skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To be specific, we're in the land of confirmable and obvious.

Consider:

* Most conspiracy theories are false.

* Many conspiracies do exist. I've seen people involved in a few.

In conspiracies, people keep secrets. Ergo, there's a poor mapping between actual conspiracies and conspiracy theories. People are speculating with no evidence. On the other hand, the conspiracies I've seen, you haven't heard of, and you probably won't.

The CIA is quite literally the US government covert agency set up to meddle in foreign affairs. It's raison d'être is to:

1. Collect covert intelligence for the US

2. Undermine enemies of the US / support friends of the US

A vague statement like "The CIA is involved in conspiracies" or even slightly less vague "The CIA lies and sometimes vilifies people" are almost vacuously true. That's literally what a covert government agency is designed to do.

A conspiracy theory is much more specific. "The CIA assassinated [leader] on [date] by [some action that looked like an accident] in order to [favorable outcome]." Most of those, with blanks filled in, are paranoid nonsense. If the CIA is doing it's job, I'll never find out about whom it assassinated or why. On the other hand, a blanket statement like "The CIA sometimes engages in assassinations" is obviously true. We have plenty of records from times the CIA slipped up.

As far as associating people with crazy by associating conspiracy theories with them, we're not even at the level of CIA. We're at the level of municipal politics, divorce cases, executive battles, and corporate PR smear campaigns.

If the CIA isn't involved in conspiracies, where are my tax dollars going?
The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer
You haven't been at many game designer conventions, where a lot of 'household-invented' games are deriatives of Risk, Monopoly, Chess, Game of Life and current mechanism of the year.
They are still bad though.
Your attacks on him shows how biased you are - for instance, you called or used the word 'crazy/crazy' 5 times, without mentioning a single actual concrete instance of what makes his assertions crazy.

There are various videos of him online engaging in straightforward, evidence-based debates with others, and where some of the things he's said has been subsequently proven by more recent discoveries.

Your opinion of him seems entirely prejudiced. You have no substance in your description of him at all.
They should add Rust as a .NET language to be able to optimize between languages. Somebody did an experiment of translating LLVM output to CLR IR, and it looked like it had potential.
So apparently, a buy trade takes two days to clear. It just looks instant on the app. During the time it takes for your cash to go to rh to dtc to the other end, robinhood has to put up a collateral for some guarantee that the cash for the transaction will exist.

Usually this collateral is between 1-3%. Because of how volatile gme is at the moment, dtc upped the percentage to 100%. So for every buy, rh has to put up cash collateral equal to the price of the purchase of gme.

Obviously this isn't a big deal if gme is at $50. This is a big deal if gme is at $350. This is an even bigger deal if robinhood is doing this for millions of trades a day.

The reason these mechanics exist is if you sell your stock, you should be guaranteed to get your money for the stock. Whether that money comes from a user of RH, or RH, or dtc, does not matter. Someone will give you the money for your stock. Therefore, sell trades are not restricted. Buy trades are because they require collateral.

Some firms have cash on hand to cover the collateral. That's why some firms are letting you buy while others like RH aren't. RH paused buying of gme, took out a billion dollar loan and got hundreds of millions from investors, and will now enable buying again now that they have more cash on hand for collateral.

Anyone please feel free to correct me on anything. This is my understanding from WeBull's CEO.

Full video: https://youtu.be/4RS4JIEVyXM
R/WhiteHouseBets
The article didn’t say “If a company is growing”, but “if the purpose of a company is merely growth”.
The loudest opinion on WSB currently is that the hedge funds didn't actually exit their shorts, but are lying about this, and, well, quoting from a random WSB post:

"They didn’t exit any of their short positions! You can look it up!!! The fund sold their shares to other funds, which made the stock algorithm think the stock is being sold —> price goes down —> the found that bought sells those shares again to the fund that sold them in the first place —> price drops even more —> they keep doing that —> price drops lower every time —> but as long as we hold they weren’t able to exit any positions!!! Shorts are still up 120% percent. As long as we hold the squeeze is inevitable!! And if you don’t believe me, look at the GME after hour stock price!"

https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l7oobr/4206...

Whether that's true or are they just driving themselves off a cliff? I don't know.
It's actually quite unusual to be making 3-5 payments over £25k in a typical week. Not saying it isn't a real problem for you, but I suspect only a very small fraction of potential users will be bothered by that particular point of friction.
The Bloomber Commodity Index (BCOM) is at the same level now as it was in 1990:

* https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/bcom?countryCode...

Real estate is an asset: the CPI measures carrying costs, and those are fairly level. You get more automobile now for your money than in the past: I paid $30K for my 2003 Golf, and for the same $30K I get more safety, more horsepower, and better mileage.

I agree that health care and education (in the US) are the main areas where costs have risen.
Solar-Powered, Off-Grid Bike Can Bust Poachers Anywhere
> I think Silicon Valley has the exact same proportion of Machiavellian executives and opportunist entrepreneurs as every other industry.

> The only difference is that part of the marketing of a SV company inevitably includes the claim to "make the world a better place" and to "be different" in some way. Beyond this marketing claim, there is very little difference.

This. The reason why the "good" side isn't outsmarting everyone else is because most entities that claim to be disrupting "bad guys" either aim to sell to the "bad guys" they're "disrupting" or mimic their practices with a thin veneer of difference or do worse stuff of their own. Same goes for other less organised recent events. What got sold as "getting revenge on Wall St" is a bunch of novice traders convincing each other it's really worth it even if they lose money as Citadel racks up enormous profits on market making and the 470 institutional funds invested in GME see a bump to their portfolio.
My wife bought me Trekking the National Parks recently, which is designed by a hobbyist. It seems very complex at first, but you catch on within the first round or so. You often don't know who's won until the points are tallied at the end, which makes it intriguing.

