skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I understand and agree with what you're saying, but your points about the American Revolution and the Second Amendment could potentially be interpreted as permitting violence from protestors.

The US Revolution truly began forming after British soldiers started gunning down colonial civilians. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

>"John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on [the date of the massacre], and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence.

The colonists didn't just shoot the evil British tyrants telling them to go away because of their oppressive policies. They probably would have lost the war if that's how it started. That's not how you start a revolution. It started because the British fired the first unfair shots (or at least that was the perception).

Some protestors have been quoted saying they want a protestor, or a police officer, to die and become a martyr for either side so that a true revolution can begin. While the citizens of Hong Kong absolutely deserve democracy and civil rights, wishing death is not the way to do it. If the government does start the violence towards civilians of their own accord, with cruelty and brutality, perhaps reciprocal violence in self-defense may at some point become justifiable, but this is a very fine line and only a hypothetical scenario to be considered in response to grave danger, not something anyone should ever wish for.
This theorem actually changed my life. Once it clicked for me it shifted my understanding of reality significantly.
I don’t know what you would consider a small town like Leiyang Hunan (small being relative, it has a couple hundred thousand urban and almost a million rural). Of course, Hunan is a bit different from poorer Jiangxi or even Henan. Heck, when I visited the yunnan country side in 2002, I was told many families were so poor they only had one pair of pants (seemed like an exaggeration, but who knows).
It's less about the actual transaction and more about the structure that permitted it and the capricious willingness to do it. There are red flags all over the place with this company, and the optics of him doing that just adds more fuel to the raging inferno of terrible governance.
> This is what ETFs do

ETFs aren't necessarily index funds

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2014/01/16/etf-does-n...
You are not a dummy. Over the past 30 years, index funds have outperformed active management, especially when you consider the fees.

You are a ”dummy” in the sense you don’t have perfect information awareness on every possibly tailwind or headwind that could impact a particular stock. But everyone is a dummy in that sense.
Isn't a big part of the issue with actively managed funds the fees, which usually wipe out any gains above index funds. Wouldn't the market correction be to close the delta in fees between active and passively managed funds to encourage more people to go the active route?

A lot of the grousing about passively managed funds come from people who are running actively managed funds that charge huge fees to under perform passive management. By lowering fees, actively managed funds should be able to do a better net and to be able to attract more investors.

Any sort of government solution to index funds getting large would basically be protection for these actively managed funds. There are actively managed funds that can beat passive funds, but it's incredibly difficult to do so when you charge a 2% fee.
This felt like a purely semantic argument to me; as he is actually suggesting we do something rather similar to UBI:

"Besides, a more sensible policy is already on offer: a negative income tax, or what is sometimes called “guaranteed basic income.” Rather than giving everyone $1,000 per month, a guaranteed-income program would offer transfers only to individuals whose monthly income is below $1,000, thereby coming in at a mere fraction of a UBI’s cost."
Business Buzzfeed
I have written portions of a few novella-length chain stories on bulletin boards.

If you ran the whole board topic through a style filter and then edited it for consistency and continuity, one or two might even be somewhat readable.

My guess is that you need a number of editors proportional to the square root of the number of authors, and anything greater than two authors requires a style manual, character reference guides, and a story map. Otherwise it's kind of a disconnected mess, with dangling plot hooks everywhere.

In order to not kill the topic, you have to write it sort of like comic pages, where there's a miniature cliffhanger in the last panel, to get you to turn the page. Except you're goading the next person to pick up the story and carry it for a few more paragraphs.

If it goes on for long, you get a sense for which of the regular posters should be next. It's been a while since we had some expository dialogue, so everybody waits for X to post. Y likes to write thrilling action scenes. Z drops in romantic subplots. W inserts political intrigues. U throws in gratuitous plot twists. T is the troll that tries to kill all the characters and burn all the scene settings in every post. S explains, after every T post, about the recurring nightmares that one of the characters has every night.

Mainly, the fun is that you get to see the story unfold without doing all the work to make it unfold.
Very rarely do you see the person behind Scam Scheme #1 return the ill gotten gains in preference for the potential gains behind the much bigger Scam Scheme #2. This guy is all class.
The payout is because _without it_ companies wouldn't change what they do. The punitive damages serve as an "example" for other corps to not do the same thing or risk losing that much money, too. If anything, I think punitive damages for corporate negligence would be _higher_. Maybe some of the payment could be directed to funds for victims instead of all going to one person, but that person (and their lawyers) also had to combat a multi-million dollar defense team.
I still don't understand why the US hasn't switched to a single payer system yet. We'd be paying 0 premiums for a 2-4% tax hike. I personally would love not having to worry about my health benefits between jobs!
A tech company is a company that is:

(1) Marketed to investors as a tech company

(2) Valued by investors based on the premise that they are or will become oligopolists in their market
"No need to make me feel guilty."

There's no guilt here. It's strictly true. Not donating to Mozilla because they might use the funds in a way the donator doesn't like is also saying the risk of the funds being used for other initiatives is not worth participating in the funding of things they do like.

Donations with conditions lessen the good that the nonprofit could do with them, because then they cannot use those funds to keep the nonprofit alive, much less use those funds to fund the things they do.
Well, things did change after Arab String.

For worse.
Aren't most of those double digit gains just from the market rebounding from the 2008 recession?
Warning: Implicit Backdoor
That’s funny. The last few weeks google has been trying to push me into downloading/using YouTube kids for a “safe” experience.

Basically my response has been “hell no!”, since IME the only safe YouTube experience for kids is no YouTube experience at all.

Turns out kids get tracked on YouTube too. Who would have thought, eh?

So yeah. The answer is still no. Stop asking, Google.
First and only piece of advice. This probably isn't the forum to get investment advice.

:)
The dogs can't smell edibles, though ;) At least the gummy kinds, and specifically the dog that sniffed by bag at Denver International.
Car Talk's Long Goodbye
Kinda makes sense. Still, it sounds like a very fragile system.

So instead if active fund managers "knowing the market better", we'll get active fund managers, "knowing the passive investor crowd better".

This is madness.
I'm 100 or so pages in to this now. What a book! I'm sure this will be a long time classic for me.
That's a good question. I'm a web developer in the Marketing department, so a lot of the work I do involves how ads work with pages.

Having to constantly turn off ad blocker is not only inconvenient but is also slightly embarrassing when I get called out for not looking at things the way a customer would be seeing them.
Can you expand on this, I am quite curious.
I'd assume there's some stability to knowing that X% of the market is passively invested in indexes. It could give active traders some extra edge, since it would make things more predictable? If everyone's an active trader, it's everyone competing against everyone else, where everyone is a live actor. On the other extreme, if you're the only active trader, and literally everyone else is in indexes, you'd be the only person actually moving the market in response to news, and could use that to your advantage.

Obviously we're not in either state, but presumably the closer we get to the latter state, the game gets a little easier for the active traders, not that that necessarily means they'll get a free "win"
I was going to comment the same thing. I used to live across from the park in Providencia. Even on New Years, just to clear the streets, police tear-gassed the streets in Valpo.
Most folks here are focusing on Burry's comments regarding price-discovery. However there is another huge point: Liquidity risk. To understand his point, you have to know the gory details of how an ETF operates.

First: When you buy a ETF share for the S&P 500 (iShares, Vanguard etc), the share is not backed by all 500 S&P components. Virtually all the large-number component ETFs are using a sampling of shares to match the underlying index. (They would be buried by transaction fees otherwise.) The subsampling of the index is reasonably well-understood math, but relies on an assumption: That the buying and selling each component share will not be greatly affected by the ETF purchase or sale.

[Edit: I may be out of date - Some ETFs are full samples. Nevertheless, the bigger point that the ETF purchase/sale does not much affect the price stands.]

Second: The ETF uses a very clear process to keep the price of the ETF in equilibrium with the index it represents. Large players are allowed to go to the ETF adminstrator (say iShares) and turn in a bunch of the ETF shares, and iShares will transfer back the underlying components. So if the ETF price ever gets too cheap relative to the index, the big players will redeem the ETF share, and then sell the underlying shares they received, which results in a quick, nearly guaranteed profit.

Conversely, if the ETF price goes above the index, a large player will bring a basket of the underlying component shares to iShares, and iShares will give them corresponding ETF shares. So they buy the components cheap, sell the expensive ETF, again making a quick profit.

Now to what Burry is saying: Several components of the big indices are thinly traded compared to the amount of money in the index funds. In a large index drop, there will be disproportionate downward moves in those thinly traded shares: As large players will be redeeming the ETFs for underlying shares and then sell, these thinly traded stocks will drop further than you'd predict from the index. This will cause the index to drop further, which will cause more ETF shares to be redeemed, perpetuating the cycle.

