skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's more complicated than that. Jeff Bezos has a lot of money and relatively little political power. You can't just be rich; you also have to be in the right social groups.

If money truly equaled political power, we'd look more like Hong Kong pre-1997 (and arguably pre-2020).
Can he be both?

He seems like a fucking odd guy, but he's not stupid in any way.
Well, the one I left was legit.
The first telly I remember was b/w and had three channels and belonged to a neighbour. Provided the dog hadn't recently wazzed on the rubber plant that supported the aerial, in which case ITV was optional and then we only had BBC One and Two.

However, old school CRT screens could handle pans and zooms that my modern LG thing can only dream of. Then again the thing I'm watching now is comparatively huge and "waffer theeeen". A ~50" CRT would stick out from the wall about four feet and weigh enough that I'd be using some of the more robust Civil Engineering things I learned at college to fix it to the wall.

When I was a child it took a while to tune a TV by hand, channel by channel. Remember portables with the little aerials on the end of a wire? Then finding out that to watch the rugby today involved perching the TV on a chair near a window and the aerial held by long suffering (someone) holding it at a strange angle near the ceiling. You missed half the match faffing around.

My laptop runs Arch - that's far more friendly than anything I used in the '70s-'00s. I recall getting an Epsom FX80 dot matrix printer connected to our C-64 was quite traumatic and involved getting a Centronics (parallel) interface card made up and stuff. I still have the C-64 and it now has a USB interface.

Now I press the home button and pick a service on my TV. OK on my TV that isn't one of my RPi driven monsters that uses the MythTV backend. I have an Octo-LNB on my sat dish ...

(Sorry about this (twitch) but it's iPlayer and you were a child, not a kid)
I have no screenshot, but:

Right now, the link shows 4 stars and 180,526 reviews. Few hours ago, when I became aware that /r/wallstreetbets are talking about Robing Hood's app, I took a look at that same page out of curiosity. It clocked around 250,000 reviews, with overall rating of 1 star.
There are a few -- Glassdoor, and Google reviews let you post bad reviews of businesses even if they have tons of money. That's not to say I disagree that big money runs things, just that it's not 100%.
Does RH have in-app purchases? Otherwise not sure how wiping negative reviews optimizes for revenue.
Stalin would've loved it.
That's not true. There's no reason why hosting a server should be hard. This is a UX issue, and an eminently solvable one at that. Imagine a self-hosted, easy-to-install Heroku-style server platform with a public repository for application images.

It's not hard because it needs to be hard; it's hard because no one has invested the time and money to make it easy.
Makes me think of a system/application getting attention, reach, that it doesn't deserve - hasn't earned - a negative of the advertising industry as well, one reason I love Tesla is that they don't advertise, any attention they get has been earned.
But the point is that everyone with a bid >=$50 got filled.
Think your missing the point. Your average person doesn’t have your setup. They have mine.
I wonder if the next phase of the internet is for groups of heck, 100000, maybe 1M or even 100M people to organize to take things down permanently. Maybe right now it's like baby steps, but what happens in a year?
> relatively little political power

He bought a newspaper. I would say he has plenty of political power.
So you're saying it happened?
Why does the WSB ethic permit the existence of Richard Branson? Shouldn't a UK public school billionaire descendant from violent colonial oppressors earn a spot up against the wall?
Hosting it in public at least gives others the opportunity to fork it if they have a change they want to see happen. But even reading PRs is work that maintainers shouldn’t be forced into, so GitHub should just allow the PR feature to be turned off.
I can walk over to my TV, it takes a second or two to start up. Maybe another second or two to open an app. And then I can watch any one of tens of thousands of shows.

Yes, when I was kid the TV turned on almost instantly but then I was stuck watching whatever minimal content was broadcasted. Can't even pause it!

I have the same argument with Jonathan Blow's talk -- he talks about how complex things are now compared to the past but the past was so much less capable. Yes, you can write an OS in 3 weeks as long as it doesn't do very much.
"since the major monetary upheavals of the late middle ages, a trend decline between 0.6–1.6 basis points per annum has prevailed"

" Against their long‑term context, currently depressed sovereign real rates are in fact converging ‘back to historical trend’ — a trend that makes narratives about a ‘secular stagnation’ environment entirely misleading, and suggests that — irrespective of particular monetary and fiscal responses — real rates could soon enter permanently negative territory. "

"if historical trends are extrapolated, R-G will soon reach permanently negative territory –a first since at least medieval times."

"Whatever the precise dominant driver – simply extrapolating such long-term historical trends suggests that negative real rates will not just soon constitute a “new normal” – they will continue to fall constantly. By the late 2020s, global short-term real rates will have reached permanently negative territory. By the second half of this century, global long-term real rates will have followed."
Final edit to add: IGNORE THIS COMMENT!

Nothing to see here, but I can't delete this post. tl;dr I got excited because I couldn't see the RH app returned in a play store search, even though I could see the app via a direct link. A commenter has pointed out that this is because the app isn't available where I am, in the UK. Sorry for the fuss.

----------------------------------------

I've just posted the comment below in a dupe of this post [0], but am keen to see whether anyone else can reproduce my result:

I just searched for the app so that I could see what reviews remained, using my desktop browser pointed at:
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=robinhood%20trading&c...

Top results include Trading 212, Webull, eToro and others - and the page goes on for quite a while (Coinbase, Bamboo, etc) before eventually ending up with kids' cartoon Robin Hood games.

The Robinhood app itself hasn't been displayed. Can anyone else confirm this?

Edit to add: Just tried searching using the suggestion [1] that came up after I typed the word "robinhood" into the query box - which was "robinhood trading app uk" - and chose that. I thought that perhaps there was some georestricted stuff going on. But no: I scrolled to the end and the Robinhood app was not listed.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/search?q=robinhood%20trading%2...

---

Further edit to add that I followed the link given in this post, which took me to the RH app page with its (remaining) reviews, and then copied the title of the app as given "Robinhood - Investment & Trading, Commission-free", and pasted it into the search box.

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=Robinhood%20-%20Inves...

Again, that search returned lots of other apps, but not the Robinhood one. Any ideas why?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25951215
Here is the screenshot: https://ibb.co/PwLD7Sh
Doc: Tell me, Future Boy, who's President of the United
States in 1985?

Marty: Ronald Reagan.

Doc: Ronald Reagan? The actor? [rolls his eyes] Ha! Then who's vice-president, Jerry Lewis?
Maybe, but Google are in a different league to these funds.
Their boards authorize it. It takes a phone call to have a board meeting. A company could do a board meeting by tweeting each other if they wanted. Filing that a private placement (to the short holders) has occurred is followup paperwork. A company that gets immensely overvalued is doing their shareholders a disservice by not capturing that valuation.
Is this actually true? I feel so naive, I would have never guessed.
What does "manipulation" mean here, and why is it bad? What does "organized" mean here? I personally left a 1-star review detailing why I think the app deserves it before I heard anything about the review bombing. If a significant portion of it is "organized", why is that bad? You're making many large assumptions, not to mention framing them antagonistically ("not rocket science").
I think Apple focus a lot on UX compared to competitors to their advantage and they are mindbogglingly profitable.
This is a great read; it very clearly crystallizes and expresses a concept I think I had mostly figured out but not in any coherent way.

It reminds me of a pet peeve of mine, the term “on the spectrum” for autistic people. The key part of a spectrum is that everybody is on it, that’s what makes it a spectrum! By implicitly allowing some people to be “off the spectrum”, you’re having your cake and eating it.
You can see it in the screenshot: https://ibb.co/PwLD7Sh
Got it. You didn't clarify in your OP. The only issue w/BTC is its volatility, usability and its (in)ability to liquidate it as widely as other currencies... other than that, it's great ;)
Truly a terrible idea on Robinhood's part, but most of the high-profile outrage seems to come from people who typically are in favor of protecting people from themselves. Seems a bit hypocritical to support investor accreditation and then lambast this move.
It's a good idea to stop and think why megacorps all uniformly support modern social justice movements. Beneficial side effects include:

* Racial diversity decreases worker cohesion and therefore unionization risk.

* Dozens of reasons to get canceled means that anyone who has a social following can be torn down if they pose a threat.
It is a magic you can learn :)

Seriously, start experimenting, you'd be surprised.

However, overall experience with math and various mathematical experiences help so much, as well as some kind of artistic experience -- even just talking to artists, seeing a few videos on theory of artistic composition, etc. I highly recommend going down this path.
>I suspect this will be lost in the hysterical clamour... systemic risk... capital obligations. the baseless conspiracy...

Baseless?! ...That's it! Prepare for hysterical clamouring.

Both the hedge funds who wrote the put contracts and RH took positions nice, high, steady returns and long tail risk. The press is reporting Melvin Capital wrote put options with a face value circa $55m, for example. The long tail risk materialized. Damage is several $bn.

It seems like systemic risk means risk to heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games. This is why the hysteria. This whole thing is a symbol of a rigged system, with the typical patterns of insiders. 9 times out of 10, they win. 1 time out of 10 they pull the fire alarm.

Insiders, from the CEO of the NASDAQ to whoever makes the clearing house rules have come out swiftly and in force to suspend norms and call a literal "all bets are off." Closing buys, but not sells. Liquidating positions. How is this not a rigged game.

It is enraging to hear "be reasonable, we all have to be responsible" from these people.
Entirely anecdote, but I've heard of companies asking all their employees to give them good Glassdoor reviews.
I don't think they remove the reviews outright though. They detect it, label it, and offer both a "recent reviews" and "all-time reviews", as well as a visual graph to show you the trend.

A far better approach than just removing the reviews outright if you ask me.
> Have you proved the point that I need to "assume malice"?

Catch up to the conversation. I moved on from my characterization to repeat my question without the malice. You said 'i can answer your question', yet your entire comment is devoid of such answer.

You're Sybil'ing this issue. Only obstructing the real issue at hand.

The real issue is whether the laws (via court cases ensure interpretation is correct) says it's allowed or banned. The good faith in the government or bad faith in the government is moot. The intention/malice distracts from the actual point. Which is why I moved on from it because I'm trying to engage you in the actual issue.

Nothing explicitly protects citizens right to encryption. No law. No court case. And until that's plainly laid out, we shouldn't be offering our trust to any ruler over us. Whether their intent is positive or negative, it's entirely moot.

Whether citizens have a human right. That's the issue and you've spoken to distract from the issue. I encourage you, prove your case that EU provides this human right.
The GameStop Bubble Is a Lesson in Absurdity
What proof? I'm serious here.

Sure, there's threads on WSB about this, but there's no real way to tie that to actual transactions, and not everyone who has bought stock even contributes to that subreddit, let alone the specific threads about this.

Furthermore, all it really takes is someone saying "I bought stock because I believe in the company". We don't have thought police; unless someone explicitly posts "I, RH account XXX, bought the stock in a concerted effort to short it" there's no real way to prove intent.
Think of it more as systemic risk - I would say the general logic error I'm seeing on HN is assuming all assets on deposit are firewalled, have completely uncorrelated risks, are attributable to exactly one type of funding, either margin or deposit, and information is instantly communicated - in practice these are big messy orgs with big messy books, and the lender is looking at robinhood saying "you're asking for a historically high line of credit because you're on an exponential growth curve for users, whose assets are based on 1, generously 3, meme stocks? Let's try to figure something out here, we don't want you to shut down, but we need to mitigate risk"

People are expecting more a scenario in which clients stocks are neatly divided in two piles based on an unrelated criteria, i.e. if they are attributable to margin, or whatever assets you have on deposit. Additionally, the process of having margin is itself like having a credit line - AmEx simply doesn't have the systems or procedure to lower your credit limit because Tickle Me Elmo speculation is at a all time high over the last 72 hours, and it sees you're purchasing tickle me elmos, getting assigned a credit limit is a function of your credit score, and amex isn't tracking line item level purchases
> If your "short squeeze" is dependent on people buying more in order to create a short squeeze

Who said that was the situation though?

The problem is that buying the stock became something that was largely barred from retail investors, while institutional investors faced no such issue. Indeed, when a stock can only be sold, that means it can only go down, so the pressure of the short squeeze was alleviated as a natural amount of selling occurred while buying was artificially deflated by multiple brokers and entities preventing retail investors from purchasing a stock that was > 100% shorted.

This was guaranteed money for these traders too, the short squeeze was already on - the shorters were on the hook for this money.

The fact that there are huge financial relationships across the chain from one of the biggest shorters of the stock all the way to Robinhood makes this the controversy it is today. The market prevented natural market mechanics dictating a short squeeze that was already on.
I left a 1-star rating this morning. Just checked a minute ago and it appeared as if I had not left a rating. I quickly corrected this.
All of these internet driven “revolutions”, including occupy, always end up being way more underwhelming then their hypemen hope.

Maybe a few power structures will adapt but rarely doesn’t anything change for the better for the “common” man.

Usually it’s just more restrictions. While LARPers have their fun. The only winners are the ones in it “for the lulz” as they say.
Some Google stooges must have thought ratings are meaningful or else they wouldn't have erased the Robinhood app's ratings.
> According to Motherboard, the majority of RH accounts hold GME.

They retracted that later.

"Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that 56 percent of Robinhood users hold GME stock. This is incorrect, based on a misreading of a statistic on Robinhood. Motherboard regrets the error."

See the bottom of:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7ak7y/robinhood-stops-users...

They haven't provided an updated value. However, it's not hard to believe a significant chunk of Robin Hood users owned some GME today.
The difference between "should be safe if your ocaml code is good" and "is safe" is the thing that allows you to use tooling to delete the code.

Otherwise the best you can do is lint and rely on a human to use their best judgement about whether to remove it or not.
Isn't FB a hardware maker too since the acquisition of Oculus?
The sudden reversal is just amusing.
> Your recollection seems at odds with reality.

Their recollection matches my recollection of events.

> There has been a Senate inquiry with conclusions at odd with your recollections.

The results of that inquiry weren't released until 2020.

> The Mueller report came to conclusions at odd with your recollections.

That report wasn't released until 2019.

That means there were at least three years of unverified allegations, swarming around - espcially prevalent on social media - sans ban hammers, censorship, etc., etc.
I think we are here because of PG and YCombinator, not because we don't want to run our own servers. Many HN users probably do run their own servers, even discussion servers.

The real problem is how to attract the right people. YC is a fascinating case, actually. WHY are we here, and not on some reddit forum?

Even though it seems PG is not very active here anymore, it seems the seeding community has stuck to some extent.

Of course they also have their theory of how to maintain a community and did some coding and moderating to try to maintain it.

To my personal taste, they have overdone it, and ruined it in a way, but I haven't found a good alternative yet.

The next iteration of online news and communities will perhaps take more than dedicated servers, it may require a usability leap. Maybe some convenient way to filter messages, that is not centralized (Twitter/Facebook algorithms don't optimize to my benefit, but to the benefit of their owners).
They don't like that apps on their store are being review bombed. That's really all it is.
Google the corporation? Sure.

Many of the managers and workers at Google? Quite likely have a stake in what goes down on Wall Street.
If margin is the only problem, why many brokers disallowed buying GME stock on non margin accounts?
They have (had?) Robinhood
I wish I could find it, but 10 years ago, probably longer now, there was a prescient video where there turned out to be only 4 tech companies left. Something like amazgooglesoft or something. The narrator had a deep voice and I think it was funded by a media company.

Edit: Found it through the keywords, "old prediction video where amazon microsoft google buy everything" lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s&feature=emb_titl...
If that's the case, then the spam system is at fault and needs fixing. Actual users should be able to leave actual reviews about the app's actual behavior without being flagged as spam. As long as they're not violating other terms like vulgarity or whatever, those reviews are valid and removing them means the system is doing the wrong thing.
How to build a culture of ownership – eng leadership tips from Plaid and Dropbox
Wirecard shows why bans on short-selling are badly misguided (2020)
Thanks for spreading the word. The DTCC portion of this sounds like they had a "liquidity problem" in the sense that they were trying to prevent one.

The portion about not having a plan for when market makers don't want their action -- and they have to instead pay to use exchanges -- seems like a pretty stupid problem they set themselves up for.

Do have this right?
IIRC from recent HN threads, Glassdoor is considered to be completely gamed, and the company is in on it.

See e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24789865.
Altair is a cool library and I hope it continues to improve. I like using it, but the main problem I've had with Altair is the size of the plots. Unless you save the plot as an image, the plot is rendered as a Vega-Lite spec JSON object. The JSON spec stores the entire dataset, so it limits you to using 5,000 data points. Otherwise you'll have this insanely large JSON object representing the plot. There are work-arounds like using a data server however.
Nah I was a kid and we had a colour tv. Your setup sounds very impressive but you’re not the average viewer, and it’s the average viewer that has an old fire stick like mine that takes 30s to load the iplayer app.
There is a huge difference. Review bombs are by people who usually have not played the game/app but post negative reviews on mass because of something usually unrelated to the game itself. In the case of Robinhood they are written by people upset that they have been monetarily screwed by the app. There were millions of people in WSB, 100,000 negitive reviews is only a fraction of that.
May be, but if "split up big tech" becomes a viable path to being elected things may change _suddenly_