The relationship between time, money, and happiness

https://ift.tt/2jX6NLe

The older I get, the more I’m convinced that time is money (and money is time). We’re commonly taught that money is a “store of value”. But what does “store of value” actually mean? It’s a repository of past effort that can be applied to future purchases. Really, money is a store of time. (Well, a store of productive time, anyhow.)

Now, having made this argument, I’ll admit that time and money aren’t exactly the same thing. Money is a store of time, sure, but the two concepts have some differences too.

For instance, time is linear. After one minute or one day has passed, it’s irretrievable. You cannot reclaim it. If you waste an hour, it’s gone forever. If you waste (or lose) a dollar, however, it’s always possible to earn another dollar. Time marches forward but money has no “direction”.

More importantly, time is finite. Money is not. Theoretically, your income and wealth have no upper bound. On the other hand, each of us has about seventy (maybe eighty) years on this earth. If you’re lucky, you’ll live for 1000 months. Only a very few of us will live 5000 weeks. Most of us will live between 25,000 and 30,000 days.

I’ve always loved this representation of a “life in weeks” of a typical American from the blog Wait But Why:

Your Life in Weeks

If you allow yourself to conduct a thought experiment in which time and money are interchangeable, you can reach some startling conclusions.

Wealth and Work

When I began to fully grasp the relationship between money and time, my first big insight was that wealth isn’t necessarily an abundance of money — it’s an abundance of time. Or potential time. When you accumulate a lot of money, you actually accumulate a large store of time to use however you please.

And, in fact, this seems to be one of the primary reasons the Financial Independence movement is gaining popularity. Financial Independence — having saved enough that you’re no longer required to work for money — provides the promise that you can use your time in whichever way you choose. When I attend FI gatherings, I ask folks what motivates them. Almost everyone offers some variation on the theme: “I want to be able to do what I want, when I want.”

To me, one of the huge ironies of modern society is that so many people spend so much time to accumulate so much Stuff — yet never manage to set aside anything for the future. Why is this?

In an article on Wealth and Work, Thomas J. Elpel explores the complicated relationship between our ever-increasing standard of living and the effort required to achieve that level of comfort.

Ultimately you are significantly wealthier than before, but you are also working harder too. Nobody said you had to pay for oil lamps and oil or books and freshly laundered clothes, but you would feel deprived if you didn’t, so you work a little harder to give your family all the good things that life has to offer.

Increasing Wealth & Decreasing Costs

It’s a catch-22. You work more to have more money to buy more Stuff…but because you have so much Stuff, you need more money, which means you have to work more. It’s almost as if the more physical things you possess, the less time you have.

How do you escape this vicious cycle? There are two ways, actually.

Spend Less, Live More

The first (most obvious) way to remove yourself from this hedonic treadmill is to deliberately reduce your spending so that it’s below the level needed to maintain your lifestyle. As I’ve argued before at Get Rich Slowly, frugality buys freedom.

When you reduce your lifestyle, it takes less time to fund it. If you’re earning $50,000 per year take-home and spending all $50,000, you leave no margin for error. If something goes wrong — you lose your job, inflation skyrockets — you’re in a bind. Plus, you don’t give yourself a chance to seize unexpected opportunities!

But if you reduce your spending to $40,000 per year, you give yourself options. You can choose to continue earning $50,000 and bank the difference (building a store of time) or you can choose to work less today (taking the advantage of the time savings immediately).

Spending less also helps fund your future. Learning to live with a “lesser” lifestyle means you don’t need to save as much for retirement. If you spend $50,000 per year, for example, then you need roughly $1.25 million saved before you can retire. But if you decrease spending to $40,000 per year, your target drops to around $1 million.

It takes much less work to fund an ongoing lifestyle of $40,000 per year than it does to maintain a lifestyle that costs $50,000 per year. And if you’re in the fortunate position where you can slash your lifestyle from, say, $120,000 per year to $30,000 per year, you can really reduce the time you spend working.

Buying Time Promotes Happiness

But what if you like your lifestyle and don’t want to cut back? Or what if you’re not able to cut back? There’s still a way to use the relationship between time and money to increase your sense of well-being.

Last year, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal published an interesting article that declared buying time promotes happiness. The authors conducted a series of experimental studies to look at the link between time, money, and happiness. Their conclusion?

Around the world, increases in wealth have produced an unintended consequence: a rising sense of time scarcity. We provide evidence that using money to buy time can provide a buffer against this time famine, thereby promoting happiness.

Using large, diverse samples…we show that individuals who spend money on time-saving services report greater life satisfaction. A field experiment provides causal evidence that working adults report greater happiness after spending money on a timesaving purchase than on a material purchase.

Together, these results suggest that using money to buy time can protect people from the detrimental effects of time pressure on life satisfaction.

If you want to improve your quality of life, don’t use your money to buy Stuff, use it to relieve “time pressure”. Instead of buying a fancy car, purchase time-saving devices. Hire a housekeeper or a yard-maintenance company. Maybe consider a meal-delivery service.

Interestingly, the effects of “buying time” have the greatest impact on folks who have less money: “We observed a stronger relationship between buying time and life satisfaction among less-affluent individuals,” the authors write.

Finding Balance

My biggest takeaway from thinking about the relationship between time and money is this: When you spend less, you can work less. In a very real way, frugality buys time. But on a deeper level, frugality buys freedom — financial freedom, freedom from worry, freedom to spend your time however you choose.

When you treat time as money (and money as time), you can better evaluate how to allocate your dollars and your hours. When you know how much your time is worth, you can decide when it makes sense to “outsource” specific jobs.

Ultimately, there’s a balance to be had, and that balance is different for each of us. You have to decide how much time you’re willing to spend on present comfort and how much time you want to bank for the future. I believe there’s no single right answer to this dilemma.

What about you? How do you view the relationship between time, money, and happiness? Do you have some examples from your own life of buying time in order to improve your happiness? What balance have you arrived at — and how did you get there?

The post The relationship between time, money, and happiness appeared first on Get Rich Slowly.



from Get Rich Slowly https://ift.tt/2CLrqRA
via IFTTT

Assessing Prospect Capital's Results For Fiscal Q3 2018 (Includes Updated Price Target)

https://ift.tt/2wRNFb5

Introduction/Recap:

On 5/9/2018, Prospect Capital Corp. (PSEC) reported quarterly net investment income (“NII”) of $0.195 per share, earnings per share (“EPS”) (also known as “net assets resulting from operations”) of $0.143, and a net asset value (“NAV”) as of 3/31/2018 of $9.227 per share. In comparison, I projected PSEC would report quarterly NII of $0.178 per share, EPS of $0.120 per share, and a NAV as of 3/31/2018 of $9.203 per share in the following article:

Prospect Capital's Fiscal Q3 2018 NII And NAV Projection (How Much Of A Decrease?)

When calculated, my NII, EPS, and NAV projections had a variance of $0.017, $0.023, and $0.024 per share, respectively. As such, I believe PSEC’s quarterly NII, EPS, and NAV fluctuations should be seen as a very minor-minor outperformance. PSEC’s NAV fluctuation was well within my projected range. Out of the seventeen quarters I have projected PSEC’s NAV within an article through Seeking Alpha, this was the fourteenth time the company’s NAV fluctuation was within my range.

I believe there were several notable events that occurred during the fiscal third quarter of 2018. This article will discuss how these events impact current and future operations. I will now summarize my prior article’s account projections and compare each account to PSEC’s actual results. I will discuss PSEC’s accounts in the same order as provided in my NII and NAV projection article (link provided above).

PSEC’s Projected Versus Actual Results (Overview):

To begin this assessment analysis, Table 1 is provided below. Table 1 shows my prior account projections and compares these figures to PSEC’s actual results for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. For comparative purposes, I also include PSEC’s actual results from the prior three fiscal quarters (additional data/insight for readers).

Table 1 – PSEC NII and EPS for the Fiscal Third Quarter of 2018 (Actual Versus Projected)

(Source: Table created entirely by myself, partially using PSEC data obtained from the SEC’s EDGAR Database)

PSEC’s Income and Expense Accounts:

In my prior PSEC NII and NAV projection article, I projected the company would report an “average” amount of loan originations and add-on investments during the fiscal third quarter of 2018 when compared to levels experienced over the prior several years. I also anticipated PSEC would have a notably more “subdued” level of portfolio sales/repayments/restructurings when compared to the company’s prior fiscal quarter.

These two assumptions/projections came to fruition as PSEC reported loan originations and add-on investments of $430 million during the company’s fiscal third quarter of 2018 while reporting portfolio sales/repayments/restructurings of $118 million. When calculated, PSEC’s total investment portfolio increased $312 million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018 (prior to all quarterly “fair market value” [FMV] fluctuations and scheduled principle payments). When compared to my projected loan originations and add-on investments less portfolio sales/repayments/restructurings of $250 million, PSEC’s actual increase in the company’s investment portfolio was slightly greater. Most of this variance occurred within PSEC’s collateralized loan obligation (“CLO”) portfolio where the company increased its investment in a handful of existing securitizations. This event will be further discussed below.

Using Table 1 above as a reference, I projected PSEC would report “total interest income” of $145.6 million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC reported total interest income of $145.9 million. When calculated, this was a variance of only $0.3 million. This variance is mainly due to the following factors: 1) minor underperformance within the company’s non-control/non-affiliate portfolio; and 2) minor-modest outperformance within its CLO portfolio.

PSEC’s minor underperformance within the company’s non-control/non-affiliate investments was mainly due to the weighted average stated interest rate on most new loan originations. Simply put, I anticipated a slightly higher weighted average stated interest rate on PSEC’s newly originated loans versus the actual contractual terms.

PSEC’s minor-modest outperformance within the company’s CLO portfolio was mainly due to the fact management increased its investment in a handful of existing structured credit investments. In most cases, this was directly associated with a handful of refinancings/“resets” (extended reinvestment periods). Simply put, the specific amount of PSEC’s additional investment was not publicly disclosed prior to the filing of the company’s 10-Q. An increased investment directly equates to higher accrued interest income being recorded (when assuming yields remain constant). PSEC increased the company’s investment in the following CLO securitizations during its fiscal third quarter of 2018: 1) Apidos CLO XII, Ltd. (Apidos 12); 2) Apidos CLO XV, Ltd. (Apidos 15); 3) Brookside Mill CLO Ltd. (Brookside); 4) Voya CLO 2014-1, Ltd. (Voya 2014-1); 5) Octagon Investment Partners XVIII-R, Ltd. (Octagon 18); and 6) Romark WM-R Ltd. (Romark).

