on the S&P500 composite for a time horizon like 10 years with a - for example 10-minutes tick - or prices for call/put options on the S&P500 index itself.
What I tried so far: I checked Bloomberg Terminal and also contacted their Help Desk. They do have intraday data, but not on such a long time basis. They do offer 140 days to export to Excel and 240 days to view in terminal. That's it. I also checked Datastream 5.1, but they don't seem to offer intraday data at all... I am familiar with the Oxford-Man database, which is pretty nice, but I do need the raw data. I already saw the OptionMetrics database, is there any alternative? Maybe Macrobond?
I was wondering whether or not someone has any idea where to get such data from, any tips are highly welcome!
No matter how nice the composition, flow, and lines of my design are, if I am not copying directly from nature, I have a very difficult time picking a decent color scheme. It either looks too drab, or too garish.
Is there a good resource that will help me to choose a color scheme that has 2 or 3 colors, and the colors do not clash?
I'm not looking for specific colors or color schemes. What I need is a resource that will help me choose a color (or colors) that go nicely with, or provide a good accent to, whatever main color I am working with on the design.
Answer
One useful tool is Paletton (previously known as Color Scheme Designer):
You specify a starting color and a type of color scheme and it will generate a palette for you and allow you to modify that palette.
The nice thing about this tool is that you can see how it chooses the other colors based on the color you select. There is also a tool to simulate how those colors would look with different kinds of color blindness.
I'm drawing maps in Illustrator. Our way of depicting divided highways is parallel lines with a fill. Here is an example:
The way I did this was a 1 point yellow stroke, command c, command f, send to back, explained stroke to 2 points and make black.
These are a pain to make and edit. I'm wondering if there's a way to do this with a single stroke.
When handling multiple white-on-transparent png images, I am hindered by the fact that the thumbnails of these images are all-white. Both Adobe Bridge CS6 and Windows Explorer suffer the same problem, I can't discern between two of these pngs.
Is there a way to make these thumbnails useful? Is there some setting I missed that allows changing the thumbnail background colour for a png -- now a deafult white?
Answer
If the Adobe forums are any indication, this isn't possible. This thread from 2010 concludes that it isn't possible, and this search shows a smattering of chatter about the subject, all older but with no solutions.
I checked out the preferences (as you undoubtedly did) and didn't see anything myself in Bridge CS5.
If this information is outdated and a solution is available, then please correct me!
Right now I'm creating copies of all layers, flatten them all (the copies) to a single layer, and apply blur to this layer.
But can it be done without having to create copies of the layers I want to blur? Adjustment layers can be used for this sort of stuff, but I can't find any that is able to apply blur. Is it possible?
Answer
To the best of my knowledge, you can't do it exactly the way you are asking.
The quick and dirty way, without duplicating the actual layers and then flattening them, would be to Copy Merged (Ctrl+Shift+C) and paste to a new layer.
Another potential workaround is to group all the layers you want to blur and convert them to a smart object. You can then apply a non-destructive smart-filter blur to the smart object. The drawback is that you now have to edit the smart object as a separate document which may introduce too much friction into your workflow.
I routinely work files in InDesign(a lot of the artwork is linked), which to my knowledge does not have the ability to preflight 4-color black. I've not had any luck in Acrobat pro either. I save my files as PDFs. I have a PDF that I KNOW has 4 color black but when I run "List rich black objects"...I'm not getting any errors. Ideally, I'd like to be able to run a check in InDesign.
Answer
I Generally just use the Output Preview (Separations Preview) In Acrobat Pro
Untick the Black plate and if you still see something that's supposed to be straight black it's wrong and needs correcting.
You can do the same thing in Illustrator.....
Or in InDesign ......
This way you can check as you work if there's a concern.
Acrobat Pro : View > Tools > Print Production > Output Preview
Illustrator : Window > Separations Preview
(Be certain to turn OFF the preview in Illustrator before saving anything for web... it messes with the web output)
InDesign : Window > Output > Separations Preview
Here and there in my article, there are paragraphs that need to set a different tone. So far I’ve used italic Times New Roman and indented the paragraph:
This looks good if it’s one line sentence or a five-line paragraph. But for a page-long preamble it seems that large blocks of italic text are harder to read:
Is there a way to set the tone for the preamble the same as the other paragraphs? A different typeface maybe? Or is de-italicizing the only way?
Indents, rules, flourishes are just for making a distinction, not really setting the tone of the text as they don’t change the typeface. Only italic or a font change can do that, I think.
Reading this excellent question regarding logo export formats, and it made me want to ask a question that was a little bit more narrowly focused than that one.
I know when to use a GIF and when to use a JPG, how to optimize certain raster images for certain scenarios. But I feel like the only reason I ever use EPS is because "that's what you're supposed to do," which isn't really a good reason.
So, what is the purpose of an EPS format? What does it do that AI, PDF, and SVG formats do not?
In my experience, non-technical people don't need EPS files, they need JPEGs and GIFs and maybe PDFs. Other designers will almost certainly be able to handle an AI file, and can definitely handle a PDF. For the Web, SVG and PDF make more sense.
The printing realm is one where I'm really not that experienced, so I can't speak to that.
Is this a legacy thing? A compatibility thing? Something for the Quark crowd? Or is there a real benefit that EPS brings that other formats can't do? Would anyone in the audience be hurting if he or she could no longer export to EPS?
I am looking for references on the architecture of automated trading systems and the trading algorithms behind them. I am more interested in system development than analysis. A couple of books I found are Building Automated Trading Systems by van Vliet and Quantitative Trading by Chan. Any other tips or references on this matter would be appreciated.
Answer
In addition to Chan's Quantitative Trading, I have also found the description of trading systems in Rishi Narang's Inside the Black Box to be informative and interesting. There are a few chapters there that give some details on system development, but they are very broad overviews.
I realise that this question can fall in the scope of personal opinion but I am looking for something concrete.
Very often, not only on this site but other writing related sites, I find people constantly say that certain popular authors are, in reality, bad writers. These include the likes of J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Christopher Paolini, etc. Reasons range from minor plot holes to being too verbose. However, that should not exactly be true or should rather be minor insignificant things as otherwise the authors would not have been so popular (Correct?)
And (for e.g. on this site) this is not just the opinion of just any random users of the site but those who have been long term users, whose answers have been quite insightful, i.e. those appear to know what they are talking about. I could never understand why these authors are being branded as such.
So, to make it a concrete question, What are these popular authors doing wrong (or missing from their writing) that makes them a bad writer? Or what pitfalls should a good writer avoid?
