skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Burry is making a terrible case, and he's fundamentally wrong on basically all counts.

> And now passive investing has removed price discovery from the equity markets. The simple theses and the models that get people into sectors, factors, indexes, or ETFs and mutual funds mimicking those strategies -- these do not require the security-level analysis that is required for true price discovery.

Passive investing is, for the most part, not funging against dollars that would have gone to high quality asset managers. It is removing noise in the form of retail speculation from the market. Asset managers that consistently beat the market (i.e. facilitate price discovery) have no problem raising capital.

> “In the Russell 2000 Index, for instance, the vast majority of stocks are lower volume, lower value-traded stocks. Today I counted 1,049 stocks that traded less than $5 million in value during the day. That is over half, and almost half of those -- 456 stocks -- traded less than $1 million during the day. Yet through indexation and passive investing, hundreds of billions are linked to stocks like this. The S&P 500 is no different -- the index contains the world’s largest stocks, but still, 266 stocks -- over half -- traded under $150 million today. That sounds like a lot, but trillions of dollars in assets globally are indexed to these stocks. The theater keeps getting more crowded, but the exit door is the same as it always was. All this gets worse as you get into even less liquid equity and bond markets globally.”

Trading volume != liquidity. They are related, but only indirectly. Liquidity is, for the most part, provided by market makers. Market makers are entities willing to take both sides of orderbook at all (or almost all) times. Most of the time, when you trade a stock, your counter-party is a market maker. Even if nobody is trading, that market maker is still providing liquidity. The liquidity is there, even if no shares are changing hands.

Where this gets tricky is that market makers make their money by trading. If there is less volume, they may be willing to provide less liquidity. But it's not at all clear that this is a real problem yet, or that there is any major crisis of liquidity in the markets. The correct way to measure this is not to look at daily volume, but at slippage. How much does the market move when you attempt to buy a large block? I'm not certain, but I don't think this is a major problem for people right now.
This is a wonderful idea! But I can't help but wonder... is this legal? Seems like a litigation nightmare.
Thanks for taking the time to expand on that.

I haven’t really benchmarked channels since the bottlenecks in code I write tend to be I/O, but I’ll play around a bit to understand that better.
Consider the verbosity of XML compared to s-expressions. <html>...</html> vs (html ...)

The latter can trivially be used to output the former. The conclusion is obvious; some of these formats are objectively more verbose that others while having equivalent expressive power.
True, without tooling most platforms/languages would suck to work with.

But I believe that the more tooling a stack needs, the more wobbly the stack gets. The more wobble the more error prone and less fun to work with.
Off topic, but I'm amused to see xkcd was hacked. And that its database used MD5 for hashing emails, passwords, and IP addresses!
> put [your money] into individual companies you understand and believe have long term profitability

If anyone was able to do this, they'd be a successful money manager themselves. Yet few professionals actually manage to do this at all, let alone sufficiently to justify their fees, which is why index-fund investing is so popular in the first place.

The only real way to reduce the reliance on index funds is for professional investment services to become sufficiently competent that it makes sense to use their services. Asking the average person to "take one for the team" and throw their dart at the same dartboard the pros can't even hit isn't a great solution.

[EDIT: phrasing]
Effective Video Encoding in Linux with Nvidia Nvenc
The search part is definitely considered “bad form” by human solvers. Author apparently lacked the insight that elimination is generalizable to “if any set of N peers contains exactly N distinct values you can eliminate those values from all peers not in the set”, rather than just “if 1 square contains 1 value ...”. That alone would solve all but the hardest puzzles with just a few more lines of code.
It’s never good to disclose PII. Dropping vulns after responsible disclosure is mostly considered ok, not so much with PII - it’s not the victims fault and can be damaging longer term.

If the vendor refuses to fix the issue, providing the media with enough redacted info to have them publish a story will force the vendors hand.
Yeah. Brave is desperately trying to compete with Chrome and can’t figure out why they aren’t making much headway, despite having better privacy (hint: users just don’t care about privacy, except for the HN crowd).

These complaints filed by Brave, with their own employees posing as professional “victims” intentionally grasping at straws for evidence of privacy violations, smack of desperation. This is not the first claim they have filed, and sadly, it won’t be the last. Their claims thus far have been disingenuous at best, downright dishonest at worst.

