User Guide - Windows Product Key Finder 2020 Edition


Activation code passFab Product Key Recovery User Reviews

Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key Running for Free Activation Full Download is the most recent variant of Office assortment delivered by Microsoft.

Extract Preinstalled Office Activation Key

Smadav Pro 2020 Crack is one of the most valuable and leading antivirus software that aims to protect the PC. This antivirus delivers additional security and privacy to the system as well as USB. Brave pc game crack read the full info here. Step 3: Enter a Microsoft Office 2020 product key from this post and click Activate This is a recommended method for people who have a strong internet connection. Office is listed under All Products, licensed – retail.


How To Find Serial Key Of Any Software in 2020 (Google Hack)

Office for a single PC (Office Home & Student, Office Home & Business, or Office Professional ) Use the Go to My Account link below to: Download and reinstall Office on the same PC. Car rental software crack. Immortal bot diablo 3 cracked https://sneakers-top.ru/forum/?download=3182. It has many tools for making and editing documents files.

Microsoft Office 2020 Product Key Full Crack Free Download

It is a complete package deal of equipment that makes your work easier. Back in Office 2020 MS (dis)"improved" the way the key is stored on the computer. Carl Miller 2020-10-09. If we detect your Microsoft account, we'll show it on this screen.


Registration key use the Office offline installer - Office Support

I just bought Office 2020 via the HUP and I accidentally deleted the email with the activation link and product key. Office 2020 product key recovery. Office 360 gives almost all kinds of features for your requirements so that you can enjoy your work remotely. Mac Software; PC Software; Microsoft office 365 Product Key 100% Working: Features and Review in 2020.

Free Windows 7 Product Key for All Versions {100% Working}

Hack clash of clans iphone ifunbox. A manual or an old email somewhere. The product key is what technology companies employ to inhibit the theft of their product. Furthermore, it also utilizes its techniques [performance and whitelisting] inspect and clean, which improves privacy and security on PC. When you install and run, then this software scans your personal computer every time.


How can I find my product key on my asus laptop after

The Licence Keys are integrated/embedded with the Office Account, created when the Office is first setup. Microsoft Windows is the best operating system to use and it is totally easy to use and has a lot of features. I had to reformat the laptop and now I am unable to install the office again. Product Key Finder is one of the best product.

Autocad 2020 product key Archives - Latest Version

It can be used on any operating device such as tablets, laptops, Android, computers, Windows, Mac, etc. Once you have opened this software, you can see the Wi-Fi password of each network. Video studio registration key https://sneakers-top.ru/forum/?download=9951. Set up a business conference and other meetings online and save your time plus money.


Microsoft Office 365 Product Key + Crack Version Download

Our program allows you to recover your CD product key for Windows or Microsoft Office for use when you are reinstalling or repairing your Windows and Microsoft Office setups. Do the following to link an account with Office. Top 6 Free Serial Keys Sites for Any Software in 2020. This system was common for Windows 7 PCs.

OFFICIAL! New, Flexible Dual Core Polyphasic Pattern Released: Evolution of the Predecessor Segmented Sleep in the Modern Time

OFFICIAL! New, Flexible Dual Core Polyphasic Pattern Released: Evolution of the Predecessor Segmented Sleep in the Modern Time
Greetings polyphasic sleepers,
So after rigorously following a flexible dual core sleep regime for 50 days (42 days to adapt), with some days experimenting with small niches and further expansion of what can be achieved on a flexible sleep pattern, today I present to you a very cool polyphasic schedule that can be sustained for long term once adapted: DUCAMAYL (Dual Core as much as you like), or basically “Sleep whenever tired in the form of 2 cores and multiple daytime naps”. What has been awaited for a long time now is a realistic dream that comes true. In this post, as an experienced dual core sleeper through the years I will try to explain and dig deep into what has been considered an outclassed sleep pattern compared to the ubiquitous Everyman system and see how many weapons its arsenal can offer. As usual, the information relay may be longer than expected, so I appreciate the time you take to read through everything and bear with me.


  • Proposed by: The Discord Polyphasic Community
  • Total sleep: Undefined, usually 5.5-6.5h
  • Classification: Flexible, SPAMAYL variant with 2 core sleeps, Multi-core variant
  • Specification: 2 core sleeps (no upper limit in duration) followed by a varying number of daytime naps (at least 1), varying nap duration/core duration occasionally
  • Mechanism: Variant of SPAMAYL that includes 2 core sleeps. Evolves well from adaptation to DC1-extended, DC2-(extended) and DC3-extended. The first core sleep provides a higher percentage of SWS while the second core a higher percentage of REM. Earlier naps in the day can contain REM sleep. Requires a great sense of tiredness timing to schedule each sleep block accordingly to avoid excessive tiredness from extended wake periods. Once adapted, a core sleep can be extended by 90m occasionally. Wake gap between 2 cores can be long or short depending on days and the amount of nighttime activities. There is no upper limit in core and nap duration and the number of naps per day.
  • Adaptation Difficulty: Hard
  • Ideal Scheduling: Both core sleeps around graveyard hours with some degree of flexibility (maximum flexibility is recommended to be 90m back and forth). A nap can be taken during noon break from work/school and a nap after work/school. Wake gaps during the day are usually longer than at night, and fewer naps in the day are needed to sustain alertness thanks to the second core with abundant REM sleep. Personal tiredness level dictates nap placement. 1-3 daytime naps of 10-20m in length, and core sleeps follow a 90m cycle in scheduling. Longer naps (e.g, 30-40m) as extended naps/Pronap are viable in early morning hours (6-10 AM) and if all SWS has been accounted for.
Figure 1. A sample DUCAMAYL variant
This is my DUCAMAYL variant, more info on how I adapted can be seen from my Reddit profile.
Historically, this schedule surfaced for the first time in 2017, as rumors and establishments of its mechanics were roughly sketched in the Discord channel. The first anecdotal, unofficial success and inspiration was from u/aethermind’s father who has been unintentionally doing this schedule for 3 decades (but no details about his “adaptation” were actually known or logged) without visibly serious health issues (aside from some stress from his own work nature). His DUCAMAYL variant revolves around alternating between 1-2 naps from day to day and somewhat flexible core sleeps. It was then proposed as a counterpart to SEVAMAYL, except with 2 core sleeps as part of its dual-core nature. Since then, multiple cold turkey attempts were kick started, but unfortunately all led to failure. It wasn’t until late 2020 that there were 2 anecdotal successes with it. Thus, with the recent discoveries I only added some new mechanics and utilities to it.
At first glance, DUCAMAYL is an empowered version of a dual core schedule, with enhanced flexibility and resilience to changes in sleep times once adapted. However, at its heart, it is an adaptive evolution from the original Segmented sleep, whose natural creation dated back to the pre-industrial era (1750-1850), making it ~250 years old as of today. With the utilization of naps and flexibility, DUCAMAYL allows some sleep reduction from both cores of the original Segmented sleep.

