On a risk-adjusted basis, that's a pretty mediocre return.

Considering the profit was at most a secondary goal of the investment, I wouldn't consider it bad at all.

They're selling single-stock/index options?

Don't start with the tone-policing, OP has addressed all the above questions in a reasonable manner.

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

---

They didn't have to include the postscript. It came off poorly. I'm not posting this to social media trying to get OP fired, but I will call out when people include contentless swipes at other peoples' legitimate posts.

I agree that the (now-flagged) post calling me out on my snark was fair, I would not have used that tone in real life.

What does the Yangtzee River tragedy have to do with Citizens United?

"As an American" has apparently become a euphemism for "I know nothing about the subject, so explain this to me like you would to a small child".

It means I read the papers but make no special claims to regional understanding. Sheesh.

Just a joke, lighten up.

It's kind of rude when talking to someone or in a meeting, otherwise not a big deal.

It's highly unusual to see someone for 6 months and not realize that they're still living with their spouse and kids. Even if the other person tells you it's not the case.

I don't think it's necessarily that unusual if you're dealing with a person of means or capability in deception.

We don't know what kind of "seeing" they were doing though - "dating" someone in modern lingo can mean anything from casual sex twice weekly to having breakfast every morning together. There's a huge variance in the type of information you know about someone between those two types of relationships.

Not particularly remarkable news but good for her I suppose. Being the CFO for a big Investment Bank is pretty much the most stressful job imaginable.

Originally came across it [here](http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/04/not-content-with-enormou...), more click-baity but pretty disturbing nonetheless.

Garbage article. There are no "brain enhancers", only stimulants, both commonly used (coffee, tea etc) and pharmaceutical (amphetamines et al). Look up Bacopa on examine.com, specifically the studies on Memory Enhancement. For the ones with participants in the target (aka non-old) group of 18-45, it's about 50-50. After supplementing over several months.

> There are no "brain enhancers"

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the article is indeed one big garbage advertisement, alas there is a large number of non-stimulatory substances which reliably enhance cognition in measures that can be readily quantified and telling people otherwise is spreading ignorance and misinformation.

First of all, virtually all Adaptogens are non-stimulant cognition enhancers, of which these are the most notable:

Bacopa - http://examine.com/supplements/Bacopa+monnieri/ Rhodiola - http://examine.com/supplements/Rhodiola+Rosea/

Second, there are the profound alas very situational cognition enhancers, such as:

Piracetam & Noopept in stroke victims, former Alcoholics (quite common) and as you pointed out the elderly. NSI-189 & PRL-8-53 for poverty-stricken adults who grew up sleep deprived and/or malnutritioned (common).

Then there are substances widely reported as helpful in healthy subjects, alas with insufficient studies:

Tianeptine, Centro & CDP/GPC Cholines, Sulbutiamine ...hell even Creatine is a slight cognitive enhancer.

Now - to your point: are any of these life changing? In damaged individuals, perhaps. Alas like you said in healthy young adults, many of these substances will produce either mild improvements or no improvements at all save for extreme neurological outliers.

But to claim that Stimulants are the only cognitive enhancers especially when you seem to've done some basic research... why?

>But to claim that Stimulants are the only cognitive enhancers especially when you seem to've done some basic research... why?

>Now - to your point: are any of these life changing? In damaged individuals, perhaps. Alas like you said in healthy young adults, many of these substances will produce either mild improvements or no improvements at all save for extreme neurological outliers.

I'm only addressing perceptible cognitive enhancement with regards to otherwise healthy + young individuals (the target demo of the products listed in the article). I've gone through every study on examine.com for all the usual suspects (racetams, choline, rhodiola, bacopa etc) and have even tried them all personally for ~6 months. I feel pretty confident in saying that they are worthless for people in that demo.