skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Latency arb is taking advantage of people with slower connections by being able to place/cancel orders faster than them. As most exchanges are price, time priority, unless someone beats your price, first in line gets filled first.

> To "flip the spread" you need to predict where the market will go after your order gets elected.

Lets talk abstractly for a moment, that sentence is exactly wrong. The whole point of flipping the spread is that you can immediately sell what you just bought and make the spread risk free. That's what market making is, providing liquidity for the spread as profit. Now, pragmatically, of course the market doesn't sit still for long and the price may change between your buy and sell so of course it's good to predict the market direction to reduce the risk of being on the wrong side of a move. But HFT is trading at the microsecond scale, prices aren't moving much at that scale in that short a period of time and you only need to know where the market is going for say the next second to be in an out of a slew of trades.

> The market is pretty efficient.

Agreed.

> The average limit order loses the spread and rebates after execution.

I don't believe that. That would mean that slippage exceeds the spread and more on most orders and unless you're trading a very illiquid market there's no way that can be true unless you're trading very large, large enough to move the market alone.

> You are right that the actual execution algorithms aren't doing super complex analysis in real-time.

That's my main point.

> Usually that is done offline through simulation to generate rule sets, decision trees or factor weightings. That work is definitely quantitative.

I agree with that as well, but that's not HFT trading, that's market analysis and mostly I believe, though I admit I could be totally wrong here, that analysis is mostly used for slower algorithmic trading, not HFT. In HFT, it's better to be faster than smarter, especially with the sub-penny rule imposed by Dodd-Frank.
Some people think pair programming consists of one person sitting with another person at their disk taking over their workstation and having them just watch. This is actually horrible and hurts the body because looking at the screen for a long time in a weird position aches. I had this happen at an internship of mine before. I loathe that experience.
What Is Leadership, Anyway?
We are used to some measure of equality these days, and are surprised when the burden of "doing someone a favor" falls so explicitly on random women.

As we go through life we end up finding the lines at which each of us will stop. "Will you babysit my three children for five hours for free with no notice?" "Will you move so I don't have to touch your tempting elbow by accident?" "Will you let me blow through this deadline at work so I can.... get an emergency consult about my new leukemia diagnosis? go to Disneyland? take a mental health week? hang out with my new girlfriend?" I'm sure you'd say yes to some of these requests and no to others.

As so many office folks have said, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." We all have the right to decline performing such "favors" for others.
>Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful?

I'm sorry but this is a huge overreaction. The op clearly stated he had a problem with talking to people because of their vagueness implying that the other person was "problematic". By stating the op is problematic instead of the "normal" person he is just stating that he is the source of the problem, not the normal person.

Anyway, there's a slight irony considering we are talking about people taking words to literally.
"How does one spend $1 billion on software and fail?"

Just look at most UK Government IT projects. They've got it down to a fine art, blowing billions and being left with nothing useful.

Several major international government consultancy firms got their break on supposed small UK Gov IT projects, and were able to keep billing $1,000's/hour for years (while delivering nothing useful) and became big IT consultancies in the process. The failure didn't harm them one little bit - it let them claim the have experience and that got them way more work.

IT project failure in large and complex organizations is practically guaranteed.

Now, if they did that small-ish team, paid well, it could well work. But your board is not going to approve some pizza munching, jolt cola drinking geeks as your wonder IT team. Don't worry what the team is really like, the consultants asked by the board to review them as part of the process will make sure they're described as the aforementioned pizza and cola weirdos. And recommend using the consultants team instead. Been there. Done that.
The thing is, Apple made a phone with a backdoor. It has a backdoor already. Unlocked by apples software signing keys. If Apple wants to continue to do that, but wants to mostly respect their customers' privacy, they need to create a facility to unlock it selectively upon seeing a warrant. It really isn't that hard to do, since they can make firmware updates that only work on specific devices. It can and probably will be argues that this is exactly like wire tapping, where it is up to the telecom to actually demand a warrant before giving the gov access.

It would be neat if the supreme Court would say this is unconstitutional on some ground, because that would seem to apply to other forms of wiretapping. They aren't fundamentally different. I'm sure the first time the gov asked a company to help them install wire taps, it seemed like a big deal.