Answer
I would say mostly breaking (or more bending) the plausibility of realistic speech, realistic reaction (physical or emotional), and telling instead of showing, or using too many nods and shrugs and adverbs (he said excitedly). It is relying too heavily on some same "formula" for description or exposition, to the point it becomes noticeable.
I should note that most of their critics have not made tens of millions of dollars in their writing!
As a result, I feel it is much more important to turn your question around. Despite their shortcomings (not failures, since they are published), what are they doing right? Why do readers overlook these shortcomings and buy their books? Why do producers overlook them and turn their work into blockbuster movies?
I think the answer is, these imperfect writers concoct compelling and original plots and settings, at least for their intended audience. That is what the movie producers buy, that is what the readers are looking forward to.
The lesson from this should not be "what pitfalls to avoid", because clearly you don't have to avoid them to get published! The lesson should be "What can I do right so I don't have to be a perfect writer, and can get published with all the imperfections of a strong effort?"
The answer to that is much harder work than becoming a good technical writer: You have to invent a good original story with something about it people (most of them) have not fully imagined before. Before JK Rowling, I would not have thought of a Wizard's school that would appeal to a children's audience. Before Dan Brown, I would not have thought of Christian artifacts, statues, buildings and manuscripts of having hidden clues to a major secret being covered up by the Vatican. Both of those are genius ideas, superb stories imperfectly realized.
So if you had to choose, which would you rather have produced? A blockbuster novel riddled with examples of cringe-worthy writing, or a technically perfect tome that sells a few thousand copies?
It might be nice to have both an awesome story with a compelling plot, and expert writing, but if you have the story, then "decent" or "serviceable" writing is enough to get it published. Just look at JK Rowling or Dan Brown, both have risen from the middle class to the 0.1% on the strength of original (and captivating) imagination throughout their first efforts.
P.S. As for their critics from the ranks of professional best selling authors: JK Rowling and Dan Brown are #1 and #2 in net worth of ALL authors with about $700M each, and this is after JK Rowling has given over $100M to charitable causes. Stephen King is fifth (400M). Rowling has sold 450 million books, Stephen King 300 million. Tolkien and Dan Brown are tied at 200 million.
P.P.S. A late additional note on the idea that great marketing can create a blockbuster. I am the sole author of dozens of best selling ads; brochures, coupons, ten page direct mail letters, full page newspaper and magazine ads that ran for years, getting two to four times the national average response rates. I know something about marketing. Check out this short Wiki link on Diffusion of Innovation, particularly on that page The Adopter Categories which are shown in order.
The summary argument is that most people in a potential audience, about 85%, will not buy a new product without a trusted recommendation from somebody else. Ads and paid celebrity endorsement are selling primarily to a small minority percentage of the audience, they only work for the rest if they get a trusted recommendation from a source they consider unbiased, which generally requires the source to be an unpaid friend or other social contact, or a professional critic that they believe does not sell their good recommendations.
Thus, it is effectively impossible for Marketing to create a best seller out of a book that is not very entertaining to actual readers, even excellent ad writing and production isn't going to cover the gap of "word of mouth" marketing. Innovators (which would include critics) and perhaps very Early Adopters may buy the book because of the ad, they are willing to take the risk on a new author or new style, they can afford to buy a bad book and laugh it off and drop it in the trash. But most of us are wary of ads and stingy with our time and money. So we count on first readers (including critics whose reputation is at stake) saying, "Buy this book," or "I just read a great new author." Marketing can light a fuse, but the fuse fizzles out if the First Readers are disappointed, or start a negative buzz.
Marketing is similar to a free video that goes viral on social media and gets 100K views. Even though they are free, 99.9% of videos never get there, because they evoke no strong visceral reaction (positive would be laughter or surprised astonishment or disbelief at some feat, negative would be horror or anger or empathetic pain). Without that strong reaction few people feel compelled to share it, and the virus fizzles.
A heavily marketed book works the same way, but the threshold of "visceral reaction" before passing it along is much higher for the first readers than even a free video, because now money is at stake, and we don't tell our friends (or fans) to spend money unless we are pretty sure they will be glad they did. We don't want to be known for making lame recommendations.
On the flip side, even if we love our friends (or celebrities) we ignore the buying recommendations of those that have fizzled out on us too often.
The route to a blockbuster is a chain reaction of free word of mouth when most readers are "moved" in some way and believe their friends will be moved, too. Marketing is necessary but not enough on its own: Content must have delivered on the promise. It is "original" content in my view, else some previous published work would have evoked the visceral reactions needed to fuel the viral sharing and complete the chain reaction. Then the previous similar work would have dominated the market.
P.P.P.S. A note on "viral marketing" due to a comment below. It is possible an advertisement has all the qualities to go viral. We have all seen great commercials that made us laugh, or had a great jingle or dance, or a twist ending. It isn't easy to pull off, but it happens, the ad does something creative and memorable and worth passing along. So if it is easy to pass along we might do that, or at least mention it.
But ads are free, and it still doesn't make us buy the product being advertised. Sometimes we can't even remember the product being advertised! (Which brings up the conundrum: If an ad is memorable, but you cannot recall the brand it was selling, is it good entertainment but a bad ad that didn't do its job?)
A viral advertisement creates a lot of free air time, and that should increase exposure and sales to Innovators (the few that don't need a recommendation). The ad might prompt the rest of us to inquire about the product it is selling and seek a recommendation. But even a viral ad will not magically take away the need for a recommendation from the 85% that won't buy without a positive review. A viral ad (free, short and easy to share via a link to a video or image) will not result in blockbuster sales of a product people don't like.
That includes a book that is boring or not worth the money or time to read it. Especially if the Innovators that can afford the time and money to buy it with no recommendation then tell people it isn't as good as the ad makes it look. Bad word of mouth is passed along ten times more readily than good word of mouth.
That differential is because it is always worth saving your friends time and money, and complaint is your reward in a way, a bit of vengeance for feeling ripped off, and your friends (if you are not a constant complainer) will appreciate the heads up, even if they decide to spend the money anyway: Nobody blames you if you thought something was terrible and said so.
On the other hand, it is always a risk to recommend anything to your friends that will cost them time and money if they don't like it. It indicates you don't know their tastes very well, and it can feel to both of you like you have made a mistake and they would have been better off if you had just not said anything. So unless the enthusiasm is very high, most of us do exactly that: We don't volunteer information about "okay" products we tried, and if asked about something that did not produce a great experience we tend to tone down whatever enthusiasm we DO have and offer tepid endorsements. "I kind of liked it, but it may not be for everybody..."