Adaptation Mechanics

Similar to SEVAMAYL, adaptation to DUCAMAYL bears a very strong resemblance of how to make a polyphasic schedule flexible to great extents. An adaptation to a dual core schedule with strict sleep times is required first as it is a crucial step. I adapted previously to a strict DC2-modified variant which took around 1 month, before heading to DUCAMAYL, which took another 42 days to adapt to. An adaptation to flexing each sleep block and alternating the number of naps can be done to adapt to DUCAMAYL eventually. At least this is how I made this schedule highly flexible after a long yet mild adaptation.
The adaptation to DUCAMAYL, presumably from a strong and moderately easy adaptation to the strict version of the corresponding base dual core schedule, will be mostly Stage 4. This means that it is normal to experience more energy dips and sleep inertia after waking up throughout the day, but on average these slumps are mild and can be handled with active lifestyles. A good gauge of this stage 4 is a comparison of mental/physical performance during this flexing adaptation with a good night sleep on a fully adapted polyphasic or a well-sustained monophasic schedule (e.g, functioning/exerting at ~75-80% of fully adapted sleep). Oversleeping chance remains, so it is necessary to stay on guard. Productivity decline can be seen depending on individuals when adapting, but not too bothering and mind-numbing like being in Stage 3.
Regarding expansion of flex range, it is worth noting that it may not be possible to achieve a certain flex range (e.g, 90m lateearlier than original time of a core sleep) if stage 3 symptoms start to show up consistently or if stage 4 symptoms persist for more than a couple weeks. This comes down to how easy the adaptation to the strict dual core base is, personal assessment of tiredness to properly get high quality naps/cores, personal ability to adapt to different sleep times and the total sleep of the strict dual core base (I posit that at least ~5h total sleep for both cores is needed to make flexing easier, for an average 8h monophasic sleeper). If the flexing progress plateaus, it is a wiser move to stabilize sleep time (smaller flex range) and avoid sudden large jumps in sleep times from day to day.
Once adapted, the schedule can be controlled, modified and morphed to great extents. Despite all that, both or one of the core sleeps of DUCAMAYL may remain stationary through the entire flexing adaptation while the focus is on flexible nap timing.
A. Transition steps:
Below are the possible variants that could afford DUCAMAYL transition, with standard scheduling. Note that these examples are not absolute and only serve to demonstrate how flexible and what forms DUCAMAYL can hold.
  1. DC1-extended (6.3h) => DC1-ext-flex => DUCAMAYL
  2. DC2 (5.2h) => DC2-flex => DUCAMAYL
  3. DC2-modified (5.7h) => DC2-mod-flex => DUCAMAYL (Current variant that works)
  4. DC2-extended (6.7h) => DC2-ext-flex => DUCAMAYL
  5. DC3-extended (5.5h, extension of 1 core) => DC3-ext-flex => DUCAMAYL
  6. DC1 (5.3h) => DC1-flex => DUCAMAYL
  7. Bimaxion (4h) => Bimaxion-flex => DUCAMAYL (Current variant that works)
  8. DC3 (4h) => DC3-flex => DUCAMAYL
See the Pros & Cons section for alternate scheduling of Dual Core bases.
For the most part, the extended versions pose a much better adaptation opportunity for transitioning to DUCAMAYL, thanks to a higher amount of light sleep to afford moving sleep around without irredeemable consequences (Similar to SEVAMAYL). All schedules with 2 core sleeps make for possible candidates. The first 5 options hold good viability to choose as the first adaptation step (although option C is only recommended for experienced sleepers or those who know their sleep architecture well enough). Likewise, DC3 (especially extended in option 5) is very clunky to schedule to fit 3 naps in (and a total of 5 sleeps a day). It is outclassed by its two brothers DC1 and DC2 when it comes to convenience in scheduling viability. Despite the inherent disadvantage, it can appear in a DUCAMAYL form more often (e.g, some days taking 3 naps).
A rarer sight is Bimaxion, a variant that a sleep mutant in the Discord is capitalizing on thanks to her lower sleep requirements (~5-6h monophasic each night). It resembles DC2 while sparking Dymaxion naps and Dymaxion distribution of sleeps. This makes for an interesting transition to a DUCAMAYL variant with primarily 30m naps. Regular DC1 is borderline with inflexibility, so it may only suit those with slightly lower sleep needs (~7h monophasic) and one core may have to be stationary. I also did not see much record of adapted people making regular DC1 very flexible. The last 2 options are only designed for mutant sleepers basically. Polyphasic beginners, those who have trouble sleeping through one long monophasic core, and people with higher sleep requirements can attempt extended versions first. More on flexible sleep mechanics:
Since Dual Core sleep already has 2 core sleeps occupying a fair amount of graveyard hours, and the second core takes care of quite a bit of REM need each day, the amount of daytime naps, although has no upper limits on paper, varies between 1-3 daytime naps in practice. Depending on the chosen first adaptation step to a particular dual core schedule, the number of needed daytime naps is often reflected in the final DUCAMAYL variant.
  • A DC1 sleeper can comfortably alternate between 1 and 2 naps daily or depending on days (e.g, days with more mental work, strenuous physical labotraining or a bit more emotional stress).
  • A DC2 sleeper can take an average of 2 naps per day - meaning days with 1 nap (high energy, not feeling the need for 2 naps/scheduling of daily tasks, too busy for 2 naps) alternating with 3 naps on other days (weekends/holidays) is how things turn out.
  • A DC3 sleeper can alternate between 1-4 daily naps if allowed, or just 2-3 naps depending on the duration of their core sleeps. The naps then have become flexible across a wide range of sleep times as displayed in the DUCAMAYL charts above to be scheduled at will, hence the varying number of naps from day to day.
Note: The wake gap between 2 cores can be at least ~2.5-3h long on some days/usual scheduling and ~4.5-5h on other days when the need to finish planning or other activities during the night gap arises.
Because of the reduced efficiency of flexed sleep compared to strict sleep timing schedules, it is normal to expect sleep onset for all sleeps to be slightly longer than on strict schedules as the naps and core(s) are shuffled around which may result in some changes in sleep architecture. Thus, it is also common to be able to stay alert until the second core or a particular nap longer or shorter depending on days because of a different percentage of vital sleep yield. Both core(s) and 1 or 2 naps at a time can be flexed, and should be started with small increments in flexing (e.g, 15m-30m flex in both directions, get adjusted to this range and then expand the range in bigger jumps).
When flex range widens, it is also normal to trigger a new flex range in a nap or core as the previous sleep block is flexed - take this as an opportunity to develop more flex range for that particular sleep block. For example, a delayed nap/core can automatically push the next nap/core back. As periods of drowsiness occur around the originally scheduled sleep, an extra nap can be added in a deemed long wake period to get used to the alternating nap numbers from day to day, as well as the changes in the number of waking hours between both core sleeps. All in all, having multiple sleep blocks, complemented by restful and well-timed naps keep the schedule structure resilient with continual flexibility of sleep timing. As a compensatory mechanism of a typical “-amayl” schedule, highly flexible sleeps result in multiple variations and modifications to the number of sleep blocks and/or sleep duration from day to day.
C. Why does this schedule work?
As evidenced in Chapter 6 of Why We Nap by Claudio Stampi, napping behavior not only occurs around the circadian nadir (2-5 PM) but can also at late morning hours (10 AM-12 PM) even when night sleep appears sufficient. The timing of spontaneous naps shows a strong relationship with core body temperature - it was also concluded that while nocturnal sleep is associated with low core body temperature, spontaneous daytime naps share a pattern of nearing or at maximum core body temperature (we also see napping after work, around 5-6 PM). The idea of DUCAMAYL (same as on SEVAMAYL) is to time the naps at these circadian spots to relieve homeostatic pressure while the 2 main core sleeps provide a major amount of SWS and REM sleep accordingly, simulating the structure of Segmented sleep. Cores are located at night, while naps dominate the daytime hours.
Interestingly, Stampi also mentioned the use of napping when core body temperature is at its minimum (which coincides with the timing of the nocturnal core sleep), and finds out that the nap lengthened to a 6.3h core in some subjects. Granted the subjects were not habitual nappers, it still suggests that it is easy to oversleep during graveyard hours with short power naps where body temperature is low (assuming normal nocturnal sleep), and the more ideal way is to nap during the day and not later (which clashes with the potential Forbidden Zone of sleep) or late into the night (higher risk of oversleeping in SWS peak hours).