I think some people are being intellectually dishonest when they say a backdoor can't be created without sacrificing security for everyone else. It can be done such that your privacy on an iPhone is just as good after a backdoor is created as it was before. Which is to say, not perfect because Apple had the key either way. If you want real security use a good passcode and keep it in your head.
“If you were new faculty, would you start something like SageMathCloud sooner?”
Moot?! Please. In 2018 Apple gets handed a national security letter with a demand to backdoor all deployed iOS devices, with which they comply. Users see a routine update (maybe even with some conveniently timed security fixes included too!), and... key in their PIN. Everyone is now backdoored. Not the specific situation you were thinking of? Welcome to the world of security design: holes are everywhere and plugging them piecewise doesn't work if the problem is fundamentally intractable. Your theory would protect the San Bernardino shooters, but not you or me or anyone else.

Why do people (smart people, even!) continue to insist that this problem can be solved by technical measures? This problem cannot be solved technically. Stop it. Please. This misinformation is hurting all of us.

If you want snoop-proof encryption then the user needs to manage the keys herself, which I believe was MJG's point in that blog post. (And even then you're trusting the hardware itself not to have a backdoor to pull off the pass phrase, etc...).
For IT professionals, completely ignoring all points systems (hotel, flight, car rental, and credit card) will remove enough clutter from your mind to earn more than the points provide.
Today FBI has the resources to desolder the chip and put it into all sorts of controllers where they can prod and poke at the encrypted data.

What if this guy used a long passcode? They're still going to try to get in, and the only difference is that they'll move the heavy lifting off of the iPhone and try to crack it with beefy computer. And to do that, they'll have to lift the chip off the SoC anyway.

My point is that when people say Apple will "unlock" the phone, it insinuates that the only thing standing between FBI and the data is Apple. And that isn't true. Even if Apple complies, they're they're not guaranteed to get in. Furthermore, Apple could comply and they still might find themselves pursuing an angle that they're already capable of. FBI are going through all these court hearings and process all for the sake of trying 0000-9999.

In other words, this is obviously bullshit on the side of the FBI. The question is why they're doing that. I suggest that it's not about legal precedent, because newer iPhones can't be undermined like this and the All Writs Act can't compell Apple to stop producing such devices, it can only (arguably) compell them to undermine devices if it's within their reach. (IANAL so please call me out if I'm wrong about that.)

I suspect it's about PR, because when they lose they can throw their hands up and the news pundits will scream about terrorists winning in our courts. Washington will then push their backdoor legislation that they've been asking for over the past few months.

Legal precedent isn't what they're after, IMHO. The legal precedent that would be set wouldn't be applicable to where things are headed. They're looking for public appeal.
"I do not fear the State..."

That's a nice sentiment and while I hope you're correct it's not really good enough in any country. This state is Germany and it has two of the poster children for state terror in the last 100 years. The Stasi and well, there are times when Godwin's really doesn't apply. National Socialists happened and we can't pretend they didn't.

Neither of these two examples did the state start out the way it became.
1) Assume that code is speech

2) Assume a corporation is a person

3) Compelled speech violates the first amendment

4) Therefore court can't force Apple to write code

Seems airtight to me.
Encryption is an opt-in for Android users, while it is an opt-out for iOS users.
Don Feith is a great guy. He was a gentleman and took time to answer my questions about the business world (and the Unix-y one in particular) in the 80s and 90s. Hope his business is doing well, and if they're hiring I'd definitely give it a look.
I think the point is that there's no question of causality between values of constants and the existence of life, just conditionality, which is what Bayes knows how to talk about.

That is, the anthropic principle doesn't try to "explain" why a constant takes a value. It just notes that the conditional property of us observing that value (given that we exist) is 1, regardless of what the unconditional property might be (or even whether it's variable to begin with).
There's nothing that makes the digital data on a phone any different or more private than the physical data in a filing cabinet in a home or office, both which require the same level of judicial oversight to obtain (your first point is factually incorrect with regard to this case, as the FBI does have a warrant to search this phone).
Surely not. Just a weird British thing. Like how they write "math" as "maths" and pronounce it "mafs"...
Elixir has a great documentation system built in. I use that.
My first laptop was a 10 year old hand me down Windows 95 laptop (literally, as old as me) that I used just to play Space Cadet Pinball. I can't believe they took it out of Windows 98; what a great game haha
Remote Control Yard Work Using ReFLEX
How is it different than getting a phone company to install a wire tap?