Viral marketing is very effective if it advertises an equally good product. It can backfire if it advertises an imperfect product, the popularity of the ad can mean people rush to **dis-**endorse the product, to do their friends a favor by warning them about a rip-off. Thus, it is not a route to turning a mediocre book into a blockbuster.
Put another way, viral marketing can increase the amount of talk about your product, but you have no control over the content of that talk in texts, tweets, emails, reviews, blogs, comments and up/down votes on the sales venues. You may be amplifying harsh criticisms.
This is a very simple perhaps naive question. Let's say I have a stock price prediction model trained on daily closing prices of that stock. So when I use this model for live trading, I'll have trading signals only at market close. How'd I put in an order and trade?
I see a lot of strategy research articles on the internet, and quite a few of them backtested their strategy on daily data, but I never understood how such strategies are implemented live.
Answer
If your signals only become available at market close, you obviously can't execute them in that day's trading session. You have a few options -
Options 2. and 4. are the easiest to simulate using daily stock price data, since you typically have both opening and closing prices. However, you should remember that the fact that you are trading in the opening/closing auction will move the auction price, so you should simulate market impact.
Option 3 can be simulated if you have access to intraday stock price data, or if you can find a source of VWAP or TWAP prices. You should still simulate market impact though.
I have mean reverting data (Difference of 2 stock prices, that I want to do pairs trading on). I want to simulate my own mean reverting data as similar as possible to the real data that I have.
The approach that I want to take is Least Squares Regression. Maximum Likelihood is too complicated.
Thank you all.
If you look at the search results provided by Google and Bing,they have their pagination right at the bottom (after all the search results in a page are displayed)
I was just wondering about the design rationale behind that other than the fact that it would requires to look at all the search results before going on to the next page
Answer
We can use common sense to answer this question. Let's say you put pagination on the top of your SERP and it has 6 results, only 3 of which fit above the fold. This is the first SERP page:
________________
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| |
| Result 1 |
| Result 2 |
| Result 3 |
-----------------
. Result 4 .
. Result 5 .
. Result 6 .
-----------------
By putting the pagination on top, you are allowing the user to go to the second page without even considering results 4-6. There's a higher likelihood that the desired result is somewhere in 4-6, rather than 7-12, because search engines sort by relevance. There's no reason to skip a whole chunk of more relevant results just to search through less relevant results.
If, however, the pagination were on the bottom, there would be no gaps in the user's scanning. The user is forced to scan past all results on a page before going onto the next page.
________________
| Result 1 |
| Result 2 |
| Result 3 |
| Result 4 |
| Result 5 |
| Result 6 |
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|_______________|
The fundamental design lesson to learn here is that you should position elements where they are most likely to be used.
This would be my explanation for the reason that convexity adjustments must exist:
Futures are margined daily, such that if a trader is paid a future and rates goes up then money is paid into their margin account, and if rates goes down then money is taken from their margin account, daily, so that we have two outcomes from a position:
Paid position: Rates go up, so money is paid into the margin account, and said money can be reinvested at the newer, higher rates. Rates go down, so money is taken from the margin account, but can be borrowed back at the newer, lower rates.
Received position: Rates go up, so money is taken from the margin account, and said money can be borrowed back at lower rates. Rates go down, so money is paid into the margin account, and can be reinvested at higher rates.
Is this where the idea of convexity arises from? The fact that the daily margining creates a clear advantage to utilising futures instead of the corresponding FRA?
Thus, in order to offset this advantage from investing in futures over FRAs, a convexity adjustment is implemented such that (in a naive sense):
$$FRA=Futures-Convexity.$$
If this is not correct or I haven't fully understood, then please correct me.
Answer
This has been posted a few times now, so I will invest the time on a full response.
FRA / Futures convexity has nothing to do with profits/losses being immediately recognised on the future through margin settlement, whilst deferred on the FRA.
Although this seems to be a very common belief amongst many practitioners it is not correct.
Let me characterise this with 5 different intuitive arguments:
1) The profits on a FRA/Future are dependent upon LIBOR, and the interest accrued on immediate cash is OIS. Assume there is no correlation between these rates. The argument above does not hold and then asserts that convexity would be zero, but this is not the case.
2) Assume that OIS was fixed at 0% so that there was no interest costs or gains on a daily basis. Then being short/long futures is symmetrical. If LIBOR increases or declines any profits/losses have no associated overnight gain/costs. This assumption asserts there is zero convexity bias, however this is false.
3) Assume that everyday the future closed at the same price so that no profit exchange was ever made (but this was coincidental). This asserts by the above argument that the convexity adjustment is zero, however there is an inherent difference and importance if the intraday volatility is either zero, low, or high, and a portfolio continuously delta hedges, even if at the end of the day it remains at where it started.
4) An FRA has a particular form of interest accrual, firstly an asset is collateralised so you receive cash to insure your position. You can invest this cash at OIS. You owe this interest back on the collateral agreement to the liability holder but your FRA asset increases in value overnight (since the discount factor now has one less day to discount your asset). So this is a comparable mechanic to a future in any case.
5) Imagine that your future was instead a fixed CFD and settled on the same date as the FRA. But it was a collateralised CFD. This would result in exactly the same convexity value, but it is independent of having an immediate margin exchange of profits/gains.
FRA / Futures convexity is risk (2nd derivative) based and intuitively can be represented by the reinvestment of profit over the term of the FRA
What does this mean? First consider the formula for settlement of a paid (bought) FRA:
$$ P = v N d \frac{r - R}{1+d r} $$
Where $v$ is the (ois) discount factor for the settlement date of the FRA, $r$ is the floating rate, $R$ the fixed rate and $d$ the day count fraction. The key here is the term $(1+dr)^{-1}$; when rates go up you make money on the position but this term discounts your contract settlement more heavily. In fact the settlement is paid upfront but is implicitly assumed to be discounted from the end of the FRA at the settled FRA rate, and this is the term that gives the product asymmetry.
So how is this risk related? Consider a portfolio where you have paid (bought) a FRA and hedged it by buying a future. The value of your portfolio is as follows:
$$ P = v N d\frac{r-R}{1+rd} - \tilde{N}d(F-r_F) $$
where $F$ is the equivalent futures rate at which you have traded a nominal amount, $\tilde{N}$ of futures to delta hedge. Your portfolio will satisfy two properties initially:
$$ P_{t=0} = 0, \quad \frac{\partial P}{\partial r}_{t=0} = 0 $$
So this means that you trade a specific amount of futures initially to be delta hedged:
$$ \tilde{N}|_0 = f(N, d, r, v)|_0 $$
But the issue now is what happens to the risk of your portfolio as rates change?
