By Charles WyndhamApril 15th, 2016
In my experience when told that someone looks after himself it usually means that he eats more than is strictly necessary of whatever he wants, certainly drinks whatever he wants, but makes sure that he goes for all the possible medical check ups on offer.
I recall one chum who had a gargantuan appetite telling me over quite one of the largest bowls of chips I have been lucky enough to be placed before, that he had just had a full all clear following his five star BUPA checkup.
He was dead two weeks later with a heart attack.
I picked up another bit of useful information reading Oryx, the International Journal of Conservation, a subject about which I am mildly interested.
In a fascinating article about ‘Site use by snow leopards in China’, most of which I did find a trifle beyond my comprehension. To give you just one example of the cause for my confusion I will quote the title from Table 2.
“Estimates of the Beta coefficient values and summed Akaike weights for covariates that were hypothesized to influence site use by snow leopards in Quilianshan National Nature Reserve.”
As you may surmise I could not wait to get to table 3, especially as I was goaded onwards by the telling observation that “Prey is known to be a key determinant of the presence of snow leopards (Sharma et al, 2015) and other carnivores (Barber-Meyer et al 2013)”.
I certainly would never have guessed that or much else that was so painstakingly set out for me about snow leopards.
Moving on a bit nearer home, I see or rather have been told that my mate Boney has lowered prices in the better end of the larger sizes
Given that his price list is concocted by him for him, except those who willingly enrich him by buying it, he of course has every right to do whatever he wants with prices…, which of course is exactly what he does anyway.
I would presume that most in the industry would be less than amused at his latest participation in the workings of their daily life.
But as Boney can so correctly point out, no one is forced to use his information.
In a slightly, very slightly, different vein, I was amused to read over the past few days comments about De Beers increasing prices by what, I think, is believed to be about 2% at their last Sight.
I was amused in that there were comments to the effect that some thought that De Beers should have increased prices by more, as in this point of view there is need to dampen the rough market.
Generally, it would seem that DTC boxes have been trading at around 5% profit after expenses, which is not a bad profit margin I would have thought.
So De Beers is damned whichever way it might turn.
We all know that historically its ability to mistime changes to its prices are uncanny and break all the rules of randomness, if there can be rules in randomness.
Whatever De Beers may or may not do, the above reaction I find as curious as learning that for snow leopards and other carnivores the presence of prey is an important determinant of where you might find them.
I cannot see why De Beers should take the blame if the market in rough is over heating.
I don’t know, and frankly cannot be bothered to find out, how many sightholders there are currently, but I presume it is less than 100.
If De Beers is selling too cheap in the opinion of some of the less than 100 why are they not increasing their prices to take the heat out of the market and increasing their margin?
Probably a silly question, so I will go back to my snow leopards.
By the way the article ends as follows, “Our findings present clear advancement but further efforts are needed in the design and appraisal methods.”
At least we can all agree on something.