Thoughts: time warp to 2018

29
May

Twelve ASX stocks with record growth since 2000

I recently built a little web app called What If Stocks, to answer the question: based on a start and end date, and a pool of stocks and historical prices, what would have been the best stocks to invest in? This app isn't rocket science, it just ranks the stocks based on one simple metric: change in price during the selected period.

I imported into this app, price data from 2000 to 2018, for all ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) stocks that have existed for roughly the whole of that period. I then examined the results, for all possible 5-year and 10-year periods within that date range. I'd therefore like to share with you, what this app calculated to be the 12 Aussie stocks that have ranked No. 1, in terms of market price increase, for one or more of those periods.

21
Apr

DNA: the most chaotic, most illegible, most mature, most brilliant codebase ever

As a computer programmer – i.e. as someone whose day job is to write relatively dumb, straight-forward code, that controls relatively dumb, straight-forward machines – DNA is a fascinating thing. Other coders agree. It has been called the code of life, and rightly so: the DNA that makes up a given organism's genome, is the set of instructions responsible for virtually everything about how that organism grows, survives, behaves, reproduces, and ultimately dies in this universe.

Most intriguing and most tantalising of all, is the fact that we humans still have virtually no idea how to interpret DNA in any meaningful way. It's only since 1953 that we've understood what DNA even is; and it's only since 2001 that we've been able to extract and to gaze upon instances of the complete human genome.

Watson and Crick showing off their DNA model in 1953.

Watson and Crick showing off their DNA model in 1953.

Image source: A complete PPT on DNA (Slideshare).

As others have pointed out, the reason why we haven't had much luck in reading DNA, is because (in computer science parlance) it's not high-level source code, it's machine code (or, to be more precise, it's bytecode). So, DNA, which is sequences of base-4 digits, grouped into (most commonly) 3-digit "words" (known as "codons"), is no more easily decipherable than binary, which is sequences of base-2 digits, grouped into (for example) 8-digit "words" (known as "bytes"). And as anyone who has ever read or written binary (in binary, octal, or hex form, however you want to skin that cat) can attest, it's hard!

In this musing, I'm going to compare genetic code and computer code. I am in no way qualified to write about this topic (particularly about the biology side), but it's fun, and I'm reckless, and this is my blog so for better or for worse nobody can stop me.