The risk of your futures always remains constant:
$$\frac{\partial P_{futures}}{\partial r} = \tilde{N} d $$
but the risk on your FRA changes to be dependent upon the prevailing rate, $r$:
$$\frac{\partial P_{fra}}{\partial r} = \frac{vNd}{1+dr} \left (1-\frac{d(r-R)}{(1+dr)} \right ) $$
In fact, more than that it actually depends on previous rates (and the OIS rate) that impacts the discount factor $v$, whilst the risk on the future always remains constant.
You end up with the scenario that when rates increase for this portfolio you need to buy more FRA to remain delta hedged, but you are buying at higher prices. If the price falls again then you sell it back to remain delta hedged costing yourself money. So this is a process that is entirely dependent upon the volatility.
Conversely if you sell a FRA then when rates fall you have too large a position and can pay the FRA back to lower your delta, since you are doing this at more favourable rates your continuous delta hedging is generating an arbitrage profit against the future.
Hence futures are always oversold relative to FRAs that are oversold. The rates on FRAs are naturally lower than those for futures and the difference is called the convexity bias.
Every writer knows the rule: Avoid clichés like the plague! Wait I can't say that, it is a cliché. Let me try again, I hate to beat a dead horse but... No that won't work either.
If you have ever listened to actual dialogue, it is filled with clichés, colloquialisms and generally poor grammar. I live in the South and can assure you that it is impossible to write realistic Southern dialogue without peppering it with slang, clichés, fragmented sentences and poor grammatical exposition.
Even stories are clichéd. There are a finite number of plots and most are very predictable. This blog discusses the need for originality:
A writer’s job is to write stories—not to steal or borrow them and, with a coat of fresh paint, pawn them off as original. http://www.writersdigest.com/whats-new/10-tips-to-bypass-cliche-and-melodrama
Yet it is totally contradicted by a recent article on plots. https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2016/jul/13/three-six-or-36-how-many-basic-plots-are-there-in-all-stories-ever-written
and a literary scholar asserts the number of basic plots may be as few as seven:
According to Mr. Booker, there are only seven basic plots in the whole world -- plots that are recycled again and again in novels, movies, plays and operas. Those seven plots are: 1.Overcoming the Monster, 2.Rags to Riches, 3.The Quest, 4.Voyage and Return, 5.Rebirth, 6.Comedy and 7.Tragedy. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/books/the-plot-thins-or-are-no-stories-new.html
You generally only need to know the basic elements of a story to predict the ending. How many times have we guessed the ending of a blockbuster movie or a best selling novel?
This blog hits the nail on the head (oh geez another cliché) concerning clichéd dialogue:
The good news for those of who don’t like rules, is that their jurisdiction ends the moment you insert a quotation mark. The quote is like the county line of grammar enforcement. http://thewritepractice.com/want-write-better-dialogue-break-rules/
And this Reddit subgroup agrees that avoiding clichés in dialogue sounds stilted and unrealistic:
Have you ever read the kind of dialogue an author writes when s/he's trying to avoid all cliche? It makes all the characters sound like quirky English majors trying to come up with new phrases https://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1w1d1z/are_cliches_and_commonly_said_phrases_acceptable/
Of course clichés can be overdone as pointed out on this definitive list: https://gointothestory.blcklst.com/definitive-list-of-cliched-dialogue-9b8f469bc305?gi=b63bb27731f
But I still think clichés have a time and a place in writing (I guess I am hopeless)
So why are writer's told to avoid clichés in their fiction writing?
Answer
This answer requires two parts, because it is important to note the difference between cliches in the plot, and overused phrases in dialogue. They might technically both be cliches (I'm not sure), but they are not the same thing. I will deal with cliches in the plot first.
The first thing to realize about cliches in the plot is that they work. That's the whole reason they are cliches. They've been tested over and over, and get the job done every time, usually in the simplest and most effective way possible.
The second thing to realize about cliches is that because they work, they have been used a billion times. You already know this. You know that because they have been used so much, readers can guess the endings of predictable plots. And that's the problem.
No one (at least no one in their right mind) wants to know the ending to a book before they read it, or especially while they're reading it. That just ruins the whole experience, especially if it's a mystery or something similar.
But worse than that is the staleness of the cliches. If you write with cliches in your plot, the reader is never surprised (unless it's at the sheer number of cliches). The twists are never shocking. The character's choices are never real. The whole thing is just a collection of well known scenarios and answers strung together by a few chapter headings. Most people don't want to read something they could recite from heart (obviously not true about everything, but you get the picture).
That's why cliches get a bad rep - because authors can (and sometimes do) use them as a crutch. The character needs to be driven? Kill off his dad! He needs to be conflicted about fighting the bad guy? The bad guy is his dad! Ah! A story!
Now it is important to keep the first thing I said, in mind: Cliches work. Cliches are not inherently bad. They are overused, and they are stale when relied upon, but they by themselves are not bad. In fact, some of them are tried and true story telling techniques. The trick is to know when to use them.
A good rule of thumb is: 'if it benefits your writing, do it.' If the cliche is genuinely the best way to get from point A to point B in your story, use it. Don't rely on it, use it. There is a difference.
Relying on a cliche means that you can sit back, knowing exactly how things will unfold and that they will work perfectly. Using a cliche means that you break it down into what you need, and what is simply part of the package deal of the cliche.
And if it turns out that you need to use a cliche completely, then twists are your best friend. You know what the reader expects. Change it, if you can. Mix things up at the last moment. If there is absolutely nothing you can change, have your characters remark on/simply note the cliche. Acknowledging it tends to let the reader know, 'hey, I know it's cliche, but it's what worked. I'm not relying on it.'
A lot of your question deals with 'cliches in dialogue'. While I am not the master of all things cliched (thank goodness), I do not believe those are cliches. I believe they are colloquialisms or simply overused phrases. A cliche is a plot device. Masters in the way of cliches may correct me on this.
You are talking specifically about overused phrases. Here, your job is simple: Make sure you create characters who use these phrases, not characters who default to the phrases. Once again, it's the same idea of using the cliche as a crutch. We all use cliched phrases when we talk, but we rarely do so for no reason. Perhaps we could use a little more reason, but you get the point. It's fine for your characters to use these phrases if they make sense. If they are what the character would actually say.
At the same time, you also want to make sure the dialogue is readable. If I were to make a character who spoke exactly like members of my family, the reader would be lost within seconds.
Find the balance between necessary cliches, originality, acknowledging the cliches, and readability. Use cliches. Don't rely on them.
I hope this helps you!
We have a list of complicated things, which the user can click on to get a new view in which they can edit all the details stored for that thing.