Moving down Table 1, PSEC’s dividend and structuring/fee income was a modest and minor outperformance, respectively. Regarding PSEC’s dividend income, I was encouraged to see the company generated this type of revenue stream during its fiscal third quarter of 2018. When looking at Table 1 over the past several quarters, this was the first time PSEC reported any meaningful amount of dividend income. A majority of PSEC’s dividend income came from the company’s equity investment in National Property REIT Corp. (“NPRC”). This portfolio company was able to record realized capital gains from its sale of two underlying properties. NPRC had sufficient earnings and profit (“E&P”) to make a distribution this quarter. I believe this event/recent trend should be seen as a positive factor and I would be even more encouraged if similar E&P distributions occur in the future (which management has not ruled out).

When PSEC’s total interest, dividend, and structuring/fee income are combined, I projected the company would report “total investment income” of $152.9 million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC reported total investment income of $162.8 million. When calculated, this was a variance of $10.0 million (rounded) which was towards the higher end of my stated range. Again, most of this variance was the additional accrued interest income within PSEC’s CLO portfolio (due to additional add-on investments) and the company’s dividend income through NPRC.

Still using Table 1 above as a reference, I projected PSEC would report “total operating expenses” of $89.5 million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC reported total operating expenses of $92.4 million. When calculated, this comes out to be a variance of ($2.9) million. This was within my stated range and should be considered a minor underperformance. Most of this variance is due to a higher than projected income incentive fee during the quarter. This was the direct result of additional income being accrued for within PSEC’s investment portfolio versus my projection (discussed above). Simply put, when PSEC’s investment income is greater when compared to my projection, the company’s income incentive fee will also be greater (direct relationship).

Continuing to move down Table 1, when all the amounts above are combined, I projected PSEC would report NII of $63.3 million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC reported NII of $70.4 million. When calculated, this was a variance of $7.1 million or $0.017 per share. As such, I believe PSEC’s reported NII was a minor-modest outperformance when compared to my projection. Most of this variance was the dividend income reported by PSEC during the quarter. Let us now discuss PSEC’s valuation accounts.

PSEC’s Valuation Accounts:

Continuing to move down Table 1, I projected PSEC would report a “gain (loss) on the extinguishment of debt” of ($0.8) million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC reported a loss on the extinguishment of debt of ($0.5) million. Due to this immaterial variance (less unamortized fees being “trued-up” upon realization), further discussion of this account is deemed unwarranted.

I believe PSEC’s entire investment portfolio, from a valuation perspective, performed “in-line” with my expectations during the company’s fiscal third quarter of 2018 which ultimately led to the company reporting EPS of $0.143 when compared to my projection of $0.120. This directly led to PSEC reporting a NAV as of 3/31/2018 of $9.227 per share versus my projection of $9.203 per share. Most of this minor variance was already accounted for within PSEC’s NII amount.

I projected PSEC would report a combined net realized loss and unrealized depreciation of ($20.0) million during the company’s fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC reported a combined net realized loss and unrealized depreciation of ($18.1) million. When calculated, I believe this $1.9 million variance was basically an “exact match” due to the sheer size of PSEC’s investment portfolio as of 3/31/2018 ($5.72 billion).

I correctly projected PSEC’s CLO portfolio would continue to experience a net decrease in valuation and some of the company’s control investments would directly/indirectly benefit from the recent passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”). Still, let us take a deeper look at these areas of PSEC’s investment portfolio.

1) PSEC’s CLO Portfolio:

As stated in my PSEC NII and NAV projection article (link provided above), I correctly anticipated a majority of the company’s CLO investments (especially older/legacy securitizations) would continue to experience a decrease in current yields/projected future discounted cash flows, hence negatively impacting valuations. However, contrary to recent trends over the prior two years, some of PSEC’s CLO investments actually experienced a net increase in current yields during the company’s fiscal third quarter of 2018. This was particularly true within most of PSEC’s CLO investments that recently experienced refinancings/resets/re-issues.

When analyzing PSEC’s CLO portfolio, market participants need to consider there was a continued “flattening” of the forward U.S. London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) curve during the calendar first quarter of 2018. This factor partially offset broader CLO price stability-minor increases during the quarter. On the liability side of the equation per se, due to the fact most of a CLO’s liabilities are “floating-rate” in nature (which are directly tied to current/spot U.S. LIBOR), including the fact that most investments currently have cash LIBOR floors of say 1% (typically higher floors with more vintage securitizations), an increase in current/spot U.S. LIBOR up to a certain percentage actually negatively impacts current and projected near-term discounted cash flows. However, during the calendar second quarter of 2017, most cash LIBOR floors were surpassed which partially helped mitigate the severity of decreases in cash flows stemmed from continued yield/spread compression (discussed next).

On the asset side of the equation, continued spread/yield compression has negatively impacted overall investment returns within theses securitizations. This is mainly due to prepayments/refinancing of higher-yielding debt investments which are being replaced by lower-yielding debt investments (or not replaced at all in the recent/current environment). Due to the fact all of PSEC’s current CLO investments are within the equity tranche (residual interests/subordinated notes) of these securitizations, the recent spread/yield compression has negatively impacted overall yields within this portfolio to a greater degree.

PSEC’s CLO residual interests/subordinated notes are in the “lowest tranche/bottom basket” when it comes to income distributions. If there is a noticeable uptick in underperforming/non-performing loans (defaults) and/or a material decrease in the weighted average interest rate associated with the underlying loans that make up a particular securitization (which has recently been occurring), the residual interest (equity) tranche of a CLO bears first risk loss of this income. This methodology is known as a CLO’s “waterfall” calculation which I have discussed at length in prior PSEC articles. This is why this particular tranche of the CLO can have highly attractive yields under certain positive environments/life cycles (say north of 25%) yet also have very poor yields under certain negative environments/life cycles (say single digit or even no yield).

This all gets back to an investment’s “risk versus reward” metric. Within a CLO’s residual interest/equity tranche, there is heightened risk for poor investment returns but also a heightened reward if the securitization is performing above expectations. One also needs to consider a securitization’s lifecycle when understanding/projecting interest income and valuation fluctuations. Furthermore, other-than-temporary impairments (“OTTI”) that recently occurred within several CLO investments are good examples of what could occur within equity tranches of certain older/legacy securitizations.

I projected PSEC’s CLO portfolio would record net unrealized depreciation of ($30) million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC recorded net unrealized depreciation of ($25) million. Due to the size of PSEC’s CLO portfolio (FMV of $945 million as of 3/31/2018), I believe a $5 million variance is a minor outperformance. As discussed earlier, PSEC had increased the company’s investment in six CLO securitizations during the fiscal third quarter of 2018. PSEC’s actual valuation fluctuations within these securitizations were generally more favorable versus my projection.

Analyzing a CLO portfolio is a methodology that constantly needs to be “tweaked”. As is the case with all my mortgage real estate investment trust (mREIT) and business development company (“BDC”) research, I continuously evaluate all applicable factors/variables that go into a modeled projection. In this instance, this includes a non-simulated future discounted cash flow projection, various modeled forecasts through a privately accessed intranet valuation software (includes “Monte Carlo” modeling), and comparable research tools/models from outside resources (including Intex).

I continue to stress to readers valuing a CLO portfolio is not an “exact science”. This is dealing with various imputed factors/variables and providing certain “judgments”. That is why these types of investments are classified as level 3 assets per Accounting Standards Codification 820 (ASC 820) which I have continued to reiterate since I began covering PSEC over five years ago. In the end, if a company were to engage three independent valuation firms, I believe each firm will likely derive three different valuation ranges for a particular portfolio (though a partial overlap of these three ranges would likely occur). Currently, that’s just the “grim reality” that investors/market participants have to deal with regarding these types of more illiquid investments/securitizations. Let us now move on to the next area of PSEC’s investment portfolio.

2) PSEC’s Control Investments:

Finally, there were several modest-notable FMV fluctuations when it came to PSEC’s control investments. This includes taking into consideration the macroeconomic impacts from passage of the TCJA. I would like to “hone in” on the following two control investments: 1) First Tower Finance Company LLC (First Tower); and 2) Freedom Marine Solutions, LLC (Freedom Marine).

When it comes to First Tower, I projected PSEC would record net unrealized appreciation of $8 million for the fiscal third quarter of 2018. In comparison, PSEC recorded net unrealized appreciation of $14 million. When calculated, this was a variance of $6 million which I believe should be considered a minor-modest outperformance from a valuation perspective. While I certainly agree First Tower should directly benefit was passage of the TCJA (and a more “robust” economy as a direct result of tax reform), I believe PSEC’s valuation adjustment during the fiscal third quarter of 2018 was “bullish”. I made a similar comment about First Tower last quarter. The following quote from PSEC’s 10-Q for the fiscal third quarter of 2018 was provided by management as the main reasons for the net unrealized appreciation:

“…The increase in fair value was driven by First Tower’s acquisition of Harrison Finance, a consumer finance company, as well as increases in trading multiples of comparable companies…”

While an increase in trading multiples of comparable companies is certainly “one” measure to consider when determining an appropriate valuation of a company, I would first like to see improved operational performance by First Tower itself prior to the continued increase in valuation. Remember, last quarter, PSEC increased First Tower’s valuation by $33 million. Looking ahead, I am currently anticipating a decrease in the valuation growth of First Tower over the foreseeable future (this assumes no additional acquisitions occur). However, I was pleased that 100% of First Tower’s recorded payment-in-kind (“PIK”) income was received in cash during the quarter (as opposed to being capitalized/deferred).

Regarding Freedom Marine, this portfolio company owns/operates/manages transport and support vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. Due to the fact crude oil prices have recently quickly increased, most companies within the oil and gas/energy sector have been reporting lower operating losses/enhanced profitability over the past several quarters. Even though some oil and gas/energy companies have not increased capital expenditures by the same proportion of recent revenue/profitability growth, I would assume recent price increases would eventually lead to increased productivity across this generalized sector (including Freedom Marine’s “niche” space).

As such, I believe it was disappointing to read PSEC recorded certain asset impairments within Freedom Marine during the company’s fiscal third quarter of 2018 which ultimately led to net unrealized depreciation of ($13) million being recorded. In comparison, I anticipated a very minor quarterly valuation fluctuation (less than $1 million) within this portfolio company. This should be viewed as a “cautionary”/negative trend though I am anticipating this weakness is isolated to this specific portfolio company.