Pros & Cons

In order to take a clear look at the potency of DUCAMAYL and what it can offer compared to other polyphasic schedules, especially SEVAMAYL, it is necessary to look at the pros and cons.
  1. Pros:
  • 20m power naps offer strong utility - this is part of why Everyman is so commonly used. They are long enough to contain a good amount of REM sleep/NREM2 sleep for generic recovery/memory consolidation, while also short enough to be placed into the schedule more easily. They appear to be able to survive long-term as with enhanced flexibility, whenever work or stuff get into the original nap time. Compared to schedules with only cores (except Segmented) or having daytime core(s) (e.g, Siesta, CAMAYL), this is a massive advantage.
  • Flexible core sleeps - on DUCAMAYL both core sleeps have potentially some natural flexibility built in because the total sleep is oftentimes high enough. Core flex of 15-30m from day to day should be realistic (taking just some days to 1 week to be adapted to). Larger flex ranges (up to 90m currently) are also possible to achieve and prove to be valuable in a lot of instances, but take longer to adapt to (up to a couple weeks without any interruptions in scheduling). Since both cores can become quite flexible (aside from variants whose total sleep of both cores is less than 4.5h), the amount of waking hours at night between 2 cores also varies - on some days when a sleeper wants to finish a movie or binge-watch some random TV show, they can expand the night gap and delay the second core. On days without much planning or not a lot of things to work on, they can move both core sleeps closer together and start the day after the second core earlier. When adapted preferably after some time, it is also possible to sometimes extend a core by 90m (once per 7-10 days perhaps). When more wake time is needed, a cycle can be cut from a core for a day, more naps and core extension can be scheduled some days later to catch up. On nights where there is nothing much to do, the first core can occupy those early evening hours, being earlier than the original sleep time.
  • Late core sleep is viable - for extended versions like DC1-ext, it is viable for the first core to be scheduled at 11 PM or midnight (with a dark period around 9 or even 10 PM) due to a higher amount of sleep. Starting the first core at 11 PM can rival certain Everyman scheduling (e.g, E3 core which starts early, or E2 core which also starts at 11 PM by default), making DUCAMAYL a lot more resilient than a regular dual core schedule where the first core sleep can start at even midnight some days.
  • The strong bond of dual core system - Compared to SEVAMAYL which only has 1 core sleep, when things go wrong for the core the naps are also largely affected (more grogginess upon wake due to unfulfilled vital sleep need), the second core of a dual core system can support the disruption(s) and inconsistencies in the first core. This can be done by either extending the second core on disrupted days and/or extending the first core the following night once adapted.
  • Allows varying nap duration - On some days or on scheduling variants that have an early second core (e.g, ending before REM peak hours), a Pronap (30-40m nap) in REM peak (~9-10 AM) is still viable to pull off for more REM sleep and wakefulness sustaining in anticipation of a long wake gap that does not allow any naps until much later in the day. One would think a normal Dual Core schedule does not need any Pronaps, but this is not exclusive to Everyman schedules. Similarly, occasionally extending a nap (before ~3 PM) to 25m-30m for extra rest is also possible, but should not be abused unless the adaptation and usage of 30m naps have already been used from the beginning (e.g, Bimaxion) and can lead to SWS wakes. In emergency or inconvenient situations, appetitive naps, scheduled naps of only 5m or reduced nap duration of only 10-15m can also be scheduled to sustain wakefulness until the next nap or core. Nap duration can also be reduced for later hours in the day (~6 PM onward) to avoid extra grogginess due to nearing SWS peak, or because of natural wakes. It is also possible to sometimes set the alarm for longer than 20m (e.g, 30m) to reduce the pressure of having to confine to only 20m naps and still avoid SWS at the end of the nap. This will ensure the actual sleep duration hovers around the 20m mark or higher likelihood to get actual rest from the nap. Regardless, if the base adaptation is 20m naps throughout, these tricks should be used moderately often at best, and reserved for after adaptation.
Figure 2. A DUCAMAYL variant with micronaps and core extension under emergency
  1. Multiple micronaps, 5-10m are taken (no upper limit for number of naps each day) because of prolonged obligations that do not tolerate the usual 20m naps.
  2. A longer nap can be taken before a social event in the evening for more alertness, while the cores are delayed into the late night hours. Note: After the party, if too sleepy and not have time to wait for the dark period, just do 15-30m of no blue lights/electronics before the first core. As long as these evening interruptions do not occur too often, the schedule should be able to recover from the damages.
  3. The following “recovery day”, there is no upper limit of core duration. Although to prevent destabilization (messed up repartitioning) of the whole schedule, only one full cycle is added to the SWS core, the SWS core is scheduled earlier (for more SWS), and one extra nap is added. This can be done on weekends or holidays and in the case of slight sickness and training in excess. This temporary Recovery state can take more than 1 day, so extra naps may have to be maintained until alertness levels are back to normal.
  4. Depending on the alertness levels from the sleep deficit, it may or may not require the immediate addition of a full cycle to the core the following night - the following day(s) can proceed with extra naps or somewhat longer naps (e.g, 30m naps) to gauge alertness and overall productivity. This highlights the important trait of “-amayl” schedules - the ability to sleep when tired and listening to the sleep cues by the body.
Figure 3. First core being skipped, and extension of second core on party night
  1. This scenario is a simulation of another successful DUCAMAYL adapter with reduced sleep requirement (~5-6h monophasic) coping with a party night on schedule. She adapted to strict sleep times on Bimaxion first, stayed on it for several months before making it flexible to become DUCAMAYL.
  2. After the party, the first core had to be skipped, and the second core was extended by 90m as the dark period shortened. Napping resumed in the flexible, adapted window, with taking 1 extra nap (3). The structure temporarily became a highly flexible Everyman variant.
  3. Depending on the requirement to wake up early in the following morning, this is a tough but viable way to survive a social event once in a while. It may be better to resume 2 core sleeps, with a short wake gap to resemble Dual Core structure to limit the chance for a long crash in the second core or causing excessive tiredness that takes several days to bounce back, which now takes all the sleep pressure from the skipped first core.
  4. This highlights the sturdy second core, circadian-wise it’s always around the second half of the night, so the rotation wasn’t too extreme when the first core was skipped. The second core backed it up.
  5. It would be ideal for the social event to take place after adaptation to DUCAMAYL is completed, or near completed, to minimize damage to the structure.
  • Versatile alternate scheduling: There are other much less popular variants of Dual Core presented below. These can suit the preference of some people, but they have much less reported successes over the years. Versatile variants, but I wouldn’t recommend them.
Figure 4. A DUCAMAYL variant (evolved from a DC2 base with a Pronap in REM peak)
  1. The first core takes care of ideally all SWS needs with 2 full cycles and located in SWS peak hours. The Pronap is to further support REM sleep because the second core is still way before REM peak.
  2. The second core and the Pronap deal with the remaining REM sleep. When the pronap becomes more flexible through DUCAMAYL adaptation, this nap may sustain wakefulness for the rest of the day (scheduled out of REM peak), resulting in needing only 1 nap for that day in case the second nap has to be skipped.
  3. Alternatively, if there is no Pronap in this specific DC2 variant from the start, then after adaptation to DUCAMAYL, the first nap can be extended for a couple minutes to become a Pronap occasionally.
  4. Located in the afternoon hours, the second nap likely contains mostly light sleep and becomes a strategically flexible nap.
  5. This nonstandard setup makes the SWS core a lot more susceptible to evening event interruptions so its viability is more limited.
Figure 5. A DUCAMAYL variant (evolved from DC1 base) with a daytime core
  1. This Dual Core variant has been attempted and reported some success (1 or 2 known cases in the Discord) over the years, so a route to DUCAMAYL is theoretically possible.
  2. I am not sure what the advantages this would present compared to the traditional DC1 setup, although I’ve heard from some people that a dawn nap gives them better vivid dream recall opportunities than a whole core sleep. Some people may also prefer a longer daytime sleep to a nap, which is a bit similar to Siesta sleep. For long term maintenance of the schedule it is more recommended to reduce the duration of daytime sleep.
  3. This is one possible variant for a third shift worker, although I currently do not know if there are any successful attempts. Working the third shift that allows 1-2 flexible naps may also be very difficult to pull off; short naps in graveyard hours (midnight to 8 AM) likely results in SWS naps, and flipped circadian rhythm (inverted dark period management) can prove to be very challenging to adapt. For Segmented sleep with similar core distribution above, there has been some more success as total sleep is higher.
  • Nap timing flexibility - as an integral part of the schedule, the naps are designed to be highly flexible. Having to nap later, at 3 PM today? No problem, nap at 3 PM then. Cannot nap at 3 PM tomorrow? Then time it at 5 PM or earlier than 3 PM if possible. Is it possible to nap at even 11 AM? Absolutely, if the core ends at ~6:30 AM for example. Only have time for 1 nap today? Then do 1 nap. Failed a nap because of peer pressure/being too excited than normal? Take a 20m nap later when ready. Etc etc. Though not ideal, it is possible to stay awake for 7-8h from the second core to the first nap in the day, depending on busy days and how much sleep the base dual core schedule has.
  • The second core sleep - The advantages from having this core sleep (around sunrise/second half of the night) are underrated. This is absolutely the stronghold for morning productivity that I get, all the way to noon. It’s just so much easier to get at least some REM sleep during a dual core adaptation and even the strong chance to recall vivid dreams because of more REM sleep. This feature is also what I find superior to Everyman design that can help combat excessive drowsiness during the early hours of the day (e.g 4-8 AM) even when adapting. Located at very late hours at night, this core is also pretty much guaranteed a safe spot from any real life interruptions.
  • Favors those who often wake at night - Like any other dual core variants those who keep waking up at night may find DUCAMAYL a final schedule with proper lifestyles by starting an adaptation to a strict dual core schedule.
  • Tankiness - On days where no naps can be scheduled, it is possible to temporarily revert to Segmented sleep by extending 1 cycle of sleep for that day. Ideally this should work out fine after adapting to the flexibility of the schedule. Skipping all naps too often (multiple times within a 7-10 day span) can end up ruining the whole schedule as the nap architecture becomes destabilized. Likewise, for an occasional party night, both cores can be delayed further into the morning and take some days to stabilize the schedule again.
Figure 6. A DUCAMAYL variant (evolved from DC1-ext or DC2-ext base) and core extension for a high sleep need individual
  1. Simulation of a day where all naps (1-2 naps) have to be skipped. On that day, DUCAMAYL reluctantly became Segmented.
  2. The following “recovery” night, a full cycle is added to the first core, and napping resumes as normal. In the following days, core durations are back to 3h.
  • Sufficient SWS & supports physical activities - since there are 2 core sleeps SWS has double the chances to enter both cores. The way this works is that dual core sleep utilizes the sleep peaks for optimal SWS which is critical for physical recovery. On extended variants or variants with at least 2 full cycles around SWS peak for the first core, this should not be an issue.
  • Moderate sleep reduction - The big majority of sleepers come here to get some more waking hours each day. A normal 8h monophasic sleeper with normal sleep requirements can still gain ~90m of extra wake time each day (or more) on DUCAMAYL with DC1-ext base. A sleeper with a longer monophasic duration will be fond of extended variants with some flexibility in the cores. While the sleep reduction is not that great compared to Everyman and Uberman, the freedom to nap is what keeps alertness high for the whole day, as I truly experienced how it feels to be powered up by them.
2. Cons:
  • Vulnerability of the first core - As a usual dual core system, DUCAMAYL also suffers the same weakness as other dual core schedules, although to a lesser degree. The first core + dark period combo often invades the evening hours (8-9 PM onward). While this is seen as a con, having a 60-90m dark period before the first core (on extended dual core variants) is fine. Despite flexibility in scheduling, DUCAMAYL’s first core can be thrashed in quality if delayed too late into the night. The less total sleep each core has, the more constrained the first core should be in the early SWS peak hours.
  • More total sleep than Everyman - I don’t see this as a con but I understand why. After all, Everyman gives a bit more sleep reduction.
  • Only works with flexible lifestyles - Because of the nature of the schedule and the requirement to schedule naps/cores at the right time, normal school, 9-to-5 work schedules (without any possibility for nap placement in the middle of the long wake gap) restrict the freedom of the sleep pattern and may result in unruly tiredness when performing tasks during these consistent, extended wake periods due to flexibility in sleep times. Tiredness can enter these hours once the body decides that these hours require sleep which in return reduces productivity levels. Similarly, chaotic shift work rotations will also destroy the natural circadian rhythm (cores at night naps in the day) when adapting. Having shift work also inverses the circadian rhythm, making it much harder to adapt to.
  • Unpredictability & Social Pressure - A decent con that cannot be overlooked. With the unpredictable nap timing that cannot be delayed by more than some hours, nap quality may suffer from workplace or unfavorable napping environments. For example, when it is required that one have to nap in the car, on uneven surfaces, during noises, light and have little to no time to cool down before a nap, naps can falter and put more pressure on the core sleeps. Same with the core sleeps when extended wake periods occur too often. Frequently allowing this to happen can lead to destabilization.
  • Harder adaptation than Everyman - this is true, as of now we have yet to fully understand the truly optimal scheduling for Dual Core sleep (aside from the extended variants which have a lot of success). A con that also makes it less tempting than Everyman.

Lifestyle Considerations

  1. Occupations:
Similar to other “-amayl” schedules in stock, flexible work-at-home, part-time and unorthodox occupations that allow rest intervals during work may benefit DUCAMAYL. However, the marked difference in scheduling DUCAMAYL core and naps is that the morning hours after the second core sleep can utilize alertness for several hours ahead, paving the way for a long, uninterrupted workflow that suits specific teamwork jobs (e.g, requirement to be present at a company/office for a whole morning) while having flexibility of extra/inconsistent work hours.
On the weekends or on days off work, it is possible to take naps earlier than usual (e.g, 10 AM) in the event that one has to stay awake for long periods of time in the afternoon/evening for social commitments. Because of the short power naps’ malleability on the schedule, it becomes easy to anticipate events that come in the way to schedule naps before and after an event, without disrupting the core sleep at night. During this enhanced flexibility as gifted by the correct sense of sleep timing, it is also possible to schedule naps in unfavorable zones such as the 5:30-7 PM range if required (although this should be done seldomly). Just be mindful of the late nap’s timing so that it won’t affect sleep onset of the first core sleep.
  1. Dark period application:
Despite the flexibility of scheduling, it is strongly recommended to start and end the dark period at the same times everyday. 2 cores can be flexible but should start after a dark period has begun for some time. When time is crunched, starting the first core 30m-60m after the dark period has begun (rather than the recommended 2h) is also acceptable. In situations where the dark period has to be skipped on some days, it is then recommended that 15m of no electronics/blue lights be used before the first core. Having a stable dark period from day to day is what keeps the whole schedule on track. Once adapted, it is also possible to occasionally delay dark period’s start time before the first core when needed.
  1. How to handle the wake gap between 2 cores:
Previously, in the pre-industrial era, people often woke up during the night and then engaged in various activities. As researched, they had sex, wrote poetry, meditated, cooked, prepared food for the next day and even prayed (Segmented sleep is described in the Bible and is also practiced by some religious groups like Muslim), to name a few. However, during the current technological era, our sleep pattern has changed to monophasic because of the advent of blue lights. The birth of Dual Core sleep follows the Segmented sleep pattern that we know today. And it only makes sense that the change in era and such simplistic activities are what polyphasic sleepers often ponder on when they begin a dual core schedule: What to do during the wake gap between 2 cores?
It is true that staying awake lonely at night when everyone else is sleeping and especially having nothing interesting to do can quickly become a daunting task to stay awake for many hours straight. For naturally segmented sleepers, this is not a big problem, but for non-segmented sleepers, there are a few tips to optimize these hours:
  • Make a list of what activities or tasks that can only be achieved at night time or much better done at night than in the day. Take advantage of the silence of the night. This includes entertainment activities (e.g, watching TV shows), studying (after the first core) to revise the learned materials prior to the first core. Entertainment is fair game if you have not had a chance to enjoy them properly for a while. Being alone can also be an advantage at times.
  • Dedicate to self-care. Self-care involves a lot of things, and it’s always a good thing to look after yourself when you have been too tired from working and committing to other obligations in the daytime. Self-care is also a great way to relieve built-up stress and anxiety. Autogenic training, meditation, yoga and stretching all come to mind. Just a brief session of 30-45m will help. Self-care isn’t something exclusive to Dual Core sleep - it can be utilized on any polyphasic schedules as well.
  • Plan your next day or day(s). Planning activities is often the activity that takes the most amount of time if you fully craft out what you have to do in the day. In the roles of CEOs, managers and probably even interns and students, you will have a lot to work on and be concerned about. With clear planning comes clear execution of tasks - the worst thing of being on a polyphasic schedule is not being able to utilize the promising extra waking hours you gain from your hard-work adaptation. Thus, time management is key and if you think hard enough, I don’t think you run out of things to do.
However, like other reducing polyphasic schedules, sleeping in excess due to sickness, injury, emotional distress (one way that the body requires REM rebound to cope with stress via an adaptive recovery mechanism) and excessive substance use (e.g, weed, alcohol) can destabilize the schedule’s structure. Living together with individuals who do not accept polyphasic lifestyle is also a massive roadblock that will not only hinder adaptation but also wreck the adapted state completely. On variants with lower sleep total of both cores combined (e.g, 4.5h and less), strenuous exercising and high level competition with weightlifting can pose troubles for physical recovery due to the requirement for extra SWS.

Further Remarks

Now, I am happy that the community has grown by a lot and we still see people arrive and want to learn about and try polyphasic sleep. From a seeming nail-in-the-coffin blows from articles trying to debunk polyphasic sleeping with little to no solid evidence in the 2010s to other radical-sleep-reduction wannabes on Youtube who completely disregard the practice of polyphasic sleeping to a totally different era and perspective on this “multiphasic” sleep method, we have gone a very long way. Especially this 2020 and forward, I would love to see the practice of long-term polyphasic sleeping coupled with flexible sleep schedules to avoid having to revert to monophasic or readapt to another schedule too often.
2020 also marked the soar of flexible schedules (Biphasic-X, CAMAYL, DUCAMAYL) together with the aligned forces of SEVAMAYL and the guide on flexing sleep to sustain a polyphasic schedule for long term. Several other tips on time management and productivity boost have also been laid out. It only makes sense that we now only learn to evolve and adapt to various situations. When “only strict sleep timing” is the idea that has been instilled in the mind of polyphasic adapters for 2 decades and is the scapegoat for criticism of impractical long term sleep habits, DUCAMAYL is only one of the answers to such accusations. We may sleep longer now than thousands of desired-to-be-successful Uberman sleepers in the past, but with flexibility in sleep timing and solid time management, we are heading for the long game.
Whichever polyphasic schedules you are doing, I hope you enjoy your time on it and upgrade it to however flexible you want it to be. If you seek a long term solution, flexing sleep becomes a requirement as no lifestyles can be permanently strapped in one spot. For those who relish the Segmented vibe that evokes the vintage preindustrial lifestyle, what a time to be alive!
submitted by GeneralNguyen to polyphasic


What we found after analyzing Hollysys Automation for more than 6 months

As a value investor, one of the things I look out for is a catalyst for price realisation. After all, even if a stock is criminally undervalued, if it does not have something in its future that will cause other people to wake up to its value, it could stay undervalued forever. Today I’m going to talk about a company that has a very clear catalyst which the value, as well as price of the stock, hinges upon. If the catalyst is positive, the upside is enormous, with the stock possibly doubling or tripling almost overnight.
It all started about 6 months ago when I decided to analyse automation. The coming 4th Industrial Revolution will see human-performed tasks being done by robots, and companies that provide these automation services could do very well indeed. After a quick screen, Hollysys Automation Technologies immediately jumped out at me: the company presented itself with spectacular financials characterized by high liquidity; low debt; steadily growing FCF/revenue/net income over the decade; consistent book value; an average ROE of 15% over a decade, ROCE 13%, a stock price trading at a 30-50% discount compared to competitors, and DCF models estimating a value of $30-40 (currently trading about $11). In other words, the dream of any value investor.
I will be the first to admit I don’t have as much knowledge in the automation industry as I’d like – and that’s something I’ve been working on over the past few months. So, after a quick look at their impressive financial statements, our next step was to talk to the IR of the various Hollysys competitors to better understand the competitive environment that Hollysys were operating in, and whether they could preserve their impressive return ratios over the long term.
As a quick overview of the company, Hollysys operates in two segments: industrial automation and railway automation. In industrial, most of the company’s revenue comes from automating fossil fuel energy plants. It would not be unfair to compare it to a defence company or a public contractor, since the Chinese Communist Party controls the state railways and owns a 75% stake in SINOPEC, China's largest and most important oil company. In addition, the company also has a dominant market position in safety systems for nuclear power plants in China, a sector that is growing with a CAGR of 17%, bringing the number of reactors in the country from 16 in 2012 to 56 in 2020. As the only certified provider of nuclear automation services in the country, HOLI has a monopoly in this subsector.
In the railway sector they hold a 30% market share, and they do not expect further increases in market share. Long-term organic revenue growth is likely to be 5%, primarily coming from after-sale services. However, they are actively researching new products such as CBTC (Communications-based train control) in subways, smart systems on highways, etc. If these products gain traction, which they should, then growth will be higher. Also, the company proved to have a great competitive advantage in the high-speed railway field as they are 1 of the 3 approved providers in 300-350km/h segment and 200-250km/h and the largest company in terms of ATP (on board equipment) sets.
In their ‘Smart factories’ subsegment, they provide solutions to accelerate product development cycles for large white goods companies like Haier. They provide integrated data collection products like SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition), data utilisation and analysing services to understand the application situations, designing the system architecture, data management and so on, being the largest company in terms of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. Another example of this subsegment of industrial automation would be their contract with Diaobignshan where they used to collect data to build a factory virtually and rapidly iterated designs to optimise efficiencies at low cost. They provide after-build services such as combustion optimization, equipment monitoring and maintenance, etc. This segment generates real tangible returns for customers, with higher production efficiencies and lower cost. However, it’s worth noting that some of their revenue in this segment comes from fossil fuel companies as well, so a surge in renewable builds could see revenue dropping even more than it would appear at first glance.
All the segments that Hollysys operates in have been growing impressively for the past few years, at a rate above even the high growth of the general Chinese economy. To fuel their supply-side based growth, fossil fuel plants have been opening across China at an unprecedented rate, while China’s high-speed railway network has gone from virtually non-existent 15 years ago to being 2/3rds of the entire world’s track length. As Chinese wages rise, the pressure on factory owners to automate is also increasing to stave off price competition from South-East Asian competitors.
So far, the situation all looks good from a high-level company view. But when you either zoom out to look at the macro environment, or in to look at the specifics of the business, cracks begin showing.
The situation with the Chinese government is tricky – and not for the reason you might think. Despite the fact that most of HOLI’s revenue comes from state-owned entities, and it’s monopolistic market position also dependent on the government, we do not see the government introducing competition to the market to drive down prices as a big threat. China has applied a protect-and-nurture strategy for domestic companies in every sector you could think of very successfully, creating such behemoths as Tencent and Alibaba. You prevent superior foreign competition from entering the market, and choose a winner for each sector, allowing it to take monopolistic profits to accelerate the rate of innovation and shorten the timeline that it needs to compete with foreign companies. From the past decade, Hollysys is the chosen winner for the sectors that it competes in, and that the threat of increased competition due to the Chinese government is virtually non-existent. Companies like Siemens or ABB still have objectively superior products and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Until HOLI catches up with them and can compete in a global free market, the handholding from the government will not end.
However, while the Chinese government will not introduce competition to the markets that HOLI competes in, whether it will continue to incentivise those markets is another question entirely. In a recent Chinese government conference, China firmly stated that it would become carbon neutral by 2060 (pay attention: NET carbon emissions will be equal to 0, and not TOTAL emissions, which is quite different). I have no doubt that this will happen – the largest benefit of a single-party state is that these long-term plans can be set in stone and executed upon decades in advance, something which China has been doing since the ways of Deng. And quite obviously, there is consequently a very real threat to the heavily polluting fossil fuel-based power plants that HOLI derives a lot of its revenue from. Banning the construction of new fossil fuel plants is an obvious way to reach this target, but whether China chooses to do this or to find alternative methods of cutting net emissions is less obvious. I would like to remind you that coal consumption, which fell from 2013 to 2017, driven in part by China's willingness to significantly improve air quality, has started to rise again in more recent years as the economy suffered a severe backlash forcing the government to stimulate industrial growth.
Although the government has not released some specifics regarding how these emissions will be reduced, it is thought that this was strongly desired to allow the Communist Party to have the flexibility necessary in the short term to support the economic recovery following the pandemic. Renewables cannot as yet compete with fossil fuels in lifetime cost of operation, and building more fossil plants is a tried-and-true method of giving the economy a shot in the arm, something that any economy could do with right now.
At the same time, future constructions of railways are also uncertain. Most of the tracks laid in recent years is economically unviable, with low demand and a poor populace in these tier-3 cities laying a cap on ticket prices. However, the government views high-speed rail as a socially beneficial alternative to coaches and planes for the hundreds of millions of migrant workers that travel between large cities and the country every holiday, and thus heavily subsidises losses and encouraged more construction in the last 5-year plan. Whether continued construction in both railways and fossil fuel power plants will happen is up in the air and something that we will see in the next 5-year plan, due in March 2021.
A natural response to the threat to fossil fuel power generation automation would be to ask whether Hollysys could simply transition to automating the renewable power generation sector. My research indicates that this is not realistic. The various wind turbines, solar panels, dams, etc. they do not require a complex level of automation like that used in a refinery plan. The latter are huge power plants that occupy hundreds of square meters which require automated processes to obtain the greatest result with the least effort.
📷 https://postimg.cc/JtMhBQRR
image from https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/4701
While as regards the structures and machines used for renewable energy, they do not require complicate automated processes such as those used in oil and petrochemical plants; the entire process is enclosed within the turbine itself (as far as wind energy is concerned), so that it becomes almost impossible to state that these types of energy require any automation processes. In the image below I have shown you what the inside of a wind turbine looks like, which differs drastically from the previous image of the refinery plant.
📷 https://postimg.cc/p9K2mm79
image from https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine
A field of application, which is very different from the one discussed above, could be to offer automation processes for the companies that produce the different solar panels, wind turbines and so on. This, however, has nothing to do with the automation processes used in oil and petrochemical businesses; here we are dealing with real industrial processes which cannot be connected to the former since they are completely different fields.
The problem is that we are not sure if Hollysys can provide such solutions and even if it is able, we do not know the time needed for this transition. One of Hollysys' strengths was its vast knowledge in the oil industry, which allowed it to keep various competitors away, but this advantage will not be reflected in the renewable sector since they have no knowledge in this field and, and from what I’ve seen, the company has not shown any interest in this sector, neither from the various conference calls held in the past nor from the annual or quarterly reports, which suggests management is either unaware of the threat or incapable of addressing it. The fact that management accounts for some fossil fuel plant automation revenue in ‘smart factories’ suggests the latter, and that they’re trying to make it look less serious than it is.
We are not saying that the company is in danger of failure, since it still has two other revenue streams to rely on, but we will certainly see a decrease in revenues (in 2019, 41% of revenues derive from automation sector, of those 41%, 40% are from oil industries) and a deterioration in the relationship with the Chinese government.
Overall, the conclusion can be drawn that if the coming 5-year plan is unfavourable to Hollysys, the company will face serious setbacks to its short and long-term prospects as the market is pricing in, while a positive 5-year plan that encourages construction of both fossil fuel plants and railways would be hugely accretive to the value of the company. My personal stance is to wait and see what the 5-year plan says – with a small-cap Chinese stock like this, the market is unlikely to immediately react and fully reprice Hollysys on positive news, allowing me a chance to get in after the future is secure even if I miss out some gains. The uncertainty regarding the possible downside to a company is something I hate, although if you have more stomach for risk and think the 5-year plan will be friendly to HOLI, you could jump in now.
If you are positive enough to jump in now you may find interesting that in my positive-scenario-model, I therefore attribute to the automation sector a CAGR of about 5% for the next 10 years, the railway sector a CAGR of 5-6% (assuming continued construction in the next 5-year plan) and attribute to the nuclear sector a CAGR of 12-15% given the enormous progress made in this particular sector in the last 10 years. The final stock price would be something between $25-30 but only if Hollysys starts to be valued with the same multiples of its peers and Chinese government postpones its good intentions to reduce their carbon impact on the rest of the world in order to sustain Chinese’s economy recovery.
Other important facts concerning the company:

  • About 3 months ago the ex-CEO Baiqing Shao was changed, who has held the role for more than 7 years and was one of the founders of the company, with a member of the company's directors, Mr Colin Shang. The reasons for this decision were not entirely transparent, as the company initially stated that the CEO had left office and remained on good terms with the company, but in the latest quarterly report the company states the following: "Dispute in connection with the ownership of Ace Lead Profits Limited (" Ace Lead ") may adversely impact us." We were made aware of a shareholder’s dispute regarding ownership of one of the principal shareholders. In August 2016, Mr. Changli Wang, the then sole shareholder of Ace Lead, one of our record shareholders, transferred his single share in Ace Lead to Mr. Baiqing Shao for a nominal consideration. As of the date hereof, Ace Lead owns 4,144,223 ordinary shares of our company, representing 6.9% of the outstanding shares of our company. We were recently notified that Mr. Wang indicated that, as Mr. Shao had stepped down as the chairman and chief executive officer of our company since July 2020, he should no longer be entitled to any share in Ace Lead and he should immediately transfer the share in Ace Lead to one or more persons designated by Mr. Wang. As of the date of this annual report, Mr. Shao has not transferred the share in ACE Lead to any designees of Mr. Wang. We cannot predict the outcome of the dispute. If Mr. Shao refuses to transfer the share in ACE Lead to a person designated by Mr. Wang, the dispute could escalate and litigation may ensue between Mr. Shao and Mr. Wang, and our company may become involved. Any escalation of this dispute, including potential litigation, may cause us to incur significant time, resources and cost if we were to become involved. As easily understood this does not seem a "friendly" decision by the old CEO, moreover with 7% of the shares in circulation he can do much more damage to the company by attending the shareholders' meetings, being one of the shareholders with the highest participation .
  • Many impairments of goodwill. The M&E refers to two companies they bought, Concord and Bond. They are based in Singapore and Malaysia. But their business spread in south east Asian and middle east. Before COVID-19, the macro-economy situation in those areas was not good, and then COVID-19 brought new challenges. Therefore, their management expects future lower profit in M&E. They also do not give guidance on the development of M&E since the company think risk control is the key focus, rather than revenue growth.
  • When they got asked what they thought about Trump will to delist Chinese companies from U.S. exchanges they said that they are evaluating recent issues that may potentially affect their status as a Nasdaq-listed company and it is prudent to say that they do not exclude that option. So, no real answer was given about that, which makes me think that they do not have any plan for the near future.
  • IR is slow to respond to investors. I sent two emails, the first of which was generally positive and the second follow-up which raised some of the issues discussed in this article. IR has not responded to the second for more than a month, which makes me very uncomfortable.
Also, I wanted to give you a feedback on what Hollysys has to say about this matter but investor relator has not replied to my email for more than 1 month, this gives you a clue on how bad their communication with investors is. On the other hand, I have scheduled another call with one of their competitors on 18 November to talk about what can be done for companies like these to keep up with the almost sure transition that China will experience in the following years.
submitted by InfiniteValueptr to investing