The edit view already has a Cancel exit mechanism (default for all our edit forms) and it has a save button (which both saves and exits back to the list).
Should the Save button be disabled until changes are made to any of the details?
Answer
In an app I created some 10 years ago, disabling is the approach I took. Each form has a Save, Cancel and Close button. Save and Cancel are both disabled until changes have been made. Close is always available and will prompt to save or cancel when changes were made.
At the time I thought it was the right way to do things. Now, every time I open an edit form and want it to go away, it irks me that I have to use close and can't just use ok or cancel.
I think the form should figure out what to do:
The close button will be removed in the near future, but the functionality and behaviour remain as on a desktop you will always have the "X" button by which you can close a form. The inclusion of a separate close button was really to provide a bigger target...
Edit
Just for good measure, here is Joel's view on disabling/hiding menu items (which is "DON'T") http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/07/01.html
I have come to the conclusion that it applies to buttons as well.
In response to JohnGB's comment
The back button in a browser never submits a form, it always has the implicit meaning of a cancel. Any app, whether on a desktop, in a browser or on a mobile, that supports "back" navigation should really stick to that unwritten standard. And it doesn't even matter whether you follow an explicit save or an auto-save paradigm. It just means that using an explicit save paradigm you will have to provide a "save" button and in an auto-save paradigm "back" is just that "back".
My users can create content in different languages, and I need to provide an option to choose the language when they enter new content.
Right now there are only 5 languages (en, fr, de, pt, es), and I was wondering if using country flags is the correct way to represent languages, or should I rather just provide labels (English, French, Deutsch, ...), since I'm never really sure if I should use the American or British flag to represent the English language.
Right now, the system is intended to store technical information, so there wouldn't be a need for en-gb or en-us or other sub-languages.
Answer
The short answer is no, don't use country flags.
The preferred method is to use the name of the language in the language itself (and watch out for diacriticals, language specific capitalization, etc).
I'd say that using a flag only is a big no-no
The author recommends to use
The name of the language as text in the language itself, possibly followed by the name of the language in the language of the current page.
Following up on my recent question on variance reduction in a Cox-Ingersoll-Ross Monte Carlo simulation, I would like to learn more about using a quasi-random sequence, such as Sobol or Niederreiter, to generate quasi-Monte Carlo interest rate paths.
As before, the objective is to estimate the value of a path-dependent interest rate option. I am evaluating the integral defined by my valuation equation independently for $N$ paths, each of which are $T$ periods long. $T$ may be as high as 40 (quarters, or 10 years) or more in some cases. Should I use the first $N$ $T$-dimensional sequences? The particular Niederreiter implementation I found only allows up to 20 dimensions, which is too small for most securities in my sample. Is this a limitation of the particular implementation or a general limitation of the Niederreiter algorithm? Is it valid to append successive 20-dimensional sequences (with a different random seed each time)?
I've also seen some applications where the first 1000 or so numbers in the sequence are discarded, or where successive innovations to the time-series skip as many as 100 numbers in the sequence between time steps. What is the basis for these modifications to the basic sequences, and does it improve convergence in practical applications?
Finally, is there any research on the pros and cons of the various low-discrepancy sequence algorithms for financial applications? Why does Brian B favor Niederreiter, for example?
Answer
For such high-dimensional path problems you will want to use the Morokov technique (you can find the paper online), which takes QR samples for the "important" dimensions and then reverts to pseudorandom for the less important dimensions in an interest rate problem remarkably similar to yours. (Similar principles apply to using QR sequences in factor model based simulations). Effectively, each sample in $T$-dimensional space has $P$ of its dimensions from the QR sequence and $T-P$ dimensions from a pseudorandom sequence.
Skipping techniques are generally considered a good idea, though the need for them is mitigated by the Morokov ordering. The general principle is to start-skip about as many sample points (in $T$ dimensional space) as you plan to take overall. Intermediate skips are, in my opinion, pointless when Morokov ordering is used.
Do not forget to form any normal samples from the uniform QR samples using Moro inversion rather than Box-Mueller.
As for sequence preferences, my firm did a study on a sample set of equity derivatives and found Niederreiter sequences to perform better than Halton or Sobol, by a slight margin.
I would like to recreate the effect you see in the attached screenshot in Illustrator. I know about the Blend Tool, but so far I have only been able to create a smooth, regular line consisting of circles, since the Blend-Tool applies the same distance between each circle. Does anyone have an idea how I could create the effect in Illustrator (without having to place each circle by hand)?
Answer
What isn't instantly obvious is that the distribution of objects is controlled by the bezier curve. Basically, longer handles = larger spacing. Interestingly, here is the exact opposite of your question: Spacing objects evenly on a spine with an open path using the blend tool
You can see here that the circles are bunched together near the smaller handle:
You can see in the following, although the path is (close enough to) identical, the changing handle lengths affect the distribution of circles:
You can even see the effect on a straight line by adding some handles to the end points and moving them along the line:
Controlling the distribution of objects with the blend tool and bezier handles is awkward at best though, another option...
A better option, although it requires a graphics tablet with a pressure sensitive pen, is to use a custom brush.
Draw a single circle, drag it to the Brushes panel and select "Scatter Brush" from the new brush dialog. Set "Spacing" to pressure (or some other variable) and set a minimum and maximum.
You can then draw your paths with the brush tool and control the spacing with your pen pressure. You can adjust the minimum an maximum after drawing to adjust the spacing.
I have been a digital designer since 1999. I am self taught.
However; my biggest weakness is spacing, grids and developing pages that feel balanced, as well as have strong typographic hierarchy.
I want my websites to feel like beautiful print documents.
With the web being filled with enormous amounts of resources, where is the best place for me to start learning how to strengthen this.
I feel this is a science, and something that really needs a certain level of methodology applied to it.
Where is the best place to practice or how would you recommend I develop this skill?
Answer
I totally understand the frustration of being in weak in grids and typography, specially if you are a self taught graphic designer. To me this is very open ended question and that there is no right answer to point out for you.
In my personal experience, it is how you train your eyes and get feedback from your fellow designers would certainly improve your skill you are asking. But, most important is to understand the design principals such as:
I would definitely urge you dig deeper and read more into Meggs' History of Graphic Design. It explains and talks more about styles.
Here is good books that will shape you into what you are asking:
These are just the few of the list that will help you.
Wish you luck!
Using Adobe Illustrator, how can I evenly distribute a group of objects along an arc?
Answer
Have you tried using the making two instance of an object (e.g., a circle) and then going to Object > Blend > Make to make a Blend?