GDPR was not meant as a weapon with which one could hobble their far more successful competitors. It’s sad to see that a company that claims to care so much about privacy is undermining GDPR by bringing the worst fears of those that opposed it to life.
Any car that relies solely on wireless communication to start isn’t well thought out.
Extension neglect
> At some point, no one is left to figure out which cookies are tasty vs meh

Except that there’s a lot of money to be made by figuring out which cookies are winners, and buying them cheaply to sell to the passive investors.
Law as an industry is pretty dysfunctional. Plenty of data governance issues, losing track of documents, etc. A lot is at stake there, for sure, but that's actually the thing that process helps with - reliability and safety. And law is very resistant to incorporating that.
As far as opportunities for new products, if you can find a useful abstraction to remove a boilerplate component without losing too much customisation... then you've won. Here's some boilerplate I have to write often:

- Login pages

- Simple app state management

- Crud forms, view, edit, list objects
I got mine unlocked for free that way.
Which is a real shame. All people lose a little freedom and anonymity to "protect the children".
> you should consider your real identity linked to it

What is the point of these products if not linked to my real identity? That’s the whole idea of them. I use Facebook and WhatsApp to talk to people who know me. That’s why they want to talk to me. If they didn’t know my identity they would want to talk to me.
They removed "people's" ability, but not their own.
For code-gen, I'm experimenting with checking in the results and having a "is the code-gen correct" check in the CI

See https://github.com/crate-ci/imperative/pull/4 for an example

I hadn't even considered the benefit of reducing build.rs usage. I was focused on speeding up people's builds by reducing the number of dependencies involved and making my crate do less work when being built.

Tempted to turn this pattern into a crate to reduce the hump to overcome to adopt it.
This was potentially in response to this event, posted to HN earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20874470 (a Spectre Linux kernel patch rendered ineffective by LTS maintainers in an attempt to silence a compiler warning).

The scenario described in this submission was the first thing that came to my mind upon reading about that patch.
That doesn't answer markbnj's question. You elaborate why the passive market is in peril (because in the event of a sell-off, the ETFs will be forced to sell a bunch of low-volume stocks, crashing them), but that's just explaining in detail that the market is in peril because not enough money is flowing to people who do a poor job of managing it.

But, granting that Burry is right and you're interpreting him correctly, what is the average person with a couple bucks to invest supposed to do instead of passive investments?

Surely we can't recommend actively managed funds, funds that don't even earn back their fees. And, if not passive investing, and not actively managed funds, then…what, exactly?
If we want to be fair to consumers and bystanders, Tesla needs their product to safely stop the reckless behavior (not simply warn the user). If it can't do that, it needs to disable AutoPilot. AutoPilot was marketed in a way which led to Tesla selling their product to people with unwittingly dangerous uses in mind.

It is unacceptable for Tesla to enable this reckless driving. Tesla has the ability to affect the scale of this problem most readily and relying on individual consumers is not in the best interests of public health.
bind:group is not a "special string" but simply part of the API, in the same way useEffect is part of the React API. bind:group is no more "magical" than useEffect (both are ultimately going to "invoke some arbitrary logic").

> In this example, note how `group` does different things depending on what kind of input you're dealing with. That's the kind of stuff that sounds great in a demo but quickly becomes a pain in a large application.

I really don't see how. It is relevant to exactly two kinds of inputs (radio and checkbox) and does exactly what you would expect with each (given the different behaviors of radio and checkbox inputs).

> It's not about being able to learn a framework without reading the documentation, it's about how many distinct concepts you have to read the documentation for to use the framework.

Sure, but looking at the right menu in the React documentation (https://reactjs.org/docs/getting-started.html), there are actually quite a lot of concepts and API details to understand in order to become proficient in writing React apps. I would be hard pressed to say that looks any lighter or simpler than Svelte (I would actually argue the opposite -- Svelte seems simpler and more straightforward).
Great article, but it’s behind the Medium paywall so I can’t share it.
How about this in stdlib.h:

void *malloc(signed long long int untrusted_size) {
size_t size;
if (untrusted_size < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "warning: exploit "
"detected. Click <ok> to cancel");
}
size = (size_t)untrusted_size;
etc.
}

Or better yet redefine malloc with a wrapper and include the __line__ and __file__ in the exploit error.

Edit: markdown
Really it was their PHPBB forum heh.
MD5 is so lame for passwords tho.
Real security is picking a unique password and not forgetting it. Letting someone handle your security by giving them your phone number in case you can't handle it was never a good idea.

Get a password safe, and don't forget your complex passwords.
> If you turn off `any` on a gradually-typed codebase, everything will blow up because of the untyped parts.

Again, that's not true. A JavaScript file's exports don't have `any` type. Any types during interop are inferred (maybe?) or require bindings. The use of `any` in bindings is your (sometimes valid) choice.

> Gradual typing CANNOT be sound

TypeScript isn't sound [0].