When analyzing PSEC’s entire investment portfolio, I had the following (undervaluations) overvaluations when compared to the company’s reported FMV fluctuations during the fiscal third quarter of 2018: 1) CLO portfolio by ($5) million; 2) First Tower by ($6) million; 3) Freedom Marine by $13 million; and 4) the remainder of the company’s investment portfolio by ($4) million. Again, when analyzing PSEC’s valuation fluctuations across the company’s entire investment portfolio, I believe the company matched my expectations. However, as noted above, there were a couple portfolio companies that underperformed/outperformed my expectations.

Conclusions Drawn:

Readers have continued to request that I provide these types of “update/follow-up” articles showing how my quarterly projections “stacked-up” to PSEC’s actual results. I believe the analysis above accomplishes this request. Since a company’s operating performance (quarterly earnings) is one of the key drivers to stock price valuations, I believe these types of projection/assessment articles are appreciated by most readers (owners and non-owners of PSEC alike). In addition, this article provides my overall (and in my opinion non-bias) thoughts on the quarter which I believe most readers see as beneficial when assessing certain investing strategies.

From the analysis provided above, I believe it was determined PSEC’s NII, earnings, and NAV per share figures were a very minor-minor outperformance when compared to my expectations. PSEC’s NII was a minor outperformance while the company’s valuation fluctuations within its investment portfolio, as a whole, matched my expectations.

For readers curious about PSEC’s dividend sustainability (after the notable reduction back in September 2017), please see the following article as to why I correctly projected the company would maintain its dividend per share rate for May-August 2018 (contrary to some other viewpoints):

Prospect Capital's Dividend And NAV Sustainability Analysis - Part 2 (Including May-August 2018 Dividend Projection)

My next PSEC dividend sustainability article will be available to readers prior to the company’s next set of dividend declarations (prior to August 2018). This future article will include my PSEC estimated quarterly net investment company taxable income (“ICTI”) and cumulative undistributed taxable income (“UTI”) balances.

My BUY, SELL, or HOLD Recommendation:

In my opinion, the following positive factors/catalysts should be highlighted for existing and potential PSEC shareholders: 1) continued relative price stability within the high yield debt market (positively impacts valuations where credit risk remains low; even with broader market volatility in January-February 2018); 2) quarterly economic returns being generated in most quarters; 3) recent refinancing/resets/re-issues of some CLO investments (positively impacts projected future discounted cash flows); 4) continued strong cumulative performance regarding several control investments (including positive impacts from recent passage of the TCJA); 5) continued modest exposure to the oil and gas sector when compared to the BDC peers I currently cover (positive since prices have reversed course and moved notably higher in recent months [Freedom Marine aside]); 6) continued extremely low exposure to the retail sector (only exposure within CLO investments [some parts of retail sector negatively impacted by continued change in consumer behavior/trends]); 7) continued high percentage of floating-rate debt investments (88% as of 3/31/2018); 8) continued extremely high percentage of fixed-rate liabilities (96% as of 3/31/2018); 9) recently called/soon-to-be maturing higher-cost debt; 10) insiders have not sold any shares of the company since I began covering this stock (since 2013); 11) recent improved operations within several once struggling investments (Spartan Energy Services, Inc. and Venio LLC were taken off non-accrual status during the fiscal second quarter of 2018); 12) $0.06 per share monthly dividend has a high probability of being maintained over the foreseeable future; and 13) fairly recent insider purchases by several members of the executive management team (especially John Barry).

However, the following cautionary/negative factors should cause heightened awareness for existing and potential PSEC shareholders: 1) continued suppressed dividend and structuring/fee income (excluding any one-time fees associated with certain sales [will continue to monitor NPRC’s distributions and remove this factor if dividend income continues]); 2) recent elevated amount of loan prepayments due to refinancing with other market participants or impacts with current corporate interest deductibility (including negotiated lower stated interest rates with existing portfolio companies - negatively impacts NII); 3) continued modest-material depreciation within several control/non-control investments and increase in non-accruals during 2016-2017; 4) “non-amendment” of the company’s Investment Advisory Agreement with Prospect Capital Management L.P. (regarding the “2%/20%” fee structure) or any type of waived base management fees; 5) above average weighted average cash U.S. LIBOR floor and cost of funds rate when compared to sector peers (though higher floor less of an issue as short-term rates/yields continue to net increase); 6) continued low cumulative UTI to help offset any future quarterly net ICTI overpayments (continue to project the company’s net ICTI will be more stable during tax year 2018 though); 7) recent notable net decrease in current GAAP yield within some of the company’s CLO investments (mainly due to maturing/aging securitizations and spread/yield compression; negatively impacts both accrued interest income and valuations); 8) continued lack of “notable” utilization of the company’s lower-cost $885 million revolving credit facility (negatively impacts interest expense); 9) lack of recent share repurchases initiated by the company itself (excludes insiders; would continue to be accretive to NAV); and 10) recent increase in the number of shares issued in relation to the dividend reinvestment plan (currently has a dilutive impact to NAV).

PSEC recently closed at $6.62 per share as of 5/11/2018. This was a ($2.61) per share discount to PSEC’s NAV as of 3/31/2018 of $9.23 per share. This calculates to a price to NAV ratio of 0.7174 or a discount of (28.26%).

With the analysis above as support, I currently rate PSEC as a SELL when the company’s stock price is trading at less than a (15.0%) discount to its NAV as of 3/31/2018, a HOLD when trading at or greater than a (15.0%) but less than a (25.0%) discount to its NAV as of 3/31/2018, and a BUY when trading at or greater than a (25.0%) discount to its NAV as of 3/31/2018. These recommendation ranges are unchanged when compared to my last PSEC article (approximately three weeks ago).

As such, I currently rate PSEC as a BUY (however, fairly close to my HOLD range). My current price target for PSEC is approximately $7.85 per share. This is currently the price where my recommendation would change to a SELL. This price target is a $0.05 per share increase when compared to my last PSEC article. The current price where my recommendation would change to a HOLD is $6.90 per share. This price is unchanged when compared to my last PSEC article.

Simply put, I believe PSEC’s current valuation could be an attractive entry point for some valued-orientated investors with a higher risk tolerance. To remain non-bias, more cautious investors should likely look elsewhere for a potential equity investment.

Final Note: Each investor's BUY, SELL, or HOLD decision is based on one's risk tolerance, time horizon, and dividend income goals. My personal recommendation will not fit each reader’s current investing strategy. The factual information provided within this article is intended to help assist readers when it comes to investing strategies/decisions.

Current BDC Sector Stock Disclosures:

On 8/27/2015, I initiated a position in PSEC at a weighted average purchase price of $7.325 per share. On 2/8/2016, I increased my position in PSEC at a weighted average price of $5.445 per share. My second purchase was approximately double the monetary amount of my initial purchase. When combined, my PSEC position had a weighted average purchase price of $6.072 per share. This weighted average per share price excluded all dividends received/reinvested. On 3/2/2016, I sold my entire PSEC position at a weighted average sales price of $7.495 per share as my price target, at the time, of $7.50 was met that day. Each PSEC trade was disclosed to readers in real time (that day) via the StockTalks feature of Seeking Alpha.

On 9/6/2017, I re-entered a position in PSEC at a weighted average purchase price of $6.765 per share. On 10/16/2017 and 11/6/2017, I increased my position in PSEC at a weighted average purchase price of $6.285 and $5.66 per share, respectively. When combined, my PSEC position has a weighted average purchase price of $6.077 per share. This weighted average per share price excludes all dividends received/reinvested. Each PSEC trade was disclosed to readers in real time (that day) via the StockTalks feature of Seeking Alpha.

On 2/2/2018, I initiated a position in Main Street Capital Corp. (MAIN) at a weighted average purchase price of $37.425 per share. On 2/5/2018, I increased my position in MAIN at a weighted average purchase price of $35.345 per share. My second purchase was approximately triple the monetary amount of my initial purchase. On 3/1/2018, I increased my position in MAIN at a weighted average purchase price of $35.365 per share. When combined, my MAIN position has a weighted average purchase price of $35.729 per share. This weighted average per share price excludes all dividends received/reinvested. Each MAIN trade was disclosed to readers in real time (that day) via the StockTalks feature of Seeking Alpha.

All trades/investments I have performed over the past several years have been disclosed to readers in real time (that day at the latest) via the StockTalks feature of Seeking Alpha (which cannot be changed/altered). Through this resource, readers can look up all my prior disclosures (buys/sells) regarding all companies I cover here at Seeking Alpha (see my profile page for a list of all stocks covered). I encourage other Seeking Alpha contributors to provide real time buy and sell updates for their readers which would ultimately lead to greater transparency/credibility.

Disclosure: I am/we are long PSEC, MAIN.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.



from Seeking Alpha Editors' Picks stocks https://ift.tt/2a97jA2
via IFTTT

How Bill Clinton Stopped White House Leaks

https://ift.tt/2ImEoNz

All happy families are alike, Tolstoy could have said, but all unhappy families are aleak.

This is the challenge for the Trump administration this week, as it faces the latest series of embarrassing disclosures from within. First, someone revealed to reporters that press aide Kelly Sadler had dismissed Senator John McCain’s opposition to CIA Director-select Gina Haspel, saying, “It doesn’t matter, he’s dying anyway.”

The comment was breathtakingly callous, even as a dark joke, and someone saw fit to tell reporters, either because they were out to get Sadler, or because they were appalled, or for some other reason. The specifics don’t matter a great deal: The point is that someone disclosed this remark from an internal meeting.

And leaks tend to beget more leaks. According to Axios, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called a meeting to scold staffers for telling reporters, but she added, “I am sure this conversation is going to leak, too. And that’s just disgusting.” She was right: It did. Another press staffer, Mercedes Schlapp, decided to make leak lemonade with leak lemons, saying, “You can put this on the record … I stand with Kelly Sadler.” Needless to say, someone took her invitation and put this on the record.

On Monday, the president weighed in with an angry tweet-cum-ontological brainteaser:

Setting aside the by-now-commonplace, though no less dangerous, sloppy use of “treason” to denote anything the president doesn’t like, it is a mystery how leaks can be fake and yet also so dangerous.

The answer, of course, is that they are real, but Trump’s threat to find the leaker feels distinctively less real. The president, and his aides, have been threatening or promising to flush out leakers since the presidential campaign. The White House has banned cellphones. As part of unprecedented turnover, a series of staffers suspected of being press sources (most prominently Steve Bannon) has departed. There’s been tough rhetoric, too. While nothing has matched the deluge of news dumps of the first few months, embarrassing leaks from inside the West Wing have remained frequent.

