Thank you for explicitly saying that you think your proposed approach would lead to a larger movement size in the long run, I had missed that. Your actual self-quote is an extremely weak version of this, since âthis might possibly actually happenâ is not the same as explicitly saying âI think this will happenâ. The latter certainly does not follow from the former âby necessityâ.
Still, I could have reasonably inferred that you think the latter based on the rest of your commentary, and should at least have asked if that is in fact what you think, so I apologise for that and will edit my previous post to reflect the same.
That all said, I believe my previous post remains an adequate summary of why I disagree with you on the object level question.
Your actual self-quote is an extremely weak version of this, since âthis might possibly actually happenâ is not the same as explicitly saying âI think this will happenâ. The latter certainly does not follow from the former âby necessityâ.
Yeah, sorry, I do think the âby necessityâ was too strong.
Thank you for explicitly saying that you think your proposed approach would lead to a larger movement size in the long run, I had missed that. Your actual self-quote is an extremely weak version of this, since âthis might possibly actually happenâ is not the same as explicitly saying âI think this will happenâ. The latter certainly does not follow from the former âby necessityâ.
Still, I could have reasonably inferred that you think the latter based on the rest of your commentary, and should at least have asked if that is in fact what you think, so I apologise for that and will edit my previous post to reflect the same.
That all said, I believe my previous post remains an adequate summary of why I disagree with you on the object level question.
Yeah, sorry, I do think the âby necessityâ was too strong.