You can modify the spacing and orientation via Object > Blend > Blend Options.
You can attach it to a path by selecting the Blend (the one you made previously) and the path and going to Object > Blend > Replace Spline.
Aside from its bitmap effects, can someone tell me why I should use Photoshop for creating website layouts instead of Illustrator? To the best of my knowledge Photoshop was never intended to be used as a layout application and is inferior to both Illustrator and InDesign by a longshot as such.
I know about building sites in the code. I get it. But for a lot of shops that is not the workflow.
I'm equally fluent in Photoshop and Illustrator / print and web design. I only ask because it drives me crazy when I get files from other web designers and they have been built out in Photoshop. It just seems very inefficient and for years I have been looking for a reasonable explanation.
Looking to try and fade out an image in illustrator using the blend tool.
At first, I tried blending 2 clipping groups, but I knew that wasn't going to work.
Then I tried blending just the linked image, but that wasn't working either.
Is there anyway to blend a clipping mask so that an image can fade out on the edges?
Answer
Let me know of this is not what you're talking about
Place your image.
Make the shape that will be the clipping mask over the image you want to be clipped. I added a gradient to the circle and made the black end 0% opacity.
Select both objects. Go to transparency options and select "create mask" and clip. Your options might be different depending on how you have your document setup.
Result
Currently I'm practising some pixelart drawing for games. But when I do anti-aliasing for lines, I don't know whether I should draw them by hand or just tick anti-aliasing box in photoshop. Could you please help me pointing out the differences between those two and advantages for drawing by hand?
Im currently designing an app and exporting images for the developers. I am struggling to know that if i create an icon that on my retina screen shows at say 40px X 100px, when i export, should i create the graphic again but with 20 x 50px instead so they are "real" css pixels?
Same goes for fonts. I have one at 40pt on retina, but should i make them 20pt?
Thanks for the help!
I have a quiz-based application where users can leaf between questions and select answers. When they're done, there's a "done" button they click.
I don't really have polished graphics skills, so I may be additionally limited to using one of these: http://www.iconfinder.com/search/?q=iconset%3Aorb or trying to photoshop my own version of one of them.
But really, that's a side point; I'm more interested in a graphical symbol for done. I don't want a button that says "done" :)
Also, I'm okay with a semi-intuitive symbol, because I will confirm with the user that they're really done and not going to change their mind.
Edit: Thanks for all the great feedback. Here's the updated image post-UX-question:
Answer
Not ideal without a label, but it might work for you.
If this is the only button on the page, you might be able to pull it off. After all, most users do not read the labels of buttons they click.
I'm currently using Google doc for writing, but I've noticed recently that it is very slow to use (it takes a few seconds for my words to appear on screen) It is very frustrating. My book has reached 100+ pages so that could be the reason behind it.
Is there a writing app that could easily handle large documents?
I would prefer one that I can access from multiple devices (phone, pc) and has cloud save.
First I'll describe the way I understood things so far from the literature, feel free to correct me here, and then I formulate some questions. I'd search through QSE, but haven't found so far similar question.
The BS model assumes the stock to follow an SDE with a linear diffusion term, hence constant volatility: $$ \mathrm dS_t = \mu S_t \mathrm dt + \sigma S_t\mathrm dW_t. $$ Although model showed reasonable match with market prices back in early 70s, in a decade it was noticed that when assuming constant volatilities calibrated e.g. with ATM options, options on the same stock with different maturities/strikes differ in value from what BS model suggests.
Implied volatility $\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}(K,T)$ hence was defined as a value of constant volatility which is when put in BS formula returns the market price for the option with maturity $T$ and strike $K$. Since the plot of $\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}$ appeared far from being flat and showed infamous skew/smile effects, it was clear that assuming any constant level of volatility does not lead to observed market prices. Due to this reason, Derman and others in mid-90s introduced the local volatility model $$ \mathrm dS_t = \mu S_t\mathrm dt + \sigma_{\mathrm{loc}}(S_t,t)\mathrm dW_t $$ and suggested calibrating $\sigma_{\mathrm{loc}}$ with $\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}$ rather than e.g. with historical volatilities. Further, there were even models of dynamics for the entire volatility surface - I think there are some people doing this now with SPDEs.
Now, the implied volatility is a model-dependent concept. Even if that would be a very good estimate of market's expectation about the future volatility (which some people don't think to be true), that means assuming that everybody on the market is using the same model. E.g. classical implied volatility is computed via BS formulae, so taking it into account requires assuming most people on the market are using BS to price e.g. vanillas. Does it make sense?
Implied volatility necessary contains some noisy information - e.g. demand/supply of OTM options make their prices more volatile than those of ATM options, which is not an intrinsic property of the stock (which volatility is supposed to be). Even if one decides to use local deterministic/stochastic volatility model, why don't calibrate this on the historical data? I do know the criticism of the latter method, but since most of the models are Markovian anyways, that seem to justify historical approach way better than the implied one, doesn't it?
How can I create that glitter tears effect and the sparkles?
Does anyone know of any papers about credit rating development or probability of default estimation done based on financial ratios that also include methodology and maybe good/bad criteria?
Something like they have some financial ratios and then they have some methodology that reduces it to a few financial ratios and then they make a regression model out of it or something.
Answer
Most of the papers concern CDS spreads which you will need to convert to a PD.
Paper using country specific fundamentals: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2517018
This paper uses leverage: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2361872
Another one that decomposes them against peer groups: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2413011
Comparing spreads and ratings: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1551406
I'm trying to design the best multi-select list. User needs to see in one column active items and inactive items in second one and needs to have a fast and clear option to on and off selected items.
I know there are some topics regarding to this subject on Stack and some well established patterns to solve this problem, but I don't find these patterns neither efficient nor self-explaining.
So I propose other solution (image) due to technical restraints there is not option to make items active/inactive immediately as user click switcher, he needs to click switcher (change the state of the switcher) and confirm action by clicking "Activate" button.
Do you think this solution will be clear for the user or should I dig deeper?
How would I select a specific Pantone color in Photoshop, e.g. PMS 5625?
Also, how do you pick a Pantone colour that is similar to a specific CMYK color, e.g. C61, M41, Y58, K16 green?
In this case Pantone 5615C looks closest to the CMYK color.
Answer
Select a specific Pantone color in Photoshop
Open the Color Picker
click the Color Libraries
Type the number of the Pantone color you want
Click Ok
how do you find a similar pantone colour for this CMYK color
Open the Color Picker
Input the CMYK values
Click the Color Libraries button
Photoshop will automatically choose the closest Pantone to your CMYK values.