On Monday, The Daily Beast even reported that Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a controversial former National Security Council staffer, considered ways to surveil his colleagues in order to fight leaks, though the report did not determine whether he had done so. Ironically, Cohen-Watnick was reportedly leaking information to Representative Devin Nunes. Cohen-Watnick is now working at the Justice Department.

Axios’s Jonathan Swan even convinced some of his sources—leakers, if you will—to explain why they leak. He got a variety of explanations: personal vendettas; an attempt to gain an advantage in internal policy debates; the sense that if you don’t leak first, someone will leak about you. One reason in particular is especially jarring, because it indicates how negatively White House staffers view the administration: “to make sure there’s an accurate record of what’s really going on in the White House.” (It’s useful to differentiate between leaks, the unauthorized disclosures made by staffers for various reasons, and “leaks,” when the administration intentionally pushes information out to reporters.)

The leaking problem in the Trump White House is perhaps unprecedented in scale, but not in type. Every administration leaks, especially at times of tension. The Obama administration aggressively targeted leakers, though mostly in executive-branch jobs outside the White House. So, at times, did the George W. Bush White House. In October 2003, Bush demanded that leaks stop. “News of Bush’s order leaked almost immediately,” The Philadelphia Inquirer deadpanned, echoing Sanders’s suspicion that her scolding would seep out.

Yet as I have written before, the history of the Bill Clinton White House is the most useful analogue for understanding the Trump administration. The early stretches of Clinton’s presidency were tumultuous, though not as tumultuous as Trump’s, as an impulsive new president oversaw a fractious and disorganized staff. Leaks were a particular problem for many of the same reasons that they are for Trump. Just like Trump, Clinton was driven to distraction and anger; just like Trump, he sometimes offered perverse incentives to leakers anyway.

“He’d come in and he’d see something in the paper and he’d be furious about it,” Marcia Hale, an assistant to the president, recalled for an oral history of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “He’d be furious about it but at the same time, he and other people—if you were quoted in the press all the time or if you were presumed to be influencing the press, it gave you clout and you got paid more attention to inside the White House.”

The Hillary Clinton-led task force on health-care reform was especially prone to disclosures. “Everything got leaked,” Alan Blinder, then an economic adviser, told the Miller Center. “So much so that it was as if Robert Pear, who was covering it for The New York Times, was sitting in these meetings. That had a very negative effect on the process.”

The Clinton team tried a variety of methods to stop leaks, including shrinking meetings (probably a good idea—the West Wing was overrun by too many staffers with too vague duties and too little structure, some veterans contend) and by trying to make meetings paperless so documents wouldn’t leak (with predictably paralyzing effects when dealing with complicated issues).

President Clinton also tried to launch investigations to smoke out who was leaking. (He apparently suspected George Stephanopoulos.) When Leon Panetta was appointed chief of staff in the summer of 1994—at roughly the same point in Clinton’s first term as the current moment in Trump’s—one of the first tasks that Clinton assigned him was to catch the leaker.

“I kept telling him, ‘Look, if we take our time and resources trying to figure out who the hell was leaking what, A, we’ll never really determine what happened, and B, it will divert us from the primary mission,” Panetta told me last year.

Panetta argued that trying to hunt for leakers was like trying to treat symptoms while ignoring the disease itself.

“The key for me I think was ultimately if I could build that sense of team within the White House, where people felt like they were part of a team and were loyal to that team, then the problem of leaks began to heal itself,” he said.

The effort seems to have worked. The White House continued to leak at times, as all do, but increased comity within the team helped Clinton win reelection and then weather impeachment during his second term.

On Tuesday, Meghan McCain, the View co-host and daughter of the senator, zeroed in on the lack of shared purpose among Trump staffers. “It’s always a sign of a bad campaign or a bad candidate or a bad politician when you have rampant leaking problems, because it shows that you don’t have loyalty to the principal or the message,” she said.

Creating a sense of cohesion in the Trump White House would be an even taller order than it was in the Clinton White House. Start with the president himself. Throughout his career in business, Trump was a frequent anonymous source for stories, sometimes about himself; at other times he infamously used pseudonyms. It is possible that Trump has totally changed his behavior since taking office, though if so it might be the only behavior he has radically altered. “Sometimes the person yelling the most about leakers is doing the leaking,” the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted Monday. Even if Trump isn’t intentionally leaking, his feelings often enter the press because of indiscreet conversations with friends outside the White House who convey them to reporters.

The Trump White House is distinctive for the degree to which the communications office leaks about the communications office, too—internecine feuds among spokespeople erupt into battles of leaks, which is peculiar. In one leak this week, Politico even reported that communications staffers don’t have confidence in Chief of Staff John Kelly’s ability to do interviews. (Panetta has long known Kelly and advised him early on in his tenure, but has more recently expressed misgivings about his work.)

Most importantly, however, the president seems uninterested in solving any of the conflicts that divide his staff and lead to leaks. He is content to allow policy battles to fester, repeatedly surprising his own aides with his decisions, or rendering them in ways certain to produce greater conflict. He refuses to fire staffers, even when angry with them; once they are gone, they often resurface to advise him informally. He is said to enjoy conflict, and he seems to be feeling more confident in his office, even as chaos swirls around him, giving him even less incentive to solve the problems.

As long as he is fostering an atmosphere conducive to leaking, however, no number of investigations will solve the dysfunction that plagues his unhappy White House family.



from Politics : The Atlantic https://ift.tt/2eqp6Ue
via IFTTT

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman says ‘coal is not coming back’

https://ift.tt/2Gl2L86

In an exclusive interview, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman explained to ThinkProgress why “coal is not coming back,” despite President Trump’s promises to the contrary. Krugman described Trump’s efforts to “desperately force clean energy to subsidize dirty energy” as “bad economic policy.”

The vast majority of the jobs were lost to technology, Krugman explained in an interview with ThinkProgress, which followed his remarks Tuesday morning at the 2018 Ideas Conference of the Center for American Progress. (Disclosure: ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed at the Center for American Progress where Romm has been a Senior Fellow for the past decade.)

“Coal consumption was flat until about 10 years ago,” Krugman notes, “But coal jobs, most of them disappeared anyway because of instead of sending men with picks underground, we were blowing the tops off mountains. It was mostly technology.”

Starting around 1980, rapid productivity gains driven by technology slashed U.S. coal mine jobs by two thirds. Strangely, we never hear about Ronald Reagan’s war on coal.

Changes in technology and hence productivity were the primary source of job lost in the coal industry since 1980s. CREDIT: Third Way

In the past decade, fracking hit coal hard, Krugman said, “and now finally clean energy has come along.”

“Solar and wind basically out-compete coal-fired power now even without any public policy to make them do that,” he added. “There are way more people now who are employed in solar than there are in coal.”

“So, coal is not coming back,” he said. “The question should be what can we do for what used to be coal country — not what can we do to bring coal jobs back, because that’s about as practical as bringing back the buggy whip industry.”

The Trump team, however, is focused on the buggy whips, as Energy Secretary Rick Perry comes up with one dubious subsidy plan after another.

Meanwhile, more coal capacity was retired in the first 45 days of 2018 than in any of the first three years of the Obama administration. And top energy-industry analysts project a much faster pace of coal plant retirements in the coming years than they did just a year ago. As one analyst explained last week, “the economics of coal have gotten worse” under Trump.

Under Trump, coal’s rate of collapse to be ‘more than twice’ what analysts previously projected

'The economics of coal have gotten worse' under Trump

“At this point, we flipped completely from trying to make arguments for subsidizing clean energy to a situation where the Trump administration and its friends are trying to desperately force clean energy to subsidize dirty energy,” notes Krugman. “And so even if you ignore the environmental impacts, that’s a bad economic policy.”

But, as Krugman points out, you can’t ignore the environmental impacts. “Clean energy is the future. And climate change is real, which means that there is a reason to bring on that future as quickly as possible.”

A rapid switch to clean energy is “not just a jobs issue,” he said, “because the fate of the planet is also on the line.”




from Yglesias https://ift.tt/2aOiKwJ
via IFTTT

Give Your Bed An Upgrade With These Discounted Marriott Mattress Pads

https://ift.tt/2IkCFE7

ExceptionalSheets Mattress Pad | $102 - $136 | Amazon | Clip the $10 coupon

If your mattress isn’t leaving you feeling as well-rested as you’d like it to, buying a new mattress pad can breathe new life into your bed and is a whole lot cheaper than buying a whole new mattress, especially today.

These double-thick mattress toppers from ExceptionalSheets are hypoallergenic and are sold in sizes ranging from twin XL to California king, and everything in between. Fun fact: They’re the same toppers that Marriott hotels use on their beds.

Advertisement

These mattress pads are part of Amazon’s one-day-only Gold Box deals, and they have a $10 coupon you can clip on top of the already-discounted prices.




from Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

Enter the Matrix – A technical overview and guide to all things Matrix

https://ift.tt/2IAJTY9

Enter the Matrix

Sun, May 13, 2018

As you might know if you’ve been following me on Twitter for some time (or if you know me in real life), I’m very fond of free software and decentralisation. I love free software because it maches the philosophy I want to live by, and decentralisation because it enlarges a user’s freedom and individuality, and I find working on decentralised systems fascinating. Doing so forces one to change their way of designing a system entirely, since most of the Internet now consists of centralised services, which leads people to only learn how to design and engineer these.

Today I want to tell you about one of my favorite decentralised free software projects right now: Matrix. Let’s get things straight first, I’m talking about neither the science-fiction franchise, nor the nightclub in Berlin. Matrix is a protocol for decentralised, federated and secure communications, created and maintained by New Vector, a company split between London, UK and Rennes, France (which I joined for an internship in London during the last summer). It’s based on RESTful HTTP/JSON APIs, documented in open specifications, and is designed to be usable for anything that requires real-time-ish communications, from instant messaging to IoT. Some people are also experimenting with using Matrix for blogs, RSS reader, and other stuff that’s quite far from what you’d expect to see with such a project. Despite that, however, it’s currently mainly used for instant messaging, especially through the Riot client (which is also developed by New Vector).

Matrix also distances itself from the “yet another comms thing” argument with its philosophy: it’s not another standard for communications, but one that aims at binding all communications services together, using bridges, integration et al. For example, at CozyCloud, we have a Matrix room that’s bridged to our public IRC channel, meaning that every message sent to the Matrix room will get in the IRC channel as well, and vice-versa. I’m even fiddling around in my free time to bridge this room with a channel on our Mattermost instance, to create a Mattermost<->Matrix<->IRC situation and allow the community to interact with the team without members from the latter having to lose time firing up another chat client and looking at it in addition to internal communications.

