skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In the last 10+ years fiscal spending has been half-hearted and anemic

See, this is one of those claims that is interesting to me because I never see anyone proposing what a "non-anemic" level would look like. No matter what gets proposed for fiscal spending, the response is "that won't be enough; we should spend more", without quantifying more.

As a scientific claim, it's unfalsifiable, fundamentally, which makes it hard to work with usefully.

> Austerity does hurt economic growth:

First off, there's a lot of cherry-picking going on. The US did "austerity" things, people claimed the result would be disastrous.... and it wasn't. Europe did austerity, but _also_ very tight central bank policy at the same exact time; results were not great, but it's hard to blame this on just "austerity" given the central bank behavior.

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that austerity _improves_ economic growth, which seems to be what the wikipedia link you post is about. I'm claiming that the specific predictions made about austerity by adherents of specific economics intellectual movements in the last 10-15 years did not in fact match what actually happened.

> but once you hit zero rates, then what more can you do from that angle?

Tons, if you want to, because you are not limited to short-term rates as your policy instrument. Those rates are correlated with monetary policy (in the short term; anti-correlated in the long term), not causative.

Note that at the point when we hit "zero rates" central banks were doing all sorts of monetary tightening (positive interest rates on reserves!, the Fed raising its policy rate 9 times over the course of a few years and consistently missing its inflation target on the low side in the process, etc).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_interest_on_excess_re... is absolutely a thing you can do to increase V when you hit "zero rates". But more importantly, a large part of monetary policy is expectations management. If people expect you to undershoot your inflation targets, they act accordingly and it actually gets harder to hit the targets.

> Who is writing publicly on this topic, either in weblogs, articles, or Tweets?

https://www.themoneyillusion.com/ has been writing about it for a while now. Less recently, as the idea has gained more widespread traction; a lot more around the 2008 financial crisis and aftermath.

Is the real question here "what is this and why is it supposed to be a good idea" or "who are these people who are making better predictions"?
Do you have any data to back this claim? Because Jevon's Paradox is a real, observed phenomenon. In reality, the only thing our economies optimize for is profit. Sometimes profit comes from reducing costs or increasing efficiency. Other times it comes from manipulating consumer psychology. Or did you think that Red Bull cans are tall and skinny because that's somehow an efficient use of aluminum?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Facebook is banning leftwing users like me
(FINRA is a like a mini, NGO-SEC for broker dealers)
For many people, rightly or wrongly, Facebook has become a de facto way to communicate socially and for their business. It has become to big to make the sole decisions on who can and cannot be on the platform. It should be treated as a utility, just like phone and internet companies should be.
> Why can't they buy >100% of the shares in exactly the same way they were able to sell >100% of the shares

When a company issues shares, there is a finite amount. It determines the the percentage of the company someone owns. So if there is 100 shares, you own 20, it would mean you own 20%. When a company goes public, they typically give, say 10%, to the market. So those 10 shares exist only. You either stock split or issues more shares. But issuing more shares would mean you own less percentage (and who would do that to themselves without a payoff).

You can buy more than 100% if you buy a financial instrument that has its underlying value tied to the company stock price (i.e. vanilla equity derivative), but its price is determined by the stock and not the other way around.

> Then they're back in the situation of being under 100% shorted

Let's say now there are 5 hedge funds that hold GameStock. Each has 20% (because hedge funds bet big, not small). The first one to cover will lose the least. You never want to be the last one because you lose the most and liquidity would be scarce because no one is willing to sell you their shares since its going up, meaning you would be double screwed. With each player that leaves, it causes a cascading effect.

> With such a large short interest it means that a motivated or coordinated buyer can force them to cover it at highly inflated prices, and that's their fault.