[0] https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/9825
Information Gerrymandering and Undemocratic Decisions
FreeNAS (open source, ZFS, requires ECC ram)
Unraid (paid license for connivence that wraps open source mergerfs and snapraid)
OpenMediaVault (open source unionfs + snapraid)
Drobo (appliance)
Synology (appliance)

There's a lot of near brain dead point and click options.
The undeciphered Linear A [0], related to the Phaistos disc, as well as many other languages have their own Unicode block [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_block
That's not the only reason. They also allow advertisers to target based on specific phone numbers. It's one of the creepiest features, along with targeting based on e-mail.
Maybe "speed readers" still receive knowledge at around 39bps - they just filter out a lot more.
Much of that conflict is about things that were done generations ago. True, recent and current actions also fit the bill, but it is disingenuous to claim that the settlement activity is the primary mover of the situation.

One thing that link throws around is the word "illegal". There are customs and treaties, but there is not a world government to enforce the rule of law for these treaties. Many of the definitions like "occupied territory" are up for debate as well. It just doesn't come down to a clear set of rules and an authority to enforce them.
GE is sinking because of Immelt's reckless tenure, inlcuding the purchases of Alstom and Baker Hughes.
Open Source Collective | Marketing & Fundraising | Remote

Part Time or Full Time | Contract

The Open Source Collective is a non-profit working for the common interests of those who create and use open source software.

Seeking passionate open source sustainability advocate to take us to the next level with skills in sales, marketing, partnerships, and fundraising.

https://www.oscollective.org/hiring

Send questions & applications to hello@oscollective.org
Cool idea, I think it should be mobile only though. Emojis dont show in my chrome browser on PC, as coloured icons that is.
There is unfortunately no way to prevent that part.

Well there's absolutely a way: single-source JS and no CORS.
There's some major differences here, though.

1) In America, I can just decide to run for office. Especially at the local to state level, independent candidates can be totally viable. Random everyday people cannot run for office in China. The party selects candidates to stand for election, and they generally run unopposed, or opposed by someone who is nearly a perfect mirror on policy.

2) In America, I can run on values that are against the Constitution or the founding fathers. How many people run on platforms of curtailing or amending the second amendment? You see that all the way up to candidates running for the Presidency. You will not see candidates run on policies that are opposite of the CCP in China.

One party that controls which candidates can run means they are effectively just appointing people to positions, while giving the illusion of choice or citizen impact on elections. There's a lot about the US system of representative democracy that could be justly criticized and would be improved by reform, but acting like it is even remotely similar to China is absurd.
Why would you want to do that though? Isn't the experience of listening to it the point? If not, why listen to it at all instead of reading a detailed summary?
Supposedly it does improve health outcomes because tiredness is less of a killer than patient handoffs between doctors.
At least give him a chance.
Google already has a minimum age of 13 to create an account (the maximum age before COPPA no longer applies). The issue here is that if a child didn't sign in or used an account where they claimed to be older, they would still have their information collected - the FTC is arguing that Google should have disabled tracking on all videos targeted towards children, even when they didn't know the age of the person watching.
people arent as tied to a location anymore if they are receiving guaranteed income. They can go live somewhere with a lower cost of living and dont have to worry about income, rent, medical expenses while they are moving and getting settled.

Landlords partly have power because people want to be near jobs that pay well. If you dont have to have a job or can take a lower paying one elsewhere, there may be less local demand.
Understanding is not necessary for the improvement of culturally evolving tech
This is ridiculous!!! Then again we have a legal system, not a justice system. The corrupt will continue bending laws to their advantage. The judge should be ashamed!
Causal understanding is not necessary for the improvement of culturally evolving technology
Except in this case you can buy iPhone for $450 which is less than the OnePlus6 in my locale. SOCs compare favorably between the two devices. I guess I’m not seeing why iPhone is akin to a luxury car brand.
No, it's not "churches" or NGOs... it's society that "tells us how to behave." That's how it's been since the first proto-humans grunted around a fire.

I mean, the government makes the laws, that's ultimately "how to behave." But the Church of England hasn't been meting out judicial punishments to non-churchmembers lately.

You're talking about social codes and social judgment.

I'm really curious what makes you think that Oxfam or any other NGO is telling you "how to behave" in any way comparable to a theocracy of a few hundred years ago.

Lots of parts of society applaud diversity and the elimination of discrimination. If you disagree and feel you're being "told how to behave," that's not the Church or the Government or some NGO bogeyman... that's social pressure.
Longtime Exec on TBWA’s Apple Account Is Suing the Agency for Cutting His Job
I'm glad this story was reported, and I'm thankful to the author for putting in the work required to report this story. But after the first five paragraphs, the author's shameless, repetitive self-promotion and insistence on referring to himself in the third person almost made this unreadable.

The headline was enough to pique my curiosity to explore Brave's product offering. Unfortunately, actually reading the article had the exact opposite affect.
Entirely agree. We should educate people that privacy is not something a company can "add" to a product or to an ad like Apple and Google claim. Privacy is not just a "feature", this is whole culture, ideological and technological commitment (and sacrifices and extra challenges) you have to do (like at Purism, Mozilla, GNU, etc.) not some marketing buzzword strategy to put on ads to make more sells.