There’s also been quite some noise around Matrix lately with the French government announcing its decision to go full Matrix for their internal communications, using a fork of Riot they might also release as free software to the wide world in the future.

Under the hood

It’s great to introduce the topic, but I guess you were expecting more of a technical and practical post, so let’s get into how Matrix works. Quick disclaimer, though: I won’t go too much in depth here on how Matrix works (because if I do, the post would be quite too long and I’d never get time to even finish it in a week), and will mainly focus on its core principles and how to use it in the most basic way.

As I mentioned before, Matrix is decentralised and federated. The decentralised bit means that you can run a Matrix server on your own server (quite like other services such as Mattermost), and the federated one means that two Matrix servers will be able to talk to one another. This means that, if someone (let’s call her Alice) hosts her own Matrix server at matrix.alice.tld, and want to talk to a friend of her (let’s call him Bob), who also hosts his own Matrix server at matrix.bob.tld, that’s possible and matrix.alice.tld will know how to talk to matrix.bob.tld to forward Alice’s message to Bob.

Glossary break:

  • There are a few server types in the Matrix specifications. The homeservers (HS) are the servers that implement the client-server and federation APIs, i.e. the ones that allows actual messages to be sent from Alice to Bob. In my example, in which I was referring to homeservers as “Matrix servers”, matrix.alice.tld and matrix.bob.tld are homeservers. Among the other server types are the identity servers (IS) that allows one to host third-party identifiers (such as an email address or a phone number) so people can reach them using one of them, and application services (AS) which are mainly used to bridge an existing system to Matrix (but are not limited to that). In this post, I’m only going to cover the basic use of homeservers, since knowledge about the other types isn’t required to understand the bases of how Matrix works.
  • In the Matrix spec, both Alice and Bob are identified by a Matrix ID, which takes the form @localpart:homeserver. In our example, their Matrix IDs could respectively be @Alice:matrix.alice.tld and @Bob:matrix.bob.tld. Matrix IDs’ form actually follows a broader one, taken by any Matrix entity, which is *localpart:homeserver, where * is a “sigil” character which is used to identity the identity’s type. Here, the sigil character @ states that the entity is a Matrix ID.

Three roomies on three servers

Now that we have our two users talking with each other, let’s take a look at how third user (let’s call him Charlie), also hosting his own homeserver (at matrix.charlie.tld), can chat with both of them. This is done using a room, which can be defined as the Matrix equivalent of an IRC channel. As any entity in Matrix, the room has an ID which takes the general form with the ! sigil character. However, although it contains a homerserver’s name in its ID, and unlike a user ID, a room isn’t bound to any homeserver. Actually, the homeserver in the room ID is the homeserver hosting the user that created the room.

Technically speaking, if Alice wants to send a message in the room where both Bob and Charlie are, she’ll ask her homeserver to send a message in that room, which will look into its local database which homeservers are also part of that room (in our example, Bob’s and Charlie’s), and will send the message to each of them individually (and each of them will display the message to their users in the room, i.e. Bob’s server will display it to Bob). Then, each homeserver will keep track of the message in their local database. This means two things:

  • Every homeserver in a room keeps a content of the room’s history.
  • If a homeserver in a room goes down for any reason, even if it’s the homeserver which has its name in the room’s ID, all of the other homeservers in the room can keep on talking with each other.

Broadly speaking, a room can be schematised as follows:

This image is a capture of the interactive explanation on how Matrix works named “How does it work?” on Matrix’s homepage, which I’d really recommand checking out. That’s why the Matrix IDs and homeservers’ names aren’t the same as in my example.

For what it’s worth, I took a shortcut earlier since, in the Matrix spec, 1-to-1 chats are also rooms. So technically speaking, Alice and Bob were already in a room before Charlie wanted to chat with them.

It might also be worth noting that a room can have an unlimited number of aliases, acting as addresses for the room, which users can use to join it if it’s public. Their syntax takes the general form we saw earlier, using # as the sigil character. This way, !wbtZVAjTSFQzROqLrx:matrix.org becomes #cozy:matrix.org, which, let’s be honest, is quite easier to read and remember. As with a room’s ID, its homeserver part is the homeserver hosting the user who created the alias, which means that I can create #cozycloud:matrix.trancendances.fr if I have enough power level, as I’m using this homeserver.

As I quickly hinted at, a room can be either public or private. Public rooms can be joined by anyone knowing one of the room’s alias (or getting it from the homeserver’s public rooms directory if it’s published there), and private rooms work on an invite-only basis. In both cases, if the homeserver doesn’t already have a user in the room, it will ask another homeserver to make the join happen (either the homeserver alias which name is in the homeserver part of the alias for a public room, or the homeserver the invite is originating from for a private room).

Events, events everywhere

Now that we know what a room is, let’s talk about what’s passing inside of one. Earlier, I’ve been talking about messages, which are actually called “events”. Technically speaking, a Matrix event is a JSON object that’s sent in a room and dispatched to all other members of the room. It, of course, has an ID that’s generated by the homeserver hosting the user who sent the message, taking the general form we saw earlier and the $ sigil character. This JSON has metadata, such as a class name to identify different event types, an author, a creation timestamp, etc. It basically looks like this:

{
  "origin_server_ts": 1526072700313,
  "sender": "@Alice:matrix.alice.tld",
  "event_id": "$1526072700393WQoZb:matrix.alice.tld",
  "unsigned": {
    "age": 97,
    "transaction_id": "m1526072700255.17"
  },
  "content": {
    "body": "Hello Bob and Charlie! Welcome to my room :-)",
    "msgtype": "m.text"
  },
  "type": "m.room.message",
  "room_id": "!TCnDZIwFBeQyBCciFD:matrix.alice.tld"
}

The example above is an event sent from Alice to Bob and Charlie in the room they’re all in. It’s a message, as hinted at by the m.room.message class name in the type property. The content property, which must be an object, contains the event’s actual content. In this case, we can see the message is text, and the text itself. This precision is needed because m.room.message can be a text, but also an image, a video, a notice, etc. as mentioned in the spec.

The unsigned property here only means the data in it mustn’t be taken into account when computing and verifying the cryptographic signature used by homeserver to pass the event to another homeserver.

The Matrix spec defines three kind of events that can pass through a room:

  • Timeline events, such as messages, which form the room’s timeline that’s shared between all homeservers in the room.
  • State events, that contain an additional state_key property, and form the current state of the room. They can describe room creation (m.room.create), topic edition (m.room.topic), join rules (i.e. either invite-only or public, m.room.join_rules), membership update (i.e. join, leave, invite or ban, m.room.member with the Matrix ID of the user whose membership is being updated as the state_key). Just like timeline events, they’re part of the room’s timeline, but unlike them, the latest event for a {type, state_key} duo is easily retrievable, as well as the room’s current state of the room, which is actually a JSON array contaning the latest events for all {type, state_key} duos. The Matrix APIs also allows one to easily retrieve the full state the room was at when a given timeline message was propagated through the room, and each state event refers to its parent.
  • Euphemeral events, which aren’t included in the room’s timeline, and are used to propagate information that doesn’t last in time, such as typing notification (”[…] is typing…“).

Now, one of the things I really like about Matrix is that, besides the base event structure, you can technically put whatever you want into an event. There’s no constraint on its class name (except it can’t start with m., which is a namespace reserved for events defined in the spec), nor on its content, so you’re free to create your own events as you see fit, whether they are timeline events, state events or both (I’m not sure about euphemeral events, though). That’s how you can create whole systems using only Matrix as the backend.

Matrix events can also be redacted. This is the equivalent of a deletion, except the event isn’t actually deleted but stripped from its content so it doesn’t mess with the room’s timeline. The redacted event is then dispatched to every homeserver in the room so they can redact their local copy of the event as well. Regarding editing an event’s content, it’s not possible yet, but it’s a highly requested feature and should be available in the not so distant future.

A very basic client

Now I guess you’re wondering how you can use Matrix for your project, because learning the core principles is great but that doesn’t explain how to use the whole thing.

In the following steps, I’ll assume a few things:

  • The homeserver you’re working with is matrix.project.tld, and its client-server API is available on port 443 through HTTPS.
  • Your user is named Alice. Note that you must change this value for real life tests, because the Matrix ID @Alice:matrix.org is already taken.
  • Your user’s password is 1L0v3M4tr!x.

Note that I’ll only cover some basic use of the client-server spec. If you want to go further, you should have a look at the full spec or ask any question in the #matrix-dev room. I also won’t cover homeserver setup, here (though I might do just that in a future post). My goal here is mainly to give you a look at how the client-server APIs globally works rather tha creating a whole shiny app which would take too long for a single blog post.

It might also be worth noting that each Matrix API endpoint I’ll name in the rest of this post is a clickable link to the related section of the Matrix spec, which you can follow if you want more complete documentation on a specific endpoint.

Registering

Of course, your user doesn’t exist yet, so let’s register it against the homeserver.

The endpoint for registration is /_matrix/client/r0/register, which you should request using a POST HTTP request. In our example, the request’s full URL is https://matrix.project.tld/_matrix/client/r0/register.

Note that every endpoint in the Matrix spec always starts with /_matrix/.

The request body is a JSON which takes the following form:

{
  "username": "Alice",
  "password": "1L0v3M4tr!x",
}

Here, the username and password properties are exactly what you think it is. The Matrix ID generated for a new user contains what’s provided in the username property as the localpart.

Fire this request. You’ll now get a 401 status code along with some JSON, which looks like this:

{
    "flows": [
        {
            "stages": [
                "m.login.dummy"
            ]
        },
        {
            "stages": [
                "m.login.email.identity"
            ]
        }
    ],
    "params": {},
    "session": "HrvSksPaKpglatvIqJHVEfkd"
}

Now, this enpoint uses a part of the spec called the User-Interactive Authentication API. This means that authentication can be seen as flows of consecutive stages. That’s exactly what we have here: two flows, each containing one stage. This example is a very simple one, but it can get quite more complex, such as:

{
    "flows": [
        {
            "stages": [
                "m.login.recaptcha"
            ]
        },
        {
            "stages": [
                "m.login.email.identity",
                "m.login.recaptcha"
            ]
        }
    ],
    "params": {
        "m.login.recaptcha": {
            "public_key": "6Le31_kSAAAAAK-54VKccKamtr-MFA_3WS1d_fGV"
        }
    },
    "session": "qxATPqBPdTsaMBmOPkxZngXR"
}

Here we can see two flows, one with a single stage, the other one with two stages. Note that there’s also a parameter in the params object, to be used with the m.login.recaptcha flow.