Yup.

edit:

The only people that can issue more shares without dilution is the Federal Reserve. They have a count of how much money is in flow, and can print money when need. But that only works if people believe in it. It hasn't been backed by gold in a long time. Otherwise, you will be in the same situation as some European countries prior to WW2 - hyperinflation (i.e dilution).
This story is constantly being framed as "the angry mob" vs "Wall Street hedge funds". But surely other professional investors ((hedge) funds, high frequency traders, algorithmic traders) are also jumping on the bandwagon, to (1) eliminate a competitor and (2) make a profit themselves on the way. I read yesterday that (at least one platform for) algorithmic traders have been monitoring subreddits like /r/WallStreetBets since the start of 2020, to immediately buy what is mentioned favorably there before retailers bring the price up.

The way I see it, is that among the professional investors, one will lose hard (Citron), while most others will profit. When the sell-off starts, they'll be able to sell first, thanks to their sub-ms connections to exchanges, algorithms that monitor media in real time (including reddit!), and employees that are constantly monitoring this whenever the markets are open (as opposed to retailers doing this in their free time).

Among the retailers, a few will win big (/u/DFV), while most will lose. They'll either stubbornly "HODL" if they're in it to "get a message across", or if they're in it for profit, they'll notice the sell-off too late and act too late, probably exacerbated by RobinHood suffering outages at that point.

So my prediction is that in the end one hedge fund will go down while others will profit from it... Most retailers will lose. Then what was the point?
What are the odds of a flash crash in the next week as a result of this activity? The system of banks and market makers and clearing houses is a always way more coupled than the the owners let on... history shows they don't know how to risk manage these sorts of situations.
show HN: Command line tool for Jira issue creation and tracking
People seem very convinced that because the "victim" is Big Finance, that makes it OK. Convincing them otherwise requires logic to beat emotions or prejudice. That's proving very difficult at the moment.
I think he's trying to say there's a lot of crappy firms out there that should have died. How many people do you know that work at a place with no prospects? Nothing much new going on, nobody would miss them if the firm were gone? Jobs that even the person would not miss if they found another?

Could well be 30%, but of course there's no definition for zombie. Functionally dead is a bit harsh as they're doing something to get paid, but they're not doing it efficiently and they're not being challenged, eg thanks to network effects or reg capture.
Thanks for the input! (I wrote the article).

I agree with a lot of it. Maybe the reason its a watershed moment, is that when censorship happens and its on the side of wall street banks, I think for 99% of people the penny starts to drop what the hell is happening here.

Up until now a lot of it was justified by many many people as protecting protected classes etc. Well, its not quite that any more is it?
CRDTs for Non Academics
AAA Games usually have a different realm of complexity and quality than factorio. Factorio is one-trick-game, in the sense that there is one thing it's doing really really good, while AAA games are doing many different things at the same time and sell you the whole package.

For example, graphic of factorio is very basic. Level-design is not really existing, nor is there any story, music, highly optimized cutscenes, a quest-system or a constantly balanced battle-system. Multiplayer is rather basic, not some high level infrastructure with dozens of servers for 100k+ players. There is also no big marketing where you deliver some stuff outside the game. And Factorio is running only on PC, not consoles or mobiles.

Basically, Factorio is 95% high level code which makes it successful because people enjoy the gameplay coming from this code; while AAA games are successful because of the 95% of things which are not code. People enjoy the gameplay, but even more do they like what is on top and around the engine. The story, the interaction, the atmosphere...
And their investors...this could (not will, could) end up being a fairly easy case for piercing Robinhood's corporate veil.

Good on the SEC for stating they stand with retail investors, even if it ends up being hollow it sure is nice to hear them say it.
People who are anti-robinhood thinks it’s a message to RH.