Privacy is not something you can claim, it is something you must prove through 100% full stack open source code and reproducible builds.
I don't really see the problem here. Any reasonably competent quant can calculate a liquidity premium and factor it into their ETF arbitrage strategy. ETFs that trade illiquid assets should simply trade at a discount relative to their "last traded price" NAV commensurate with the liquidity risk they're assuming.
This is really cool. I am working in a related area and I think most of us have assumed that on average, the information rate is 'about the same' for the languages across the world. So it's exciting to see that their results confirm this assumption.

Two qualifying remarks.

1) The 'about the same' is important. Even in their data, there is still quite some variance. They found an average of 39bits, with a stdev of 5. That means that about 1/3 of the data falls outside of the range of 34-44bits.

2) Which brings me to the the uniform information density (UID) hypothesis. According to the UID, the language signal should be pretty smooth wrt how information is spread across it. For many years, the UID was thought to be pretty absolute: Even across a unit like a sentence, it was thought that information will spread pretty evenly. Now, there is an increasing amount of research that shows that esp. in spontaneous spoken language, there is a lot more variance within in the signal, with considerable peaks and troughs spread across longer sequences.
Wow, a phone book.

Do HN readers know you can buy lists of millions of people's names and phone numbers from companies whose sole purpose is collecting them, like infogroup?
Craiglist's traffic didn't decline because it wasn't updated to have 50,000 dependencies and a pretty UI, it declined because of FOSTA.
People have said the same exact thing about every kind of media ever invented. Books, magazines, television, music, and now YouTube. Do you have anything to actually substantiatiate your claims?
(hint: users just don’t care about privacy, except for the HN crowd).

I'm not sure that's true: uBlock Origin has twice as many installations as Brave does. You might say "oh, but that's just blocking ads!" But if you don't block ads, privacy problems are going to spring out of the woodwork like nobody's business. That is, they might not care about privacy by name, but they certainly care about it in effect.
>Any idea what's next?

i think we should be grateful to FB/Google/AMZN/etc. for not coming up with (nor publicly embracing/promoting) any such new madness - I mean giving the copycat "monkey see, monkey do" nature of the management we'd for sure get a replica of whatever these biggie ones would cough out like we got for example the "cool" open floor plans which the FB/Google use to dampen down into the manageable range the otherwise stellar performance of their elite workforce :)

After having survived and successfully recovered from the [pretty devastating in some cases] damage by the most recent process-first innovation hurricane that hit our industry several years ago - ie. the Agile/Lean/Scrum, the industry has been living in a kind of mini golden age since then - the mentioned big [super]successful companies have been producing technical-first innovations (from which some process innovations like DevOps do get derived), and thus management has been naturally copycatting the good things like embracing of cloud, Kubernetes, AI/ML, [micro]service oriented architectures (don't mistake it with the first monster of SOA of 15 years ago :), etc.
> If you've ever given the service your number, you should consider your real identity linked to it.

I have a feeling it's worse than that. (I haven't rigorously perused the ToS, if I'm wrong please lmk.)

Let's say your friend John has an iPhone and saves your name and # in their contacts. One day John installs the Facebook app & opens it. John is not technical and when the app requests permissions he taps 'Allow'. At that point AFAICT there's nothing stopping Facebook from snagging your name & number and populating a ghost profile, or corroborating a real one.

In other words, if you've ever shared your phone number to someone who uses the Facebook app who doesn't dutifully and consistently reject permissions prompts, it's probably already too late.
First I thought "it's your own fault if you use shell scripting in the (unsafe) web". But the sudo example got me. That's exploitable on Linux systems.

Modern Unix shells are so full of old weird features which are turned on by default. That's a bit horrific -.-
There is now also more research about Ketamine. It looks just as promising and a first drug (nasal spray Spravato) was recently approved by the FDA for treatment-resistant depression.
> DRM has lived up that promise and more.

When the WIPO treaties were being lobbied for, Netflix didn't even exist, Amazon was a tiny internet bookstore that people made fun of and Apple was a slowly dying proprietary workstation company. The authors, TV networks and record companies who lobbied for the DMCA didn't do it so those companies could eat their lunch, but that's what happened.

It turns out that a studio has a lot more negotiating leverage dealing with many competing retail stores than with a small number of big and powerful tech companies whose customers are locked into their platforms by DRM.

It did what Sony and Paramount expected it to -- entrench the middle men -- only the old incumbents are not the middle men it entrenched. And if they would wise up to that and stop pretending they're the beneficiaries rather than additional unwitting victims, it would be a lot easier to undo this colossal screw up.