Because I want to keep it as simple as possible here, let’s get back at our initial simple example, and use the first one-stage flow. The only stage in there is m.login.dummy, which describes a stage that will success everytime you send it a correct JSON object.

To register against this stage, we’ll only add a few lines to our initial request’s JSON:

{
  "auth": {
    "type": "m.login.dummy",
    "session": "HrvSksPaKpglatvIqJHVEfkd",
  },
  "username": "Alice",
  "password": "1L0v3M4tr!x",
}

Note that the value to the session property in the newly added auth object is the value from sessions taken from the homeserver’s response to our intial request. This auth object will tell the homeserver that this request is a follow-up to the initial request, using the stage m.login.dummy. The homeserver will automatically recognise the flow we’re using, and will succeed (because we use m.login.dummy), returning this JSON along with a 200 status code:

{
  "access_token": "olic0yeVa1pore2Kie4Wohsh",
  "device_id": "FOZLAWNKLD",
  "home_server": "matrix.project.tld",
  "user_id": "@Alice:matrix.project.tld"
}

Let’s see what we have here:

  • The home_server property contains the address of the homeserver you’ve registered on. This can feel like a duplicate, but the Matrix spec allows for a homeserver’s name to differ from its address, so here’s why it mentions it.
  • The user_id property contains the newly generated Matrix ID for your user.
  • The device_id property contains the ID for the device you’ve registered with. A device is bound to an access token and E2E encryption keys (which I’m not covering in this post).
  • The access_token property contains the token you’ll use to authenticate all your requests to the Matrix client-server APIs. It’s usually much longer than the one shown in the example, I’ve shortened it for readability’s sake.

Registering an user instantly logs it in, so you don’t have to do it right now. If, for any reason, you get logged out, you can log back in using the endpoint documented here.

Creating our first room

Now that we have an authenticated user on a homeserver, let’s create a room. This is done by sending a POST request to the /_matrix/client/r0/createRoom endpoint. In our example, the request’s full URL is https://matrix.project.tld/_matrix/client/r0/createRoom?access_token=olic0yeVa1pore2Kie4Wohsh. Note the access_token query parameter, which must contain the access token the homeserver previously gave us.

There are a few JSON parameters available which I won’t cover here because none of them are required to perform the request. So let’s send the request with an empty object ({}) as its body.

Before responding, the homeserver will create the room, fire a few state events in it (such as the initial m.room.create state event or a join event for your user). It should then respond with a 200 status code and a JSON body looking like this:

{
    "room_id": "!RtZiWTovChPysCUIgn:matrix.project.tld"
}

Here you are, you have created and joined your very first room! As you might have guessed, the value for the room_id property is the ID of the newly created room.

Messing with the room’s state

Browsing the room’s state is completely useless at this stage, but let’s do it anyway. Fetching the whole room state, for example, is as easy as a simple GET request on the /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/state endpoint, where {roomId} is the room’s ID. If you’re following these steps using curl requests in bash, you might want to replace the exclamation mark (!) in the room’s ID with its URL-encoded variant (%21). Don’t forget to append your access token to the full URL as shown above.

The request should return a JSON array containing state events such as:

{
  "age": 654742,
  "content": {
    "join_rule": "public"
  },
  "event_id": "$1526078716401exXBQ:matrix.project.tld",
  "origin_server_ts": 1526078716874,
  "room_id": "!RtZiWTovChPysCUIgn:matrix.project.tld",
  "sender": "@Alice:matrix.project.tld",
  "state_key": "",
  "type": "m.room.join_rules",
  "unsigned": {
    "age": 654742
  }
}

Now let’s try to send our own state event in the room, shall we? I order to do that, you’ll need to send a PUT request to the /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/state/{eventType}/{stateKey} endpoint, repacing the room’s ID, the event’s type and its state key with the right values. Note that if your state key is an empty string, you can just omit it from the URL. Again, don’t forget to append your access token!

The body for our request is the event’s content object.

Let’s create a tld.project.foo event with bar as its state key, and {"baz": "qux"} as its content. To achieve that, let’s send a PUT request to /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/!RtZiWTovChPysCUIgn:matrix.project.tld/state/tld.project.foo/bar?access_token=olic0yeVa1pore2Kie4Wohsh (from which I’ve stripped the protocol scheme and FQDN so it doesn’t appear too long in the post) with the fillowing content:

The homeserver then responds with an object only containing an event_id property, which contains the ID of the newly created state event.

If we retry the request we previously made to retrieve the whole room state, we can now see our event:

{
    "age": 58357,
    "content": {
        "baz": "qux"
    },
    "event_id": "$1526080218403sbpku:matrix.project.tld",
    "origin_server_ts": 1526080218639,
    "room_id": "!RtZiWTovChPysCUIgn:matrix.project.tld",
    "sender": "@Alice:matrix.project.tld",
    "state_key": "bar",
    "type": "tld.project.foo",
    "unsigned": {
        "age": 58357
    }
}

Note that sending an update of a state event is done the same way as sending a new state event with the same class name and the same state key.

Sending actual messages

Sending timeline events is almost the same thing as sending state events, except it’s done through the /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/send/{eventType}/{txnId} endpoint, and it uses one parameter we haven’t seen yet: the txnId, aka transaction ID. That’s simply a unique ID allowing identification for this specific request among all requests for the same access token. You’re free to place whatever you want here, as long as you don’t use the same value twice with the same access token.

Regarding the request’s body, once again, it’s the event’s content.

Retrieving timeline events, though, is a bit more complicated and is done using a GET request on the /_matrix/client/r0/sync endpoint. Where it gets tricky is in the fact that this endpoint isn’t specific to a room, so it returns every event received in any room you’re in, along with some presence event, invites, etc.

Once you’ve done such a request (again, with your access token appended to it), you can locate timeline events from your room in the JSON it responds with by looking at the rooms object, which contains an object named join which contains one object for each room you’re in. Locate the !RtZiWTovChPysCUIgn:matrix.project.tld room (the one we’ve created earlier), and in the corresponding object you’ll see the state, timeline and euphemeral events for this room.

Inviting a folk

So far, Alice has registered on the homeserver and created her room, but she feels quite alone, to be honest. Let’s cheer her up by inviting Bob in there.

Inviting someone into a room is also quite simple, and only requires a POST request on the /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/invite endpoint. The request’s body must contain the invited Matrix ID as such:

{
  "user_id": "@Bob:matrix.bob.tld"
}

Note that the request is the same if Bob has registered on the same server as Alice.

If all went well, the homeserver should respond with a 200 status code and an empty JSON object ({}) as its body.

In the next request on the /_matrix/client/r0/sync he’ll made, Bob will now see an invite object inside the rooms one contaning the invite Alice sent him, containing a few events including the invite event:

{
  "invite": {
    "!RtZiWTovChPysCUIgn:matrix.project.tld": {
      "invite_state": {
        "events": [
          {
            "sender": "@Alice:matrix.project.tld",
            "type": "m.room.name",
            "state_key": "",
            "content": {
              "name": "My very cool room"
            }
          },
          {
            "sender": "@Alice:matrix.project.tld",
            "type": "m.room.member",
            "state_key": "@Bob:matrix.bob.tld",
            "content": {
              "membership": "invite"
            }
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}

Now Bob will be able to join the room by sending a simple POST request to the /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/join endpoint.

Alice meets Bob

So here we are, with a fresh room where Alice and Bob are able to interact with one another, with everything done using HTTP requests that you could do with your terminal using curl. Of course, you don’t always have to do it that manually, and there are Matrix SDKs for various languages and platforms, including JavaScript, Go, Python, Android, iOS, and a lot more. The full list is available right here.

If you want to dive a bit deeper into the Matrix APIs, I’d advise you to have a look at the spec (even though it still needs a lot of work) and what the community has done with it on the Try Matrix Now! page on Matrix’s website.

I hope you found this journey into Matrix’s APIs as interesting as I did when I first heard of the project. Matrix is definitely something I’ll keep playing with for a while, and might have some big news related to some Matrix-related projects I’m working on to share here in the coming months.

As always, I’d like to thank Thibaut for proofreading this post and giving me some useful early feedback on it. If you want to share your feedback on this post with me too, don’t hesitate to do so, either via Twitter or through Matrix, my own Matrix ID being @Brendan:matrix.trancendances.fr!

See you next week for a new post 🙂



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

How a Special Diet Kept the Knights Templar Fighting Fit

https://ift.tt/2I26Zr2

Meals were eaten communally and may have looked rather like this feast scene from the Bayeux tapestry—albeit rather less raucous.Meals were eaten communally and may have looked rather like this feast scene from the Bayeux tapestry—albeit rather less raucous. Public Domain

Graybeards were thin on the ground in the 13th century. For even wealthy landholding males, average life expectancy was about 31 years, rising to 48 years for those who made it to their twenties. The Knights Templar, then, must have seemed to have some magical potion: Many members of this Catholic military order lived long past 60. And even then, they often died at the hands of their enemies, rather than from illness.

In 1314, Jacques de Molay, the order’s final Grand Master, was burned alive at the age of 70. Geoffrei de Charney, who was executed in the same year, is usually said to have been around 63. This longevity seems to have been almost commonplace. Fellow Grand Masters Thibaud Gaudin, Hugues de Payens, and Armand de Périgord, to name just a few, all lived into their sixties. For the times, this would have been positively geriatric.

“The exceptional longevity of Templar Knights was generally attributed to a special divine gift,” writes the Catholic scholar Francesco Franceschi in a journal article about their salubrious practices. But modern research suggests an alternative: The order’s compulsory dietary rules may have contributed to their long lives and good health.

Contrary to many modern portrayals, the Knights seem to have lived genuinely humble lives, in service to God. Their dietary choices and obligations reflect this. Though the order grew rich from carefully handled donations and by safeguarding traveling pilgrims’ money, the men themselves took formal vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They were not permitted even to speak to women. For nearly 200 years, the order thrived across Europe, peaking at around 15,000 members by the end of the 13th century. Most of all, they were expert warriors, and their ranks comprised some of the best fighters, warriors, and jousters in the world.

Meat was eaten no more than three times a week, and often included pork.Meat was eaten no more than three times a week, and often included pork. Public Domain

Early in the 12th century, the French abbot Bérnard de Clairvaux helped assemble a long and complex list of rules, which structured the knights’ lives. This rulebook became known as the Primitive Rule of the Templars, and drew from the teachings of the saints Augustine and Benedict. But many of the rules originated in the order. Though the document was completed in 1129, writes Judith Upton-Ward, the Templar Knights had already been in existence for several years, “and had built up its own traditions and customs … To a considerable extent, then, the Primitive Rule is based upon existing practices.”