Those who are anti-WSB thinks it a warning to WSB.
The conspiracy theorist in my wants to believe that if the military thought it could be from an alien civilization they already have a mission to reach it and would do what they can to prevent any sort of public mission from reaching it.
The State of WebAssembly – 2020 and 2021
Mapping F12 to Play/Pause on a Lenovo Laptop
No. WSB is not "a regulated entit[y]" that "disadvantage[d] investors or otherwise unduly inhibit[ed] their ability to trade certain securities". Robinhood is and did.
I wrote about this phenomenon at https://gavinhoward.com/2020/01/corporations-create-perverse... . I think it's a real thing.
> we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity

Specifically calls out retail investors (i.e. WSB). I read it the opposite way, but I can see how it could be interpreted as a warning to both.
Might be both.
> we (civilians)

I just want to remind everyone that police are civilians too. I also sometimes forget
> actions taken by regulated entities

WSB isn't regulated, that is companies like Robinhood
WSB is not a regulated entity, but presumably Robinhood is.
"Likewise, issuers must ensure compliance with the federal securities laws for any contemplated offers or sales of their own securities."

If GameStop management was thinking of selling some shares to the public (or directly to those who really need shares to cover their shorts) at some crazy price they'll have to be careful.

AMC was lucky to have a lot of convertible debt outstanding which has been converted without any action on their part.
I think it's about the difference between having your goal be "growth" and having your goal be "(grow to) have X customers and Y employees" or "(grow to) have $X profit per year".

In the latter case, growth is a means to an end—a specific goal that is (at least potentially) achievable, and can yield a sustainable, profitable steady-state for the foreseeable future. In the former case, growth is seen as an end in itself—or, to the extent that it's a means, the end is simply "more profit, forever".
Taken to its absolute limit, space travel is limited by the speed of light. So when you get to that limit, you are limited by space, as you can only expand in a sphere--i.e. O(n^3). Space is so enormous that even the tiniest exponential will overrun O(n^3) before even getting out of our galaxy. Result. That exponential is going to flatten out and look more like a sigmoid.
Freetrade, a UK based trading app disables buy orders on US stocks
Early mankind did not understand storms and thunder and invented gods to explain the phenomenon. We still have phenomenon we cannot explain but ruled out gods. So now alternatively we like extraterrestrial life for explanations :)
It’s not a far left paper, centrist at most. It’s not like they’re calling for workers to seize the means of production.
No. They don't HAVE to buy the stock. They don't need to cover their shorts. 100% isn't some magic number like you've been told.
That's how I always seen it described. Not high performance as in low level signal processing, but as in server software. I would think of it like an alternative to Go (and Erlang), but with more focus on performance, safety and more functional and ruby-like rather than C-like. What they are sacrificing is simplicity, and perhaps ease-of-reasoning.
UX is a tool. Like all tools, UX can be used for good or evil. Good and evil are hard to define sometimes.
It depends. If you have to redo the work multiple times because of miscommunications, that can easily eat up salary savings. If you can't hire the best people because of some of the aggravations involved, you may get a worse quality product or it may take a lot more time than you planned, or both.

Again, hiring someone remotely in the way you describe might well make a lot of sense. But it's not nearly the no-brainer you paint it as.
By this logic, the military would have started vaccinating their troops for COVID by March 2020.
Doesn't seem to support 4k out of the box? Some drives - like Intel Optane SSDs allow changing this in firmware (and reformatting) with a manufacturer's utility...

$ lsblk -t /dev/nvme0n1
NAME ALIGNMENT MIN-IO OPT-IO PHY-SEC LOG-SEC ROTA SCHED RQ-SIZE RA WSAME
nvme0n1 0 512 0 512 512 0 none 1023 128 0B

$ sudo nvme id-ns -H /dev/nvme0n1 | grep Size
LBA Format 0 : Metadata Size: 0 bytes - Data Size: 512 bytes - Relative Performance: 0 Best (in use)
"You can't test your way to quality."

Counterintuitive wisdom from my QA/Test days. Maybe it's a koan.

Other's have already dismantled the A/B testing sham. From my own experience, noobs do this to show management they're doing something. Justifying their continued employment.
From a distance, this is all a storm in a teacup. It's a small handful of stocks, and every single one in S&P500 is waaaay bigger, in terms of trading volumes and market cap.