What you describe is not what's being asked for. What the FBI wants is a tool to get into this phone. They will definitely want to get into more phones in the future, but that's not the same as a single tool that gets into any phone. It can be a new one every time.
If it wasn't possible to make such a tool, I'd be a lot more outraged. But it is. Tell me why that can't be done.
Hmm, this could be a good way to use postgresql during unit tests for python applications, as a cheap alternative to sqlite://:memory: and ramdisks. Cleanup is just container management task stuff, instead of adding postgresql package to linux distro.
Hard to argue today that is was a mistake to buy it in 2012. Zynga was flush with cash after the IPO and "well timed" secondary offering[1]. That building is probably worth over $500 million today. Given that the entire company is worth around 1.7 billion it is likely the best investment they ever made.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/zynga-insiders-cashed-out-jus...
Zenefits bans employees from drinking in the office
A crowdtesting and review service for tech, gadgets and design
Good link, thanks.

Hernando de Soto makes a similar case that societies need some cultural achievements unlocked before their market-based economies can work well. Stuff like property rights, fair and impartial courts, contract law, enforced regulatory authority, professional civil servants, etc.

The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else

Hernando de Soto (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywh...

I have friends that work in development who criticize de Soto: a good start, but as one would expect, the story isn't that simple. Alas, I don't recall their upgrades to de Soto's insights.
Working in IT with people (also in IT) who speak imprecisely (to the degree that often what they say is exactly wrong) is particularly challenging.
Not to be confused with...

Fabric - A platform for secure distributed computation and storage
https://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/papers/fabric-sosp09.pdf

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/projects/fabric/

From the place that brought us practical, cutting-edge security like JIF, SIF, SWIFT, and CIVITAS. Link below gets you to most of that:

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/jif/

Then there's this Fabric which probably has different security properties. ;)
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11163632.
How is it bad from a firm-diversity perspective? If multiple companies develop the same product then a diverse range of businesses sell that security.

Of course, one could argue that "innovation" in financial markets has had a lot of bad consequences. There are very few truly innovative and solid ideas that don't cause huge amounts of risk. Black-Scholes algorithm is one example of good innovation that comes to mind, but even that caused problems for their inventors.

Collateralised debt obligations, credit-swaps, contracts for difference, most derivatives, high-frequency trading and binary options are all hugely high risk and/or distort markets. HFTs in particular are egregious, they are hard to analyse and rely on huge numbers of transactions being made and, to my mind, allow traders to make money not on the qualities that allows commerce to do good for society, but only benefits those who aren't the first to attempt to buy or sell a share based on what others are doing, but by looking at 3hat they are doing and jumping in first. The only winners there are those looking to improve high speed Internet transactions, but even then the gains are limited.
It seems that this demonstration was for a factory robot, so dealing with all types of doors is not required. Operating in a factory is much easier than being able to adapt to various settings.
Online Cake Delivery @ http://www.cakengift.in/ ,
Cake Delivery in Delhi @ http://www.cakengift.in/by-city/cake-delivery-in-delhi-333.h...
Cake Delivery in Noida @ http://www.cakengift.in/by-city/cake-delivery-in-noida-335.h...
Do you think he has any interest in enhancing the programmability of Excel, for the first time in over a decade? (Serious question)
Cake Delivery in Gurgaon @ http://www.cakengift.in/by-city/cake-delivery-in-gurgaon-334...
No. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Or, it's been 10 years since that article was written - where's the newer evidence?
New molecular scissors cut out lingering HIV–maybe once and for all
S-expressions are a classic example of something that can't be matched with a DFA or NFA. In order to know how many parens are currently open (and therefore needing to be matched with closing parens) it would need an unbounded number of states.
No, because if his password wasn't 0000-9999, Apple still would have complied with the order and the phone would still be encrypted.

They're not ordered to decrypt it. And I think when a layman hears "unlock", they're led to believe that means decrypt.
Sexy Girl, Down in the DM Dance
The Paradox of Autonomy and Recognition
>If the document is that far out of date, its meaning likely is too. The founding fathers were human too; skilled legislators to be sure, but we have skilled legislators today too.

I don't see how a constitution can go "out of date". It's the founding document for a nation - the individual states that compromise the US ratified a document that forms the basis of their association. Individual words and phrases have gone out of common parlance, but to change the meaning of the document would require the agreement of the parties, i.e. the states. Is it ever reasonable for the other party to tell you "Now that you've signed this contract, we're going to change it"?

The genius of the US constitution is that it sets up a mechanism for a system of government without getting into policy. Policy is decided by the legislature, and the legal code changes all the time.

But the structure has served us well and is better than, or at least no worse than, that of anyplace else. Human nature hasn't changed, after all, and there hasn't been any real advancement in government for thousands of years.