The rules were many, and various. The knights were to protect orphans, widows, and churches; eschew the company of “obviously excommunicated” men; and not stand up in church when praying or singing. Even sumptuary laws prioritized humbleness: Their monk’s habits were one color alone, though on warm days between Easter and Halloween, the rules decreed, they were allowed to wear a linen shirt. (Pointed shoes were always forbidden.) But the rules also extended into their dietary practices: How they ate, what they ate, and who they ate with.

Their meals do not seem to have been raucous affairs. Knights were obliged to eat together, but to do so silently. If they needed the salt, they had to ask for it to be passed “quietly and privately … with all humility and submission.” A sort of buddy system existed, partly due to a mystifying “shortage of bowls.” This may have been more a show of abstinence than anything else, like the knights’ emblem, which was of two men sharing a horse.

Knights ate in pairs, and were told to “study the other more closely,” to make sure that neither was scarfing more than his share or entertaining any kind of “secret abstinence.” (It’s not clear what knights were supposed to do if their partner wasn’t eating as he should—though shouting at the table seems to have been especially forbidden.) After eating, everyone sat in silence and gave thanks. Scraps of bread were collected and given to the poor, and whole loaves set aside for future meals.

Knights templar wore habits such as these and spent their days together, far from the company of women.Knights templar wore habits such as these and spent their days together, far from the company of women. Public Domain

The knights’ diets seem to have been a balancing act between the ordinary fasting demands on monks, and the fact that these knights lived active, military lives. You couldn’t crusade, or joust, on an empty stomach. (Although the Knights Templar only jousted in combat or training—not for sport.) So three times a week, the knights were permitted to eat meat—even though it was “understood that the custom of eating flesh corrupts the body.” On Sundays, everyone ate meat, with higher-up members permitted both lunch and dinner with some kind of roast animal. Accounts from the time show that this was often beef, ham, or bacon, with salt for seasoning or to cure the meat.

It’s likely that these portions were considerable: If the knights weren’t allowed meat due to a Tuesday fast, the next day it would be available “in plenty.” One source suggests that cooks loaded enough meat onto their plates “to feed two poor men with the leftovers.”

But on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays, the knights ate more spartan, vegetable-filled meals. Although the rules describe these meals as “two or three meals of vegetables or other dishes eaten with bread,” they also often included milk, eggs, and cheese. Otherwise, they might eat potage, made with oats or pulses, gruels, or fiber-rich vegetable stews. (The wealthier brothers might mix in expensive spices, such as cumin.) In their gardens, they grew fruits and vegetables, especially Mediterranean produce such as figs, almonds, pomegranates, olives, and corn (grain).* These healthy foodstuffs likely also made their way into their meals.

Once a week, on Fridays, they observed a Lenten fast—no eggs, milk, or other animal products. For hearty fare, they relied on dried or salted fish, and dairy or egg substitutes made from almond milk. Even here, however, there are pragmatic concessions. The weak and sick abstained from these fasts and received “meat, flesh, birds, and all other foods which bring good health,” to return them to fighting shape as quickly as possible.

A Medieval woodcut shows a typical kitchen.A Medieval woodcut shows a typical kitchen. Public Domain

All the while, brothers drank wine—but this too was restricted. Everyone had an identical ration, which was diluted, and they were advised that alcohol should “not be taken to excess, but in moderation. For Solomon said … wine corrupts the wise.” In the Holy Lands, they allegedly mixed a potent cocktail of antiseptic aloe vera, hemp, and palm wine, known as the Elixir of Jerusalem, which may have helped accelerate healing from injuries.

Franceschi describes other regulations beyond the Primitive Rules that were “specifically designed to avoid the spreading of infections.” These included mandatory handwashing before eating or praying, and exempting brothers in charge of manual tasks outdoors from food preparation or serving. Some of these innovations, picked up without any awareness of germs, may have resulted from interactions with Arab doctors, renowned during the period for their superior medical knowledge. By medieval medical standards, Templar Knights were at its apex, able to treat many illnesses and to take care of their weak.

The order was one of the richest in the world—yet these rules prevented the knights from sitting on their laurels or gorging themselves on fatty, cured meat. In fact, many of these rules resemble modern dietary advice: Lots of vegetables, meat on occasion, and wine in moderation. A meal fit not for a king on a throne, but a knight with some serious crusading to do.

*Update: This post has been updated to clarify that “corn” was (and still is!) used as a term for wheat or grain generally in Britain.

Gastro Obscura covers the world’s most wondrous food and drink.
Sign up for our email, delivered twice a week.



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Why We Don't Need Universal Basic Income: New at Reason

https://ift.tt/2Gamnfe

Scott Santens says that "If You Think Basic Income is 'Free Money' or Socialism, Think Again." The article is in a way refreshing because Santens likes markets, writes Sheldon Richman. But while Santens is promarket and well-motivated, his proposal for UBI fails to survive libertarian scrutiny.

"First, saying basic income is socialism is as absurd as saying money is socialism," writes Santens. "It's money. It's all it is. What do people do with money? They use it in markets. In other words, basic income is fuel for markets."

But a basic-income policy—or universal basic income (UBI)—is not money, argues Richman. How can a policy be money? It's a proposal for what to do with money (or purchasing power). As for whether the policy constitutes socialism, that's a semantical matter, writes Richman. If socialism means state ownership of the means of production, then UBI is not surely socialism. If we use an older definition—an umbrella term for any answer to the "social question" regarding the fact that most people must sell their labor services to owners of capital in order to live—then as Santens presents it, UBI is a form of socialism.

View this article.



from Hit & Run : Reason Magazine https://reason.com/blog
via IFTTT

USA’s Cayla Barnes Is the Consummate Role Model

https://ift.tt/2Gajf39

Time and distance offer a natural opportunity to reflect upon a past life-changing experience. When that experience is a positive one that brought forth joy, you often recognize it as both rippling and seemingly endless in how it has touched your life and the lives of others. Cayla Barnes, the youngest member of USA’s women’s hockey gold medal winning squad at the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Games, is still seeing how she and her teammates’ success continues to inspire others, and will continue to do so for an indefinite period of time. Likely, forever.

“It’s really special for us,” Barnes said. “I think that we were really surprised at the reaction when we came back to the States. We knew that it was a big deal, obviously. We hadn’t brought the gold in 20 years, which was something that we were focused on. But we really realized the magnitude of the success and what it brought to the United States, so it was really cool to come back.”

The 5-foot-1 defender turned 19 years exactly one month before the PyeongChang Games got underway. As the youngest and most diminutive skater on USA’s roster, you would never know it by the way Barnes plays the game of hockey. A warm smile upon her face that is reflective of her heart, she can skate like the wind and seemed far more veteran in her decision making on ice during the Games themselves. Wise beyond her years.

Cayla Barnes Team USA

Cayla Barnes was the youngest member of Team USA’s Women’s Hockey’s Olympic gold medal winning team at the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Games. (Photo by Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images)

THW had the opportunity to speak one-on-one with Barnes a few months now after her return to the States from South Korea. She reflected, shared, and discussed her hopes for the future. Likely you were already captivated by the performance of she and her teammates in PyeongChang. You will be even more so when you read what she had to say looking back. Barnes continues to “grow the game” for young hockey players just by being herself and exuding a genuine care for youngsters.

Preparing for Her First Olympics

Barnes played in all five of USA’s games at the competition in PyeongChang. For a team that carried seven defenders, it is a tribute to her skills and ability level that this young blueliner was such an integral part of the defense corps. Furthermore, of those seven defenders Barnes was one of just four to be a plus-player by the end of the Olympics as a plus-three – tied for second best on the team. In the gold medal game alone, she skated for 30 shifts and had over 19 minutes of ice time – more than two other USA defenders. A teenager being utilized in seemingly the most important hockey game that could possibly be played.

Better yet, Barnes looked completely at ease throughout the entire tournament. From prelims to the gold, she held her own in every situation on the ice. A sizable portion of her comfort level, however, Barnes attributes to the paramount factor of having veteran Olympians on the team and the guidance that they imparted to the younger players.

“Leading up, I definitely think the best advice I got was from my teammates, especially the ones that’d been there before,” Barnes explained to THW. “We had a few three-time Olympians that had been to various Games, so they gave a lot of the first time Olympians a lot of really good advice. Just to have fun. I think that was probably the biggest thing. Enjoy the moment, have fun. You only get to the Olympics maybe once in your lifetime. Once or twice. Definitely just to enjoy the moment. Take everything in, go see other events, talk to other athletes. It’s a unique experience where you get to be with the greatest athletes in the world.”

Boston College alums from left to right Cayla Barnes, Emily Pfalzer, Megan Keller, Kali Flanagan, and Haley Skarupa.

Boston College alums from left to right Cayla Barnes, Emily Pfalzer, Megan Keller, Kali Flanagan, and Haley Skarupa all played for Team USA at the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Games (Photo Credit: USA Hockey/Jeff Cable).

The three-time Olympians that Barnes referred to were Meghan Duggan, Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson, Monique Lamoureux-Morando, Hilary Knight, Gigi Marvin, and Kacey Bellamy. Each acted as stabilizers to the younger players like Barnes, and provided key mentoring as to how to handle the games themselves and the Olympic experience as a whole.

“It did for sure,” Barnes said, when asked if the influx of veterans instilled a sense of comfort. “We had 13 first-time Olympians on our team this Olympics, so it was definitely good to have a good mix of new and veterans. They calmed the room down. They knew what to say when people were feeling on-edge or nervous. They were really crucial in our success.”

Time Has Passed and Barnes Can Reflect Back

Coinciding with Barnes playing in all five games, she registered four shots on goal – two of which came in the gold medal game against Canada. Separate from the final game which took an overtime period and a shootout to decide, Barnes played with much regularity throughout the prelims and the semi-final as well. In the second game of the tournament, a 5-0 USA win over the Olympic Athletes from Russia, Barnes played the fourth most amount of minutes (17:39) of the American defenders, and her highest total with the exception of the gold medal game. That was a mere 10 seconds less than the third most coming from fellow defender Emily Pflazer in the game against Russia.

All in all, it was a tremendous first Olympics. One that will undoubtedly be of more to come for Barnes. Playing her first Winter Games at just 19, she could easily become a three-time Olympian herself, if not more. With months having gone by since PyeongChang, THW asked Barnes to reflect back on the experience as a whole and try to put it into perspective.