Anything can happen, but in finance terms, this is tiny so far.
Step 1: buy GME when it's low and falling

Step 2: convince a lot of people to buy GME "for entertainment value"

Step 3: sell GME after it rises well above what it is worth

Perhaps you don't care that you got fleeced, but that doesn't change the fact that you did.
I’m not in this space, so just out of curiosity what does this cover that Up To Date doesn’t? And/or What are some examples of questions doctors might ask? Thanks!
The "trading activity" is in the "in addition" sentence, it doesn't have to refer exclusively to regulated entities.
Love the idea, I work in specialty pharma and getting concise information to the pharmacists has become critical. Physicians rely heavily on pharmacists to call the shots on treatment plans now more than ever.

We built our own in house solution to this exact problem, but its maintained by our own clinical staff, it costs us north of $300k a year to maintain it! This only works of course because we have over 150 specialty pharmacies in our 'network' so we have volume to help keep up with costs.

I could honestly see us leveraging a solution like this at some point in the future, and probably anybody running fewer than 10 specialty pharmacies needs a solution like this.

Good luck to you guys!
What makes you think hedge funds are different? It's just a lot of people making bets against each other and manipulating the market.
Chinese warplanes simulated attacking US carrier near Taiwan
"Abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws."

Is that aimed at "professional hedge funds" or self-proclaimed "autists" in an internet forum?
Me neither. We now have surveillance capabilities like never before, stuff the Gestapo, Stasi or the NKVD couldn't even dream about.

Funny enough we are mostly using it to sell adds. Until you look at China and their surveillance activities. I do not want any of that. Especially if all that can be replaced by proper police work. Like unbiased investigation, arresting people (just imagine if authorities had arrested all the insurectionists right on the spot). I am afraid so, that we will have more surveillance and not less.
Good point, I missed the explicit reference to "retail investors". That makes the statement somewhat interesting.
It is very difficult to not read this in the most cynical tone imaginable.
[Security fix] Libgcrypt 1.9.1 released
There's been some speculation that what WSB are doing could be market manipulation or otherwise illegal. The fact that this statement only mention retail investors in the context of protecting them makes me suspect that the SEC's not going for it.
That's the first part but the second part is a separate statement against market manipulation generally. In the law, manipulation is forbidden to anyone, not just brokers and dealers.
"If you don't try and improve, pay attention to the market, adapt, move, change, or at least maintain or build a moat, competition will inevitably want to have what you've got. It's why capitalism works. If you get old, and don't satisfy your customers, someone else will."

So, the Traditional Sake corporation example aside, I agree - you do need to have some improvement over time.

This is not what public stockholders demand though. Public stockholders demand that intangibles be sacrificed in an attempt to improve tangibles. Sacrifice quality of service in an attempt to increase the profit margin. Sacrifice the lifetime of the product in an attempt to lower the RRP.

This isn't improving the product, it's just moving things around. At best it's shifting market demographic in hope that the new demographic is more profitable, at worst it's burning your customers for a short-term windfall.

The core issue here is that there are limits to what you can improve in a given timeframe, and if you don't respect those limits then you end up just making things worse. Management often just tells themselves otherwise and keeps pushing until they've already killed the golden goose. At that point, the lesson they've learnt is irrelevant - it's too late, customers are already leaving and their reputation is irreparably tarnished.
He claimed that people shared his home/personal phone and were calling him and his children and threatening them.
Newest from the front lines, Freetrade (UK trading app) just blocked buy orders for US stocks... but they explicitly pin it on "a sudden and unexpected decision by our FX provider, and their bank"[0]. In another statement, they also express their deep unhappiness about it[1].

Assuming they're being honest - and I see no reason to doubt it - it's refreshing, compared to Robin Hood's communications, and more importantly it highlights your point. The "backend" of the market seems way more coupled than I imagined it is.

--

[0] - https://twitter.com/freetrade/status/1355161107699273729

[1] - https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l7u3ag/free...
>Everyone understands that mocks, stubs, fakes are programmer-written stand-ins for other objects.

Sure, but that's only the starting point here.

>The shame of it is that the title of this essay makes it appear like it's simply an introduction to a lexicon, whereas the word definitions are actually a small part of the essay and there are more important topics presented (and presented fairly well).

Yeah, but if you can't use the words to talk about these topics, it's going to be a lot harder to do so without getting verbose.
It has 4 stars now
The only growth that could be tied to non-natural resources is something like the combinatoric possibilities between a set of options.

Everything else links back to matter. Even my "internet points" on HN are tied back to the food I had to eat to type in that sweet sweet snark.

This notion that economics isn't ultimately a resource scheduling theory that falls out of a base set of behaviors (commerce). If we removed choice, we get operations research.

Capitalism is akin to wanting to cook a hotdog on a campfire and burning down an entire house to do it.
BlackBerry execs sold shares as Reddit-driven rally started
Robinhood is a joke. Not just because of these shenanigans, but because their lack of technical stability and customer service is unacceptable. They reliably crash on every major trading day. And there's no US based support.

Never ever use a broker where you can't pick up the phone and talk to a real human being. They all have zero commissions now so there's no excuse.
>universal basic income

Its fake news similar to FTL.
> How long until Coinbase blocks the buying of popular tickers too because powerful hedge funds tell them?

Plot twist: they already have, and worse. Check the historic BCH fiasco.
71 GB/s is 568 Gbit/s so you'll need about 3 dual 100 Gbit/s cards to pump data out at the rate you can read it from the NVMe drives.

And ethernet (unless LAN jumbo frames) is about 1.5kByte per frame (not 4kB).

One such PC should be able to do 100k simultaneous 5 Mbps HD streams.

Testing this would be fun :)
Why are you surprised? You've outlived your usefulness.

The party is always right.
It's something at least. You have to give SEC some time to investigate.
It's Tame Impala!

I just thought it'd be a good idea to give a warning as having some unexpected music blast in your ears when you're just there to see a guy surfing a winter wave looks like might annoy some.
it's really frustrating seeing these programming languages websites where you have to click in a million place before you can even see what the code looks like
The big traders probably have friends in high places, so I suspect they're going after WSB and not wall street who caused the issues in the first place.
In the mentioned stocks? Very high.

However for the broader market; GME and friends are tiny.

Ristricting trading is a way of managing risk.
People with no imagination, knowledge of history, or capacity to think about anything but themselves. People who think humans have a right to obliterate all other forms of life in order to carpet this planet with...whatever we want. People who go to zoos and watch Ow My Balls.
I’m not really looking to buy, but given both my own job and that of my wife, I am curious.

After reading your description, and watching the video on you website, I can safely say: I have no idea what service you provide.

Adding example question might help.

In Denmark the government office for medicin provide a free service where you’re able to look up all approved drugs, their usage, side effects, treatment plan and so on. It that what you provide or does it go further than that?
Was Donald Norman's Design of Everyday Things in your syllabus?

Although tangental, I can't imagine the cognitive psychology stuff one must learn managed to completely omit ethics.
Physics engines and graphics engines take a lot of resources. Games that invest enough resources to develop their own highly detailed physics/graphics engines are almost by definition AAA. So what you’re suggesting is that AAA games should spend less time/money on the thing that makes them a AAA game.

It’s okay that AAA games exist, because there is still room in the market for games like Factorio, which has experienced a long and successful life.
It’s aimed at both, presumably. It’s not like hedge funds have never gotten in trouble for abusive trading practices.
There is a lot of assumptions there. You're assuming the short sellers must cover their shorts at the highest possible price instead of, you know, waiting a day or two. You're also assuming that GameStop doesn't issue any new stock which is already not the case for AMC.
Could be? It's an open, publicly-documented market manipulation event. How can there be any question about it? You might decide that this kind of manipulation is OK due to it's stated goals, but that doesn't make it not manipulation.