skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
NVIDIA, UToronto, McGill & Vector Study Delivers Real-Time SDF Rendering & SOTA Complex Geometry Reconstruction
No, because if a contributor is legally not entitled to agree to the CLA and does anyway, it’s now your problem.

Nemo dat quod non habet, nobody gives what they don’t have.
But that's why there's no real need for manipulation. App store what highly rated apps and app makers want their apps to be highly rated so they use more or less dark patterns and incentives to incite users to leave good reviews.

There's a massive selection bias at play which tends to naturally inflate review scores without any explicit fudging.
The term "accredited investor" is only meaningful within the scope of unlisted securities. Stocks traded on exchanges are listed securities. "Accredited investors" have nothing to do with public stock exchanges.
Stop the conspiracy theories. It's not Parlor here. Google don't give a fuck about RH. But they need to protect businesses and cannot be the judge. Think about someone influential who wants to ruin a restaurant and organize something similar to that. A low rating these days kills a business. Not allowing organized activities like this is a good thing.

Don't worry, RH's good rating will die over time.
the tone on glassdoor has shifted a lot since they discovered HR departments and recruiters as their main (only?) client base.

> ... It's also free to claim your employer account. After that, Glassdoor costs $249 to $600 per month depending on how many jobs you want to post and what specific features you want to add (again, the premium service costs more). -- (probably better sources this is just the top google result) https://fitsmallbusiness.com/glassdoor-vs-indeed/
Short sellers do a better job than auditors in rooting out financial fraud and stemming the flow of capital to bad actors.

Besides Wirecard, notable success stories have include Steinhoff, Luckin Coffee, NMC Health, Noble, Valeant - and that's all within the past few years.
A judge can not dismiss a civil suit due to lack of evidence until after the discovery phase since until that phase no evidence is even produced or evaluated. Prior to discovery all that a judge can evaluate are the statement of claims with damages and procedural matters such as standing, jurisdiction, proper service, etc...

There are claims of wrongdoing alleged in the lawsuit, notably that Robinhood has two classes of customers, its users who buy and sell securities using its app, and financial institutions who pay Robinhood for information about those users. The allegation in the lawsuit is that recent trading on GME by Robinhood app users resulted in a conflict on interest towards Robinhood's institutional clients, and that Robinhood halted trading in GME and other stocks to benefit its institutional customers at the expense of its app users. Given that Robinhood has a fiduciary duty to its app users and no such duty to its institutional clients, that conflict of interest was a breach of its duty and Robinhood must be liable for any losses arising as a consequence of that breach.

That is a claim of wrongdoing. In almost any non-trivial lawsuit, evidence can only be gathered after claims of wrongdoing have been made, at which point both parties are compelled to disclose vast amounts of information that could be pertinent to determine what damage has been caused.
I don't understand what you mean? Somebody offers to sell the stock for X, somebody else (with the money stored on the stock exchange) offers the buy for the price X. Person A gets the money, person B gets the stock. That probably happens a billion times every day. Why should it make a difference which stock is being traded?
If they were printed on stock certificates, how would you get to 0.01% short interest? You get to any other number by repeating that process.

Imagine a company with 1 share of stock floating. Abel buys that share and loans it to Baker (via Abel's broker). Baker borrows the share and sells it to Charlie. Charlie loans their share to Diane. Diane sells it to Earl. Earl loans their share to Fred. Fred sells it to Gary...
Sorry to pile on but...

What issues does it create if your whole client base suddenly want to buy GME?

I guess if volumes overall go up a lot, you might need to post more capital? But since your revenue should be up too, that's a good thing right? And its only for a while, I don't think anyone thinks this will go on for months do they?

And surely it's easier for your clearing house to clear 1 name than 10,000 names?

For no-frills, long, equity positions, it feels like it should be the easiest thing in the world to do. I'm happy to be corrected, I'm aware back office logistics is a dark art so maybe I and other readers can learn something?

Edit: I'm honestly not trying to be snarky here. I just don't get why it would be that big of a problem. I'd be happy to be rescued from my ignorance.
It's possible to have one opinion on one case and a different opinion on a different case without any contradiction. Implying that that is untrue is unrealistic.
Sure and yes it is.

There are no repurcussions for not having that antiquated disclaimer. Which wouldn't hold up even if there was some magic that allowed a case to be brought
Can confirm. Started out writing code in IDEs, now I'm using Vim
and CLI utilities. It's a polished, stable ecosystem that
doesn't hide anything from the user and isn't incentivised to do
anything other than its purpose, and that becomes very
noticeable once you're familiar with it.