“It was incredible,” she said, trying to find the words. “Looking back, it was one of the most fun months that I’ve had in a really long time. We were there and you just got to explore the whole culture. The people of South Korea were awesome. They were so nice, and they loved us. We had a really good time, and they were great hosts.”

More than just the experiences of Barnes and her own teammates, the PyeongChang Games were about the camaraderie and the new friendships that were formed with fellow athletes of different disciplines. The contingent of USA athletes were highly supportive of one another, and it was very commonplace to spot Barnes and her teammates cheering on in the stands to support their fellow countrymen and vice versa.

“I think also meeting other athletes and interacting with different sports. Going and cheering on other teams was so cool. We got really close with some of Team USA’s other athletes. We see them around now, and it’s so cool to reconnect and be back. Seeing other people win medals and all of their hard work pay off. Definitely, it was incredible. It was so much fun. It’s also fun when the whole world can come together through sport. So that’s also really unique. Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony – it’s such a unique experience to be a part of. We all had a really great time.”

The Aftermath of PyeongChang and What It Means to Others

Rightfully so, when the USA women’s team returned to the States from PyeongChang, they were heralded as heroes. The love affair between the team and the nation got underway before the Olympics even started, and then culminated into the country being completely head over heels for their team after the gold medal was won. Barnes and her teammates gave their country something to feel good about.

In a nation that as of late has been inundated with tumultuous news, views and opinions, these hockey players brought forth unity and joy. It was apparent in the appreciation and smiles that Barnes and company received everywhere they went.

Cayla Barnes Boston College

Boston College’s Cayla Barnes (#23) carries the puck up ice into the opponent’s zone (Photo Credit: Boston College Athletics).

“We’re just walking down the streets,” she explained, “and to see people’s eyes light up when they see our medals, or them telling us how amazing the game was and how excited they were. It’s really cool to see people’s reactions and how excited they got. To just bring some joy to people. To see the numbers of people watching our games was incredible for us to see women’s hockey grow like that. It was really cool. What we work for is to grow the game to keep pushing the limits with women’s sports. Yes, it’s definitely something special to see that we could do that.”

Growing the Game and Giving Back

What has touched most upon Barnes’ heartstrings is the opportunities that she has had to interact with children after the games. As young as she is, it is only natural that our hockey kiddos, preteens and teenagers look up to her as a role model. They have an affinity for talking to Barnes and asking her questions about hockey. Barnes – who is as kind of a soul as you may find – reciprocates.

“Meeting little kids from all over is always really cool,” she told THW warmly. “This is why we play – we play to inspire the next generation. Seeing little kids get so excited to meet us and hold our medals, it’s fun for us and really something that we love to do.”

It makes it even more touching and dear to her heart when she can give back to kids in her own hometown. While the Los Angeles Kings have won Stanley Cups, it is still not necessarily a “hockey hotbed” when compared to the likes of a Toronto, Detroit, or Boston. That being the case, it is even more imperative to grow the game for young hockey players in less traditional cities.

Barnes told us about some of her more cherished moments with youngsters since PyeongChang:

“I think one really cool experience for me was when we first came back from the Olympics, we went to the L.A. Kings game. That’s my hometown, I played for the L.A. Kings (youth hockey program). We got to meet with the local girls program there that I’ve been fortunate to be part of. They were so excited to just see me. They all knew who I am and I’ve worked with a bunch of them. It’s so cool for them to see me. We had a little question session with us and the whole team. They were asking me questions specifically, and they were just so excited to meet me and talk to me. So that was really cool, especially being in my hometown and knowing that those little girls have dreams like I did when I was their age. It’s definitely what we play for, and it’s awesome to see the game growing.”

Returning to School at BC in the Fall

While Barnes may be from California, she will be continuing her collegiate hockey career on the opposite coast. Prior to the Olympics, Barnes played five NCAA games at Boston College. Suiting up now for four full seasons with the Eagles, she is bound to be a difference maker for the BC program. One intent on bringing a national championship to Beantown.

“I plan to go back in the Fall,” Barnes explained about returning to school. “All of us in college (on the Olympic team) had to withdraw completely for the year, so that’s what we did. We’ll all go back to school in Fall. I have all of my eligibility – I have four years – and I’m only going to be a freshman. Definitely planning to go back and play all four years of my eligibility.”

Fully excited to continue the full college experience both academically and athletically, Barnes acknowledges an interest in playing professionally someday too, and making a return to the Olympics. First things first though – and you will find that this is vitally important later on in our story – there is no sense in rushing the experience. Barnes has a full four years of college hockey and schooling that she can take in.

Cayla Barnes Boston College

Boston College’s Cayla Barnes (#23) defends in the thick of traffic (Photo Credit: Boston College Athletics)

“I think honestly, winning a national championship with BC would be incredible. They haven’t had one in program history, so to think that I could be part of something like that, to bring one to BC women’s hockey would be incredible. So that’s a big goal for me. Also, I think playing professional hockey, I hope that this league (the NWHL) keeps growing and it keeps improving over the years. Like I said, I have four years so I have a little while until I even think about playing professional, but definitely something I’m interested in and would want to do. And then obviously I’d like to go to another Olympics and have that experience again.”

Part of what made Barnes a successful Olympian, and what will make her a successful Eagle is the skill set that she possesses and has diligently worked at improving. She considers her best attributes to be namely two in particular.

“I would say probably my skating,” Barnes said, “and the way I see the ice and my vision. Those are two of my strengths. I’ve worked a lot on my skating. If you’re a good skater, it helps a lot in the game. Being able to see the ice when there’s an opening is really crucial. I would say that those are two of my best skills of my game.”

Barnes Advice to Kids Playing Hockey

Just because PyeongChang was her first Olympics and she’ll be a college freshman, it’s not as if Barnes came out of nowhere to the hockey scene. Three times she represented the United States at IIHF’s Women’s U18 World Championships, beginning in Buffalo, NY USA in 2015, followed by 2016 in St. Catharines, ON, Canada, and then lastly as team captain in 2017 in the cities of Přerov and Zlín in the Czech Republic. Each time Barnes helped bring home the gold medal for the USA. In 15 total games between the three tournaments, Barnes compiled three goals and nine assists for 12 points from the back end.

Now having added Olympic gold to the mix, that is a pretty darn good track record. Still, time tends to go very fast – sometimes too fast. Players should slow down and enjoy it. This is the biggest and most essential piece of advice that Cayla Barnes has for our younger players out there. Something that she wishes she had known and realized when she was 12.

2018 USA Olympic Women's Hockey Team

Cayla Barnes (#3, first row, second from right) and USA’s Women’s Hockey team won the gold medal at the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics (Photo Credit: USA Hockey/Jeff Cable).

“I think to just enjoy it,” Barnes explained. “It goes so fast. I think when you’re 12 or 13, you take for granted a lot of things that you get to do with your team. All of the tournaments and stuff. Now that I’m in college, you don’t get to fly to tournaments anymore or spend weekends with your team, and to just have fun. I think when I was that age, it started to get more serious when I was younger. You start training a lot younger, and it becomes a lot. Sometimes I think it can suck the fun out for kids. I think when you’re that age, it really should be purely about fun. You shouldn’t be playing because your parents want you to – you should play because you love it. I still wish that I knew that it was going to be fine – no matter what, it’s going to be okay. If you go to the beach one day instead of going to the rink, you’re going to be fine. You’ll still be successful. Still do what you have to do, but that’s definitely one thing I wish I knew – that you’re going to be fine. Just to have fun and enjoy the time that you have playing hockey.”

Barnes cares wholeheartedly for young hockey players (in many ways, she is still one herself), and it is important to her to impart this advice. There is some truly wonderful support from women’s hockey players already through their involvement in the community and in youth programs. That goes without question. But Cayla Barnes pours forth her heart when she talks about giving back to the game, especially with regards to kids. She urges our youth to love this game, and to enjoy it. Do it because you love it, and not feel pressured because of it. Barnes is a consummate role model for our youth, and will continue to be so for many more years to come. A player who you would want your son or daughter, or brother or sister, to look up to.

 

The post USA’s Cayla Barnes Is the Consummate Role Model appeared first on The Hockey Writers.



from The Hockey Writers https://ift.tt/2k7pXhT
via IFTTT

Tim Draper “Thrilled” with Holmes Performance at Theranos, WSJ Like a “Hyena”

https://ift.tt/2rDyYDc

Theranos CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes.

reader comments 135

In yet another jaw-dropping interview that seemed to be broadcast from an alternate universe, venture capitalist Tim Draper tenaciously defended the failed blood testing company Theranos and its disgraced founder and CEO, Elizabeth Holmes.

In the interview, which aired on CNBC, Draper called the limping start-up “one of those extraordinary companies” and said he was glad to have backed Holmes, who he knows personally. Draper provided $500,000 in seed money when Holmes was just starting the company as a 19-year-old Stanford drop-out. “It was a great mission and she did a great job,” he said. “I’m thrilled with what she’s done.”

He went so far as to call Holmes a “great icon,” to which CNBC “Closing Bell” co-host Kelly Evans responded bluntly: “Icon of what?” Draper didn’t respond to the question, though.

His defense seems surreal in the wake of “massive fraud” charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission back in the March. The SEC alleged that Theranos, Holmes, and former President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani raised $700 million in investments by orchestrating an “elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance.”

Theranos and Holmes settled with the SEC without admitting wrongdoing. Holmes will pay a $500,000 fine and will be barred from serving as a director or officer for a public company for 10 years. Balwani will face the SEC in court. The company meanwhile is nearing bankruptcy and down to a workforce of two dozen or less. Theranos counted about 800 employees back in 2015.

While Theranos and Holmes’ downfall was directly due to faulty technology, poor blood testing, regulatory issues, and alleged fraud, Draper had a different take on the situation. Instead, he fully blamed the Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou, who first reported on the company’s hidden failings.

“Why is [Theranos] worthless? It’s worthless because this writer was like a badger going after her, like a hyena going after her, and then it became a bigger and bigger thing,” he said. “She got bullied into submission,” Draper explained, adding that if it weren’t for Carreyrou and other opponents, Theranos “could have been one of these big, huge winners.”

Amid his mind-boggling defense, the investor did admit that Theranos was now in the “loser column” of his investments list, a list that also includes Tesla and Bitcoin. But Draper argued that Holmes’ blood testing technology would live on and get picked up by other entrepreneurs. “It’s going to happen,” he said. “We’re eventually going to change healthcare as we know it and she will have had a huge hand in making that happen.”



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT