jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Say a negative announcement is made regarding a stock when does it impact the price, now or ten seconds in the future ?

If an exchange limits trading to every 10 seconds, then those trades will just happen privately between firms. So now the privately trading firms will know the "real" price of the stock, but the people on the exchange will be left it the dark with the "old" price.

Once you hit the the next allowed trading period, everyone is going to be selling exactly simultaneously, which will cause a nosedive in the price. Institutional investors like pension funds are legally obliged to sell shares if they go past certain trigger points, so if the nosedive cause them to get triggered suddenly you have a lot more selling and a market in panic.

Different people have different requirements for speed, and this naturally smoothes out trading, forcing everyone to trade at the same time is just asking for a disaster to happen.

Plus there's all sorts of other complications. For example order matching. There's one buy order and 100 sell orders. How do you decide which sell order to fill ? - you can't do it by time of ordering anymore, but you need a transparent way to ensure fairness. So you randomize it. But then your rewarding whoever manages to put the most orders in, so you need a way to fix that, and then fix the problems in that fix and so on and so on until you end up with a horribly convoluted opaque system.
A while back, I wrote an essay on the subject...

http://daniellefong.com/2008/05/15/advice-to-the-bright-and-...
The public doesn't know very much about these scanners. There are only one or two public images allegedly taken in a scanner, but not with the “arms in the air” pose required for actual air travelers.

To correct this, in every airport a collection of volunteers who don’t mind people seeing them “xray-naked” should be sent through the scanner, just like normal operation, and the pictures should be displayed next to the security line so everyone in line can make up their own mind if they want to be scanned or would prefer to opt out for manual screening.
+1 to natural sunlight, all the comfy chairs and fancy coffee machines can't make up for a windowless office
I did YC summer 2009 (Bump). Of the 3 founders I was the most critical going in, mostly based on valuation. But unlike most investor relationships, the money is the minority part of the value provided. The majority is things money can't buy: advice/perspective, encouragement, the front row seats mentioned in the article, multiple networks, more. I didn't fully appreciate the quality of the intangibles until later. Now my advice is- if you can get in, just do it. Some people go through twice I hear, what is that saying.
I love the "Particule" concept, a nice extension of atoms (and a much nicer name than "tuple"). Where is it coming from?

Without going into Prolog, now that you have some pattern matching, maybe you could have some notion of success/failure, like in Icon, this is very expressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_(programming_language)
Yowzers. Really not fun for anyone.

I realize it's a little morbid, but I'm looking forward to the writeup on this one. Those blog posts are always really good reads about keeping your site afloat.
Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1898600
You mean the big commercial game engines? They took a while time to adjust because, by definition, they're big. Harder to move the entire ecosystem at once.

But that's hardly "all the game engines"
Apple pays its employees, utilities, insurance, taxes, bondholders, suppliers etc, their margin is not 100%, more like 25%. Profits ultimately drive company valuations. The cash does not just flow through to Berkshire, the dividend yield is relatively low.

I don't understand what you are trying to say about MacBooks being 11% more expensive?
Regardless of his qualifications, his point is interesting: J&J seems to be about as effective as a single dose of Pfizer. There was a whole bunch of worry about what would happen if people got only one of their two Pfizer doses.

Was that worry all for nothing? Was it backed up by any science? If there was legitimate reason for concern, why do we not have the same concern around the j&j vaccine?

(I'm not trying to advocate any of these points. I'm even less qualified than an economist. But they seem like legitimate questions)
The author (Doug Jones) has a bit of a taste for projections of questionable utility but high didactic value. (I can sympathize!) See his instruction set designs that'll never be implemented, but which offer interesting ideas. This would be a project in that vein. It's very serious. But it's not.

Building a ternary computer requires you to think completely outside the box. You even have to pick which kind of ternary "Boolean" logic you'll use, as there's no consensus on how 3VL should work. Then fill out all the 3^9 possible basic logical operations and pick a few logically universal ones as building blocks. And then you have to design circuits to implement them. And none of your existing bit-twiddling logic designs -- or algorithms -- will work. It's total re-invention of the wheel, really.

But it's mostly a thought experiment. While there are theoretical advantages, ternary machines are, in honesty, unlikely to ever offer any real advantage over binary ones. More electronic complexity for something you can trivially simulate on a binary machine. But it does make you think.
Will we get Steam keys for the games? If yes, you can have my $20, even though I have most of these games already.
>If your instinct is to say "fuck VC", you shouldn't be taking their money either.

This is a key takeaway I think. If you take investor money, you de-facto lose the "creating value" monopoly despite the fact that the founders are in fact the ones who are creating value (by building the business) - not investors.

What happens is causation gets muddled, so an investor can always say "well it wouldn't have happened without me!" when that might not have been the case. No one will ever know though.
Meta reply: Nope, works perfectly for me. I am on Safari 5.0.3 on 10.6.5. Not sure about FireFox but it has always exhibited rather buggy behaviour in certain situations on Mac OS X.
An allocator that can leak (4kB - epsilon) of memory for each allocation is
broken. It's not a question of whether the language makes such allocations unusual: free() not actually allowing memory to be freed is a violation of the contract of a memory allocator.

From the man page (which I believe quotes ISO C): "The free() function shall cause the space pointed to by ptr to be deallocated; that is, made available for further allocation." If free doesn't do that because another allocation is pointing into that page, that's a violation of the contract. Standard quarantine doesn't violate the spec because the space will eventually become available no matter what, but perpetual quarantine does.

One way to fix the problem would be to round up all allocations to 4kB, but that's very wasteful and slow due to cache and page table traffic; you'd be better off from a performance point of view with a garbage collector. More promising is ARM MTE, though the tag is currently too small to really be called a solution to UAF as opposed to a mitigation. A 64-bit tag would be enough, but I'm not sure what the performance costs of that would be--I wouldn't be surprised if the increased memory traffic makes it slower than a GC.
Yep, been travelling through SE-Asia for the last 3 months. Loads of scooters here and they're parked anywhere on the street or sidewalks. Even if you'd theoretically get a power outlet from an apartment onto the street, there would be no way of controlling who uses it (=probably everybody).

Actually, that wouldn't even work in the apartment building I live in (in Berlin, Germany). Some people park their scooters in the courtyard... a public power outlet would probably be used for anything imagineable before a scooter would even get a half charge.
All current Intel/AMD processors (since Intel Core/AMD K6) are RISC cores with a complex instruction decoder in front of them. There's more to a processor core than the instruction set, and both pipelining and out-of-order execution have nothing to do with the instruction set architecture. There have been in-order x86 processors (Transmeta and Via, Intel before the Pentium Pro), and there are plenty out-of-order RISC processors: POWER4 and up, SPARC T4, RISC-V, many ARM Cortex models.
Had exactly the same question and found this short clip (from Weaviate, an alternative vector search engine): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDOl9fRObVg
In a distributed nature with Vlad I think the aim is to reduce a single point of failure.