It doesn't come with file sync, plugin management or flashy
animations. But I also don't get loading screens, don't need to
look at SaaS pricing tiers and don't get overwhelmed by UI dark
patterns. That's a trade-off I'll take any day.
Literal rockets.
Which deplatformings do you specifically refer to? The concern over them just seems way too tribal at the moment to be considered in league with the more serious allegations against Robinhood and the funds involved - that is big money.

Wrt Parler specifically, I think a lot of the "solutions" (or sketches toward) on this site would quickly reveal that the optimal societal configuration is closer to what we have now than one would expect - with or without S230.

Also, the wording of "using AWS" is almost libelously in need of a citation - who is doing it, and how do they have any sway over a company that is both absolutely enormous and not particularly woke?
So? That is supposed to make it okay in people’s minds? I kinda doubt it.
Reviews that are accurate (hypothetically) help users make informed decisions and therefore enjoy using the store more.
Python Network Analyzer (like p0f)
What reversal? If you're referring to a different scenario, then you should explain why they are comparable, instead of sarcastically declaring that they are.
I'm pretty sure it is, with the addition that when they detect brigading of the rating in a certain time interval, they remove ratings made in that time interval.

They will probably reenable ratings for the Robinhood app when things calm down, so if you want to give it a 1 star rating just wait a few weeks and try not to forget about it.
Could be all sorts of things. The simple fact is that market makers are being protected against long tail risk while retail investors are being denied long term returns... the very thing they are being paid to do. That's what these put contracts are: long tail risk. They sold an option. Limited risk for long tail risk...

What you are saying amounts to "when long tail stuff happens," order flow agreements, credit lines and clearing agreements that break down."

This, very directly insulates them (Citadel, other contract originators, RH) from the actual risk they are supposedly being paid for. It's also ostensibly the reason why retail investors can't have access to the same vehicles as financial firms. Retail investors can't reliably back that long term risk. Here is yet another example of loss limits for insiders.

No one is saying that you are not right. You are. The contractual complex does melt down at this point. The rage is people who think this is not ok.
Can't he just do this real quick:

$ <CTRL-z>

$ <CTRL-p>

$ <CTRL-c>

$ fg
What if an app functions perfectly, but doesn't do what it promises? That's what seems to be happening here.
Very curious what specifically makes you see things as less corrupt or people as paying more attention. The CARES Act was as bad as anything passed during the financial crisis and sailed through Congress with nary a word of objection or media scrutiny.
Technics SL-10 direct drive linear tracking turntable (1979)
Glassdoor is gamed. I've spoken to some multiple HR people who make fake reviews for their employer to counteract some bad reviews. I wouldn't trust it for smaller companies.
We Need to Acknowledge Our Ignorance
I would imagine the signup process is a dream :)

For example, when you create a calendar appointment in office, it's one click to make it a teams meeting.

figuring out privacy settings... not as easy (basically send an email)
I think the notion of a scheme here is what's debatable.

The risk was there when these funds shorted 140% of the stock. Retail folks noticed the potential for a naturally occurring squeeze and shared the info with world.
We have democracy in America?
The whole point is that these Wall Street companies enter into agreements that they don't want to disclose to their customers. This is just a small example.
That's not how it ends, that cuts off the story halfway through.
Also, the next populist will likely make Trump look level-headed and restrained.
The natural short squeeze, or the possibility for a natural short squeeze, is created by the fact that there is more than 100% short interest of float and the price is going up. At that point retail investors realize possible short squeeze and buy in to profit off of it simultaneously making the squeeze worse for the shorts.

I'm honestly having trouble grasping what you and others think could possibly be illegal about this. Short sellers aren't prohibited from losing money by law.
a post to support your comment

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l6omry/an_o...
Verge has confirmed: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-...
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

- George Orwell, "1984"

Stallman, like most of us (and nearly all prominent historical figures) can posses both positive and negative traits simultaneously. The good isn't always outweighed by the bad, and vice versa.

Nuance is a difficult thing sometimes...
I don't think the comparison to liquidity problem is accurate. The brokers cannot mint credit out of thin air if they don't allow margins. Hence, the cash in the broker is backed 1:1, and they won't have liquidation issues.

If Robinhood cannot fulfill these trades on margins, that is totally fine, they can halt on the margin trades if there are "liquidation issues". For all-cash trade, there shouldn't be any liquidity issues otherwise it calls into question how they manage their deposit.
The author is nearly there, but they are lacking a few key pieces in their ontology and thus their language traps them by forcing them to conflate concepts that in fact need to be decoupled.