The lawyering over language happens because a document is just a means of communication, after all - there's no purpose in a written agreement if you're going to allow the meaning of the words in that agreement to change.

> Rather than try to stretch a document written for a very different time to apply to modern disputes, why not hold a new convention, with a remit not to figure out what people were thinking 200+ years ago, but to figure out the best answers to the questions we have today?

Because you don't need to change the structure of a government to change policy. The legislature is there to provide "the best answers to the questions we have today".
If this is Bayes, then what is the prior probability distribution over the values the fine structure constant could take?
I imagine videos like these being used in future trials to show humans torturing robots.
In my US school we don't even write our own compiler in programming languages class. Europeans seem to learn a ton more.
For me, I think it depends on how closely I care about the words or (for fiction at least) whether the scene is people talking or a description of the area or some action.

With dialog, or a narrator's voice, I often imagine them speaking it or provide a voice for them in my own head. With action scenes, especially engrossing ones, I sort of just spend the extra mental energy trying to picture the scene rather than "hearing" the words. I have a very hard time paying attention to what the characters look like or are wearing. Usually imagine it briefly as it is being described and move on.

Oddly enough, when I'm reading aloud, sometimes I sort of stop imagining what is going on as I'm too busy trying to sort out how to speak the dialog (especially in some different voices) that I no longer pay complete attention to the scene.

For non-fiction, I generally spend more mental energy trying to visualize the concepts being described and stop "hearing" the words. Or if I'm merely skimming and want to get a sense of what is being said without the details.

So I think a "voice" is something I can and do switch on and off depending on whether my brain thinks it is important and probably on the difficulty of the text itself.
DuckDuckGo places their ads on the top. Top ads looks much nicer. I bet the conversion rate of those CTA would be significantly higher.
A Cool Tattoo – An Expression of Street Art – The Emporialist
Is this close enough to your original idea?

http://www.dashfest.com/?p=393
SmartAsset Is Looking for a Digital Marketing/SEO Analyst in NYC
I don't know a lot about sales numbers for web games. However the best HTML5 game I've come across so far has been Red Carpet Rampage.

It's very solid and well crafted. The content was entertaining. More importantly it worked smoothly in both my desktop browser (Firefox - on my crappy old 32bit Vista laptop) and my phone browser (Chrome for Android - on 1st gen Moto G LTE).
> Keep them hydrated
> Everyone that interacts with the candidate must offer a beverage or a trip to the bathroom as many times as possible throughout the day. Bladder manipulation is a powerful interrogation tactic.

There are all sorts of medical conditions or even just metabolisms that make some people need to go for one or the other really often - as a candidate, it can also be really scary/embarrassing to interrupt your interviewer to ask to take care of these. And, interviewers generally don't communicate/schedule these between each other to ensure it gets handled according to your schedule, even if you only need a couple breaks.

It's far better to just have everyone ask; the candidate can politely refuse if not needed, and everything continues on normally.
This is awesome. India is doing the correct hung these days. First they show Zuckerberg the door and then this. Kudos to whoever is in charge of this change.
I've found it interesting to read and evaluate some viewpoints that I don't normally hear. Please stop demanding that HN be your own personal echo chamber.
I have no internal monologue unless I'm internally assembling bits of language for speech or writing (for example, putting my thoughts together for this sentence). If I get into a deep "flow state" while writing, or I'm in casual conversation with someone I'm comfortable with, that too goes away.

If I try to mentally visualize something I'm not looking at, even if I'm very familiar with it, it's usually impressionistic at best - rough outlines and swaths of color.
This badly needs to change, now that your "pocket lint" can store more data than an entire house full of filing cabinets.
What's wrong with the letting the government get access to the phones of a few potential criminals/terrorists?! I don't get what all the fuss is about.

I don't fully trust the government, but I trust it far more than I trust Apple.

Sometimes I feel like the whole Snowden thing is just an excuse for big corporations to keep all their data and analytics practices to themselves outside of the scrutiny of the government.
Since when did the government become the enemy? There is something really twisted happening behind the scenes here.

Big corporations are manipulating us into thinking that the government is not to be trusted. But think about it; the government doesn't care about making a profit.

Without the government, the masses have no voice. I would gladly help society and let the government look through my phone if it will help prosecute a criminal.
http://news.yahoo.com/companies-pay-workers-to-live-close-to...
I agree. Particularly with the Sonnets where, once you get the sense of the expected rhythm of the words, and try to add how they would sound like spoken, they are much more enjoyable.

The only experience I can think of that is similar would be sight-reading music before trying to play it.