Realize, actually creating a spot color file which separates correctly in Photoshop is an entirely different matter and requires the use of the Channels Panel. The steps above are merely to achieve the color of a Pantone swatch. Simply setting the color picker to a Pantone color, then applying it to a document will not create artwork which separates the spot plates properly.
I am going to design a management level monitoring page for displaying some sums and counts. No interaction is allowed and it will be used as a monitoring page on a big LCD in the managers view. The project is a web-based application using jQuery. I am looking for some idea to design this page. The amounts are not suitable for charts or guages. But I don't want to display them as raw text and some kind of graphics for making it eye-catching is intended.
What is the best way to create an eye-catching display of numeric values in a web page?
Answer
Depending on the nature of data, you can use Tufte's Sparklines. This approach combines text, color and small graphics. Google Analytics makes use of this approach in their control panel:
I have created a web application that the user can change the report filters, the report columns visibility and order.
All these are automatically saved so the user doesn't have to press a 'Save' button or make any other action. The next time she logins everything is as she left them.
My problem is that I have received several mails that people asking me to save the changes because they don't want to setup the report every time(they don't have to since it's autosaved at the first place).
Clearly these people are not confident that the configuration is auto saved.
What do I have to do to communicate the autosave feature of my application?
autosave element?Answer
Just like, google mail, when you are drafting an email, this little word saved fades in and out every few seconds. Because your system will be new to people and not as widely used, at first, as google mail, or stackexchange or medium, you might want to make it visible somewhere maybe in green color so users mind is put at rest, that it is indeed being saved.
There seems to an increasing number of A/B testing services (such as Google Website Optimiser) and people using them. Have you got any tips on using and analysing the results from them?
Could I get some pointer as how to NOT write a Self-Insert/Mary Sue?
What I mean: according to Urban Dictionary a Self-Insert is "A story in which the reader inserts himself or herself; this usually occurs within a fanfiction"
Self-Inserted Characters commonly have almost NO personality (In order to asist the reader in inserting their personality onto the Self-Insert character, an example of Self-Inserts include: JRPG Protagonists that don't speak, Kirito,Red from Pokemon, etc.)
My Question: What are some general pointers that I could use in order to help prevent myself from writing a Self-Insert/Mary Sue?
P.S. Yes, it IS possible to unintentionally write Self-Inserts/Mary Sue's.
This has been puzzling me for a few days now, and I asked a graphic designer I knew before trying here and haven't been able to solve it yet. It's quite weird so please bear with me for a bit.
I am using Adobe Illustrator to create a logo, and I have something that can potentially work. I have used only the pen tool with strokes (no fill), but the issue is, when I view the logo at 100%, it looks pixellated! I know vectors should not even be able to appear pixellated, but they are. Here is the screenshot from AI, without exporting to anything:
That was just done using the snipping tool within Windows, and it's at 100% zoom.
I have anti-aliasing turned on from Edit > Preferences > General, and the document resolution is at 300 ppi (I get the same result with 72 ppi).
Could anyone help me with this?
If relevant: Using CS6, and have a 24 inch Dell U2412M at 1920x1200 resolution. I do have a 21.6" Samsung at 1680x1050 and I get the same result there as well. Let me know if you need any other settings, or if you would like the file, I'd be happy to provide it to be able to solve this problem.
Two approaches to writing:
Writing about ideas that are currently 'hot' in the market (a bit like when the Hunger Games came out, many authors quickly released books which incorporated the same set of ideas)
Writing about ideas that you would enjoy (and have enjoyed) reading about.
I don't have any statistics for this claim, but I'm fairly certain that many authors are influenced by the type of books they read, and are heavily influenced by the ideas which appear in the type of books they enjoy. I can't verify this (yet) but it's certainly true for me; I enjoy reading a specific subset of dystopian fiction (one where the protagonist suffers heavy losses), and the book which I'm planning to write features this key idea heavily.
It seems to me, that, ideas which appear in books are very similar to those that appear in the books that their authors enjoy reading.
My Question: Should I write books focusing on the market's interests, or my interests?
Answer
From your either-or phrasing, I understand that you're asking whether you should write something that appears "hot", but that you personally find utterly boring. How then do you propose to write such a thing? Do you see yourself sitting there, putting drivel on a page, fighting off boredom and disgust? What joy is there in such writing? What artistry? Do you respect yourself and that which you do, if what you write is of no interest to you? How can the reader find anything attractive in a work where you, the writer, find nothing? Are you treating your reader with respect, if you treat with contempt the story you give them?
The Hunger Games, and whatever was hot before the Hunger Games, and whatever will be hot after - when they emerged, they were all new, original, they were the books their writers would have wanted to read, found interesting to write, at their core were ideas the authors enjoyed mulling over and found something new to say about.
The works that came after, and seemed like copies, these too were written with love - by authors who wanted "more of the same", and failing to find it, wrote it. They were stories inspired by the first one, a response born of love.
You cannot tell a good story, unless you enjoy telling it. You've got to respect your work and your readers; if you find your story boring, you're not respecting either. Like a chef serving something he wouldn't eat himself. So write what you find interesting. If you put your truth into your story, there will be those who, like you, find it interesting.
Are there any papers that make an explicit contrast/comparison of the following (or other) vol models in terms of the suitability for addressing some empirical problem?
Answer
You may want to first broadly categorize volatility models before comparing between them within each class, it does not make sense to compare standard deviation models with an implied vol model.
I would broadly classify as follows:
Historical realized volatility: Those include standard deviation (sum of squared deviations), realized range volatility models, and essentially anything that is based on past price and return data. Such models strictly deal with past data points and do not bother to make any sort of prediction.
Implied volatility models: Those lead to volatility measures that are the other side of the coin of derivative prices, whereas the implied vol model functions as translation tool. Part of that categorization is the SABR model and essentially most all stochastic models that implement different sorts of Brownian Motion "drivers".
Volatility forecasting models generally utilize past data, contrary to implied volatility models, in order to make predictions about future volatility dynamics and levels. Most Garch volatility models fall under this category.
A sub-category deals with intra-day volatility models such as Pearson or Garman-Klass.
I understand that my answer does not compare each individual volatility model but I believe, or hope, it helps to broadly compare and classify different models.
I am revising the manuscript for a novel. About a third into the story, a major turning point occurs when the main character (through whom the reader follows the story) realizes that things are not at all how she perceived them to be, and that she has been duped by another character (let’s call him Ryan). For an entire chapter, she looks back at the events and pieces together Ryan’s moves and intentions.
The problem is, this feels too much like what I would call a “mid-story info dump.” We all have been told to avoid dumping out a truckload of back story at the start of a book before the actual action gets going. Here, in a similar fashion, I’m putting the main character’s actions on hold while she analyzes Ryan’s actions. There is little dialogue, just narration. It sounds a bit like the end of a Sherlock Holmes mystery: “And here is how I solved the crime.” Except in my case, it comes a third into the book, but it is a necessary step to launch off the remaining part of the story.
Is there a better way to handle this type of narration? Or should I simply not worry about it and count on the suspense created by the build-up to carry the reader forward? (If I’ve done my job correctly as a writer, the reader -- who has been duped just like the main character -- will be dying to find out what really happened).
Thoughts?
Answer
Short answer:
More on that:
Include at least some action. Surely there is something that sets off this train of thought. Try and be as brief as possible with the explanations, and make the realization go hand in hand with events that happen.
The character could have a moment of clarity while, for instance, riding on a horse. Or a donkey. Or watching the scenery from a really beautiful vantage point. Then they could reflect on some things, then notice something else in the scenery, maybe even link it with what they are thinking, and carry on.
It also helps to place the feelings in the right place, so it feels as if the character is evolving through the insight gained... outrage, envy, anger, shame... they could be feeling any or many of those while they have that moment of noticing what happened.
Of course, structuring it like thoughts of the character helps give it pace... you could transmit racing thoughts, or slow-boiling, raging machinations. Either way, the character can make the info dump an interesting part of the book.
Do avoid anything like the description of the vices Dorian Gray had fallen to. Those pages are a painful read to anyone, no matter how awesome the rest of the book may be. The mistake in there is nothing happens. You get the raw information; no emotion, no action. This is a perfect "how not to".
I'm designing a touchscreen app and there are certain scenarios when the server cannot be reached, a printer is disabled, etc. that will disable a button (like the print button).
My question is: if the button is disabled, should the user be able to select it?
For instance, would it be beneficiary to trigger an overlay with more information as to why the button is disabled when the user selected the disabled button?
I'm writing a storyline for a game where the forces of evil have humanity cornered. Truly everything seems lost, that is, until our main character decides to step in. Let's call him Bob. The Chosen.
Bob is extremely strong and has a special ability that's seemingly designed to counter the evil monsters. As a result he defeats enemy after enemy effortlessly, becoming humanity's last hope. He is stationed in a small village on the front lines where he gets to know the villagers and protects them from the monster assaults. Word spreads about his deeds and a second character is introduced: Sir Dave the Brave, the Virtuous, Vigilant Paragon of Hope, Knighted by the King, Slayer of Monsters.
Dave is currently the kingdom's greatest swordsman and leads the royal knights against the forces of evil. He's beloved by the citizens because of how many of them he has saved. He and his army set up camp in the village on order and from that point on Dave serves as the face of the kingdom.
The problem is that Dave is only human - he does not have the unique superpowers Chosen like Bob have. He is still very strong, but very strong for a human. After he set up camp the player isn't going to look at him anymore unless he decides to raise his affection level with Dave. Dave only has a single chance to prove himself as the competent knight he is. But I'm afraid that it doesn't matter how many mobs I let him defeat, the player will invariably compare those feats to his own. I can't have him be strong enough to defeat the bosses, the player is supposed to do that on his own.
When he tags along to scout for one of the bosses and he gets swatted aside it doesn't really give the wanted reaction of "Goodness, that monster is strong!", but rather something of an "Haha, silly Dave got defeated again." His competence as a swordsman has become an informed attribute. Even if I let him defeat a few monsters on his own he still feels weak because the great Bob kills those in his free time to farm xp.
I don't want Dave to be strong strong, but I do want the player to acknowledge him. Is there a way to make Dave look like a competent knight without affecting his or Bob's power level?
Answer
You need to think about your protagonists weaknesses – now!
If your protagonist is simply above and beyond everything and everybody else it will get really, really boring. Your character needs some form of development, some things to strive for. Dave has to be better in something, and that something is not necessarily bashing monster's heads in.
Think about other aspects. Investigating a murder for example. Maybe your character is just bad at deducting stuff and needs to look up to Dave for being good at this stuff. Or talking to the locals. Maybe he is just not that good with people. Organizing people – a great leader can make an inspiring speech every day to send search parties so that he can help at multiple places at the same time. Not by himself, but by organizing everything. Dave has connections to the higher-ups. Dave has experience that tell him about monsters' weaknesses and strengths, when to fight and when to flee, when a dungeon will collapse and bury every character, no matter how strong ... Dave knows his way around town quickly in case you need to follow something. Or maybe he is good with medicine and can heal people?
Whatever it is, he didn't get to where is just by being good with a sword. Fighting is not all that there is to life. And brute strength is not everything that counts in the world, not even in a videogame world that is trying to make the player feel powerful.
I am a little confused about the units of the variance of returns. One way to compute that would be to look at the units of returns-
$$r=\frac{1}{\Delta t}\ln\frac{P(t+\Delta t)}{P(t)}=\text{Dimension }(\text{time})^{-1}$$
$$\text{Cov}(r_i,r_j)=E[(r_i-\bar{r}_i)(r_j-\bar{r}_j)]=\text{Dimension }(\text{time})^{-2}$$
But the above seems incorrect. For starters variance scales with time, i.e. annual variance is 12 times the monthly variance (assuming iid returns). Also stochastic calculus tells us that $\sigma$ or standard deviation scales with $(\text{time})^{-1/2}$. How do I reconcile that with the above?
Answer
There is nothing incorrect with your formulas, so let's look at the units when you annualize the volatility.
As an example, assume you have 252 daily return data. Their dimension is $(time)^{-1}$ and their variance is given in $(time)^{-2}$ (as you already stated). You may look at Chris Taylor's answer here on the underlying assumptions, why one can annualize volatility as $$\sigma_{\rm annual} = \sigma_{\rm daily} \times \sqrt{252}.$$
In fact, the scaling factor $\sqrt{252}$ is expressed with no unit. This arrises from the central limit theorem:
When using log-returns, the annualized return is calculated as $R_{year} = r_1 + r_2 + \cdots + r_n$ with $n=252$ daily log-return data. This sum of daily return data converges towards a normal distribution with parameters $N\left( n \mu ,n\sigma_{daily} \right)$, where $\mu$ is the mean of daily returns. This scaling with the factor $n$ is done without any unit. So on both sides of the above formula you have the unit $(time)^{-1}$ for the standard deviation of returns and the daily one scaled dimensionless by $\sqrt{252}$.
In a statistical meaning, the factor $n$ is just the number of data points you observe, although they represent single points in time in the context of financial calculus.