The required concepts are as follows
1. condition or underlying biological etiology
2. diagnostic codes
3. symptoms
4. the patient
5. the person assigning the code to a patient
6. the impact of the symptoms on patient quality of life (this one is nearly always left out, I left it out before I noted as I was wrapping up the post)

There are a number of relationships between these that I won't go into in detail, but to give one example, there is "some underlying condition may give rise to some symptoms."

The problem the author complains about is an inevitable artifact cause by discretization of underlying continuous variables into discrete categories. This is a direct consequence of signal detection theory and is why you see things described as spectrum disorders, because diagnostic codes are applied to sets of symptoms that are produced by multiple different underlying etiologies, including underlying conditions which would fall into the category of "normal" in the population. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is significant variability in how the person assigning the codes assesses the symptoms. An example example of this is that medical professionals consistently underestimate the amount of pain experienced by black Americans [1], and this is pain which is about is unambiguous as you can get.

The question then becomes, can we measure the various biases in these systems to try to recover what is really going on. Usually the answer is no. In the case of Alzheimer's disease post mortem pathology is absolutely required in order for a diagnosis to be confirmed, and we don't do enough autopsies to improve our models for mapping behavioral diagnosis to the pathology (which is definitional). This situation may improve over time, but as long as we cannot directly measure underlying etiology, those who may or may not suffer from an underlying condition will continue to be subjected to the current, clearly inadequate, system.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/
Apparently the US is now considered an anocracy [0] losing the title of the world’s oldest, continuous democracy.

[0] https://www.systemicpeace.org/
Mostly some clients not connecting, just a blank screen. No error message available

I havent been able to reproduce yet
It's not about the relationship between the end user and the broker, it's about the relationship between the broker and the clearing house. Trades take two days to settle, and the brokerage needs to post collateral with the clearing house to reassure them that they have enough funds to settle the trades. When volatility goes up, clearing houses demand more collateral to allow further trading, which the brokerage might be unwilling or unable to provide. This is independent of whether the end user is using margin.
Interesting target advertising at the end of the book: clocks and related tools and materials.
We must be watching a budget 1 star movie. In the first half of the movie, the action takes place in a casino. Players have figured how to win the rigged game and the casino is losing big money. Managers have to drop the pretense they follow the rules.
That's more plausible but still relatively unlikely if you consider both how Google usually operate and who'd have clearance to pull the trigger if this is what is being suggested.

On balance, I really think this is just an automated system that's being conservative. Would you be in any way surprised that Google would have such a thing looking for big impulses in activity?
Might be relevant: https://psyche.co/ideas/lets-avoid-talk-of-chemical-imbalanc...
That is literally all I could think of when I read the name. If you are an outlier, then I guess I am, too. My immediate, uncensored first thought after reading the title of the post was "What asshole names their business after that guy?". It was kind of hard to even parse the rest of the post after that.
I was primarily commenting on the framing. The RH message never pretends it isn't acting in RHs interest, so the representing it as a "we knows what best for you" doesn't make sense.

I don't know if it's only about shares on margin or how the process exactly works behind to judge if there actually is a threat to RH or not.
When you sell your stock certificate, you hand it over to someone who can loan it out themselves.

As a thought exercise, consider that I can borrow your stock and sell it right back to you short. We can repeat this process a million times. 1 million shares short now based on 1 share.

This is not naked shorting because borrowed the stock from you each time with you willingly participating.
I'm in the process of doing something similar. If you are as incensed as I am you might want to consider leaving a small amount of money < 1 USD in your account and opening an unused credit card with them.
This is a well known fact. If a stock broker is offering zero commission trades, any competent investor or trader would look into how they can offer their service for free before using it. They make money by selling your orders to market makers. Market makers can withdraw liquidity from a stock if it becomes too volatile for them to be able to provide market making service on. So it makes sense that Robinhood halted trading on Gamestop, if they have no one to sell that order flow to. The alternative would be to start charging commissions but you can't expect them to turn their business model upside down overnight.
According to this interview[0], a similar firm's CEO is saying it's not that simple, and their clearing firm stopped the trades due to the costs

> Our clearing firm gave us a call and said we're going to have to stop allowing new opening positions... there is a two-day settlement between if you buy the stock today, those brokerage firms that you bought that stock on have to fund that trade with the clearing central house called DTC for two whole days... our clearing firm simply cannot afford the cost to settle those trades. We cannot use customer funds to front that cost due to regulation.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
I don't know anything about stock trading, but I think I can piece an idea from some HN comments I've seen earlier.

The exchange between A and B isn't direct, or instantaneous. The actual money transfer takes days, and there are parties in between that make it possible to pretend it's immediate - much like with insta-transfers of money between the banks. Apparently, these parties are on the hook for any money that is "in flight", so they need to have a substantial buffer.

Once you get this many people trading on a stock this volatile, apparently the buffer in the middle isn't sufficient to cover the risk, so the parties in the middle stop accepting these trades.

EDIT: 'imladyboy quotes the source from which I pieced most of the interpretation above. See also 'JumpCrisscross here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25951475.
"Too big to fail" is a slippery slope and the Citizens United rulings certainly didn't help with accountability.
You're right. I am living an incredibly fortunate, privileged life. That's why we're considering which charities to donate to, which local groups have needs we can help.

When life is good, share it.
Because the trade isn’t instant. It takes 2 days to settle the clearinghouse during which time RH has to put down cash as collateral that they won’t go bankrupt in those two days.
If it is not letting you sell when you want to sell that’s a pretty shitty performance for a trading app. This is different from a subjective dislike of the parent company.
I am not an expert, but I think I read that once you acquire immunity to a virus it might be more difficult to acquire same or better level of immunity to a similar virus.

That's why you can't take vaccine for all strains of influenza and if prediction of which strain is going to be prevalent is wrong and you take wrong vaccine you can't do much about it.

Now, the Covid-19 vaccines are different mechanism so I don't know if or how this translates. For now what I read about the way the mechanism is built on some of the vaccines is that these should really be effective even if there are large changes to the virus. But there are of course always specific mechanisms and sequences that the immune system requires to recognize and act on virus and so there can never be universal vaccine.
> Aren't they always need to route orders to the exchange in order to obtain the best price on behalf of the customers?

No.

Execution is matching a buyer and a seller. Settlement is handling payment. Clearing is re-assigning the securities. This isn't perfect, but it will do.

Exchanges deal with execution. (About a third of trading occurs away from exchanges [1].) The rule in America is you can't execute, on or off exchange, worse than the national best bid and offer [2]. That number aims to catalog all on-exchange quotes.

Once a trade is matched the exchange is done. Settlement is its own can of worms. This story is about clearing. The shares you bought need to get from their seller's account to yours. Then the shares you sold need to get from your account to their buyer's.

When you bought and sold the shares, the cash and shares "appeared" in your account. That's a convenient fiction. Cash doesn't move instantly. And securities settle over days. While all of that is happening, a complex web of credit arrangements keeps everything stitched together. Those arrangements have costs and risks. One of them is the requirement to post collateral as a safeguard against a broker breaking its word [3]. When those collateral costs get high, for example, because your customers are all trading risky things with high collateral requirements, it can create a cash crunch.

What's happening here has, to my knowledge, nothing to do with exchanges or execution.

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/slicing-the-liquidity-pie-20...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_best_bid_and_offer

[3] "But I don't trade on margin!" No, you don't. But you're still a borrower of sorts from your broker. When you buy a share at 11AM and then sell it at Noon, you've sold a share your broker may not yet own. That's the credit risk between you and your broker. If your broker bought that share at 11AM and sold it at Noon, it sold a share it did not yet own. That's the credit risk between the broker and the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are nice. They usually say "give us 2% of yesterday's closing price in Treasuries. If you fail to deliver on a trade, we'll sell your Treasuries--maybe all of them, across all of your collateral with us--and make your counterparty whole." But when assets get volatile, the clearinghouse may want more than 2%. So it asks for that. Per its contract. But you don't have that money. And shit, Suzie just bought and sold the same shares thirty-six times in the last minute.
I think it’s more likely emergent behavior born of individual executives making decisions that benefit their image and career, rather than some conspiracy. Having a diverse team looks good and deflects the political eye of Sauron from the largely white male upper management types, who are de-facto racists/sexists/etc in the pop culture lens. Who knows, maybe some of them genuinely believe that preferential hiring of diverse candidates is actually morally righteous.
This is poignant ...

A properly encrypted string is indistinguishable from a random string.

A random string, of course, cannot be decrypted and you cannot know a passphrase for it.

Is there a possible, conceivable future wherein writing or speaking a random string becomes illegal ?

Here's one:

28ac5ef41de3909dee5e15194ac8712245b958ae6a690295139bc7b6c44e25ef
Sec would crack down if you didn’t let me people close their positions and RH would be on the hook for any losses incurred. I assume you can still buy GME on RH if you wrote a call option or shorted the stock. You’ll also still able to execute your call option to get shares.
Well he’s using a three year old version of Ubuntu and lots has happened in three years. Some of those points still stick but gnome on wayland has gotten a heck of a lot smoother because of performance improvements.
The clearinghouse for Public, for example, was the culprit:

https://twitter.com/public/status/1354826467184578571?s=21