I think his point should be better known than it currently is: The current wisdom that "you can't lose money in the stock market long-term" is reminiscent of "you can't lose money buying a house."
Is that related to the Curry-Howard isomorphism?
Chinese DeepFake App goes viral, renewing concerns re face-swapping Tech
Once indexing gets to be a certain size, you run into the "markets irrational longer than you can stay solvent" issue at a much higher level. Active management "correction" doesn't really work if active managers are a much smaller portion of the market or no longer around at all.
Yup, pretty much - if you have facts to stand on then it annoys me when arguments are watered down with unsubstantiated claims. Put a balanced picture in, use neutral phrasing and let the dude's actions speak for themselves as you reveal the twistedness.

Starting with a baseless attack just weakens your reporting.
Here's a good adjacent read that I thought was a much clearer and relatively accessible tour through the Proof - https://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6dels-Proof-Ernest-Nagel/dp/081... - it's more of a pamphlet than a book, really.
That's unfortunately often how it is, but it doesn't need to be that way. As an example, Ubuntu's donation page allows you to select how you wish your contribution to be allocated: https://ubuntu.com/download/desktop/thank-you

FOSS foundations should (and typically do) accept code contributions that aren't restricted to their leadership's agenda, so why should they not accept financial contributions beyond their agenda?
> Lets say drop 100 through 110 were unlucky SZSZSZSZ pattern. The faster player will come across the "unfortunate" pattern first and then lose. In contrast, the slower player will only be on drop 80.

Does the faster player get nothing in return for their speed advantage? If so, then shouldn't they just play slower? If not, then aren't they compensated fairly for the risk of running into a difficult sequence earlier in the game?
> UBI is especially a terrible idea if you don't want people like Gates and Torvalds and Stallman to emerge naturally from an environment that enabled and fostered their genius every step of the way.

The Pareto principle applies, regardless of UBI. High performers will emerge naturally, regardless of the system. Manipulation of systems is an element of their prominence.
5V at 1000A is completely safe too. The only thing that matters with electrical safety is voltage, and anything under 50V is generally safe for humans, all because of skin resistance.
reminds me of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights
Seems a bit backward to me. Why should we care so much more about kid's privacy than adult privacy? Are you really more concerned that people know about your Barney the Magical Dinosaur addiction at 8 than your sordid affair at 32? Would you much rather keep secret that you walked back and forth from kindergarten everyday than your employers confidential design files?

Adults and teens have secrets, kids relatively speaking for the most part don't, at least not ones worth protecting through strenuous tech laws. Okay okay, I get that we don't want them vulnerable to be manipulated into stealing their parents money. And Google is as always scrum. But the general laser focus on kids when we should be concentrating on everybody seems just like another think of the children hysteria.
At work our TS project with a thousand files takes 30mins on CI, incremental save takes at least 20 second. Half of the time makes the machine run out of memory.

Bucklescript can have a clean build of 1.2k files project in under 4 seconds! https://twitter.com/bobzhang1988/status/1160846763747508224
>but it's obvious to anyone used to thinking in terms of systems that index funds can't work after a certain amount of the money poured into the system is managed by index funds.

If you have one trillion dollars invested, and the entire exchange volume is based on me and my friend trading a single share back and forth, everything will still work. It doesn't matter how much you own, because my friend and I are going to want a fair price for that one share in any case. There's no practical limit to how passive things can get before a problem kicks up, as long as a few hedge funds stay in.
Since TS is just JS, you could just dispatch to arbitrary strings, but the TS type system isn't going to help you out very much. The approach the author is taking is the one described in the Redux documentation [0].

[0] -- https://redux.js.org/recipes/usage-with-typescript
You are free to setup your own DB if that's a concern for you. It's a totally justified concern, but this is just concern-trolling. Most people would use this either way. People with strong privacy concerns may setup their own DB, but they represent the minority (despite the heavily privacy-biased stance of HN users).

If you're in the minority, you should expect to have to do more work to get the right balance of security and privacy.
State laws can absolutely override federal laws, at least in theory. It's called nullification [1].

There was a full-fledged constitutional crisis over it in 1832 when South Carolina issued an ordinance declaring the Jackson administration's tarrifs unconstitutional [2].

The similiarities between the Jackson and Trump administration continue to astound. And Jackson ended up on the 20.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitu...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
Yeah - that is how it seems to be pointing; but they conflate it with all vape juice. Then again, there is that one study that found PEG/PPG juices caused certain issues.

But inhaling vaporized oil/wax always seemed a bit sketchy to me. I've never done it, but I know that pulmonary lipidosis is a thing, and that there's a warning on Vicks Vaporub for that very reason (people have inhaled it after putting it in their nose - leading to lipidosis).

It seemed reasonable to suppose that after inhaling a vapor of wax or oil, that it would/could condense back into the lungs. Over time, it would build up and become a serious issue. So now that this is confirmed - or seems to be confirmed - I think I'll pass, if I'm ever given the choice to try it out.
Perhaps the problem is the quantity? I'm not sure what world we're thinking we should just give our kids a phone and let them watch youtube as long as they want?

I don't think that negates the garbage content and algos from youtube, and we avoid youtube with our kids, but if kids are running out of quality content, send them outside and lock the door.
Yep, thats what those ridiculous pop up boxes with 400 (I counted one) "carefully select partners" of the websitd you visit are supposed to be.

It is IMO just a mockery of the intent of the law and I wonder when this will be punished.

I personally think GDPR might be a bit strict, but adtech have practically been begging for this for years so acting surprised now doesn't cut it.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 for a link to the ublock origin author's take on Chrome's upcoming changes, and discussion
GitHub and Hack Club team up to bring computer science resources to highschools
Yes, that sentence should've probably been "Why don't we have to write types in ReasonML? Because of the powerful type inference system". But I think comparing to Haskell is kind of missing the point: you can't use that for front-end web development. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying those "hacks" aren't part of the core language.
> I don't see how you would "debug directly the rust code"

I think the intention of OP is that you compile the same Rust code to a native x86 or ARM binary and debug that. Most bugs are ISA-agnostic so that approach totally makes sense in many situations.

That's how I'm debugging my WASM code compiled from C/C++, and that also works automatically with IDE debuggers that don't know about WASM (like Xcode's or Visual Studio's).
This is unusual but not that rare. When I was younger I wrote half a hard-boiled detective novel with a friend, alternating scenes every week or so over email. We even had a rule that we wouldn't discuss the direction of the plot, which lead to some amusing twists.

Plenty of books and more that one author (sometimes credited, sometimes not). Things like movie tie-in or spin-off novels might pass through several hands to ensure brand-consistancy before being published.

This group seemed to have a lot of fun (and success). I am slightly jealous.
Why the hell does that article not include a photo or diagram of a mask properly worn? Even despite knowing that it goes over your mouth and nose, the design of the mask makes it difficult to understand how one would actually do that. Seems like a huge, huge omission.
Sound decision making requires reasonable metrics. To quote the lead dev of popcon when someone said that they couldn't recommend it due to specific concerns:

"If you deal with people with strict security/privacy requirement, you are correct to do so. I would do the same."
Sorry, I used "absurd" to echo the condescension of the parent comment. Which you didn't respond to....

Location data is so easily available that is largely a commodity now, sources include GPS from "always on" apps like the Weather Network but also apps that are collecting this data without your permission. Apple and Google are constantly kicking apps that do this out of the store.

Also tricks like "local wifi" devices are being used, Apple just reduced apps ability to sniff networks for this reason. There is another response that lists some other data sources, your cell phone company being the worst offender for many reasons.
This is a good point:

Post by ltlurker » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:24 pm

I'm an index investor, like most Bogleheads, and I subscribe to Bloomberg digital so I can read articles such as this and did see this one at lunch (EDT). I'm open to various perspectives especially if there appears to be a rationale behind them. And of course this individual was behind the "big short" so that intrigued me.

If I recall correctly, I believe his position is that Index funds tend to favor the largest companies - naturally - as they're mostly market cap weighted. The S&P 500 as we've noted is widely invested in, but the Total Stock Market also has an average weighting that makes it a Large Cap Fund - by Vanguard's standards. Relatively few people directly invest in the Russell 2000 Index or even have those options in their employers' retirement plans. (I have the opportunity to invest in the Completion Index in my retirement plan so that's partway there).

I think Burry sees this as an opportunity to look at small cap value, which has been out of favor and not had a good run for some time. I think he must be thinking that a reversion is going to start at some point. None of us can know when, of course. And of course others are looking at the ratio of stock valuations to GDP (apparently one of Warren Buffet's key measures) and believe that there's significance to that, as well.
Nope. Totally wrong. Those early protests, even though seemingly unsuccessful at the time, gave the people one important thing: hope.

Of course, the other motivating factor was that the economy went to shit. People were hungry and tired of waiting in long queues with shelves at the stores almost empty. Nothing to do with "discussions and political institutions the elites were working in" though.