Enjoy playing it against my 8yo but have also had a few nights playing with friends who've enjoyed it also.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/255708/trekking-national...
> the markets are there to support those companies, not destroy them.

The shorts were the ones destroying Gamestop, though.
I had an idea for a story along these lines. A young programmer doing late-nighters, getting deeply into code written by a deceased master, getting the feeling of connection by reading the comments, debugging and so on.

Very small pool of potential readers, but it would be quite cool if done right. Nothing overtly supernatural.

Based on personal experience ;)
I never though id say this, but quality of discussion on HN was disssapointing and lower than on reddit lately.

Here the comments seem full of old chestnuts like 'it's a private company, they do what they want' and 'WSB is manupulating the market'

The reddit is actually discussing the core of the matter and their next steps.
>I find it reductionist to the point it loses it's meaning. Actually the whole human body is constantly growing, not just cancers. I'm am growing new skin cells as we speak, approximately every x3 weeks I shed old skin cells so need new ones.

That objection is already covered in the very title used by HN (" If the purpose of a company is merely growth"). It's also covered extensively in the article.

And your counter-analogy is wrong anyway: the whole human body is not "constantly growing" (it does this only or mostly for its first 2 decades, about the same time we stop getting any taller).

It's constantly renewing (in your words: "I shed old skin cells so need new ones"), which is different from growing (even if we say that we have to "grow" new cells - we also have to grow new plants to keep a farm going, but that doesn't mean that the farm itself has to grow - much less to endelessly try to find new profit avenues. It's the latter sense the article uses).

>If they don't then they will die, the same way I will die if my body stops growing new cells to replace the old one.

Which is neither here nor there, since "growing new cells" to replace old ones is not the same as growth in the commonly understood sense and the one used in the article. In the "growing new sells" sense, businesses without a "growth-above-everything" mission still "grow" (renew) lots of things: their stock, ocassionally introduce new products, find new customers, and so on.

And of course the examples the author gives of companies without "growth", have survived more (e.g. the Japanese companies operating for centuries), than companies that get gigantic and whose purpose is to maximize shareholder profit...
There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.
> Companies are entities for making money for investors and employees and maybe having fun doing it.

Not necessarily. Companies are entities composed of people for some purpose or another. If a company is privately owned, while profit is probably in there somewhere, the actual goal is up to the owners. Maybe the owners want to make the game they always dreamed of, and prioritise that over extra profit.
I would recommend going to Board Game Arena and finding a few games that seem interesting to you, then give them a try. Here's a filter roughly matching your criteria:

https://boardgamearena.com/gamelist?section=all&playernumber...

From the top options presented I can recommend

Kingdom Builder - incredibly easy to learn strategy game with just enough depth to keep it interesting over multiple plays

Love Letter - one of ourmyregular games to kick off a game night. Quick to pick up, quick to play, and fun.

Coup - similar in many ways to Love Letter, but with bluffing, which makes it much more cut throat, but it plays quickly enough that no one gets angry, they just get back at you the next game.

Colt Express - exciting game with a unique "programming" like mechanic that's very simple to pickup, and allows for some playfully grievous player interactions.

Gaia - underrated game that shares a lot of mechanics with the more popular Carcassone. Very strategic, and the advanced version amps up the competitiveness.

Carcassone - one of the most popular games around. Can also recommend Hunters & Gatherers.

Stone Age & Puerto Rico - great entry level worker placement games.

Granted, it doesn't have every game imaginable (Catan, Munchkin, Risk) but its selection is large enough to find good games for just about any group.

If you want something more advanced, this doesn't exactly fit your criteria, but I highly recommend Terra Mystica. One of my favorite games of all time.
People who know tech often don't know how to find their way out of a paper bag. Business is a fundamentally social thing. People who want to understand tech businesses must understand both tech and business; neither alone is sufficient.

Many analysts do. Some don't. They all tend to cover several names, and each name has some analysts who are more influential than others. The influential ones aren't exclusively found at prestigious investment banks, either. One of the most influential analysts for AAPL, Dan Ives, works at Wedbush.

Technology experts are often clueless to a fault and don't have some kind of "third eye" for business, any more than business experts have a "third eye" for technology.

It's also a mistake to think that just because a person is familiar with one technology, he/she understands the demand for that technology -- let alone other, weakly related technologies.

> 'Fundamentals' and all that is a bs excuse used to scapegoat driving stocks they or their friends don't like to the ground.

I agree with this in the case of GME and AMC, but in other situations fundamental analysis can help a person to understand valuations. It seems like BS until you actually find yourself carrying risk and trying to figure out how much a stock should be worth.

Fundamentals shouldn't play much of a role for valuing companies that are at risk of default or bankruptcy, because the stock prices the long-term EV of a binary outcome: either the equity value approaches zero or it doesn't. People who think they know what GME stock is worth, but haven't sold any shares short, are just pontificating and they should either put their money where their mouths are or sit on the sidelines and watch with fascination like the rest of us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210129121156/https://factorio....
Bankruptcy is certainly an option.
That remains to be seen: It’s possible we are the reproductive system.
Yes it’s invite only. Yes that is a strategy to draw in users, potentially more effectively than being wide open. It’s in the article.
No, you’re wrong. You’re not taking a bidders budget into account. If I enter 20 points on my demand curve ans they’re all above the clearing price, I’ll end up being forced to buy the quantities of all my bids. That may totally bust my budget. There are no stop limit orders in these auctions...there’s only a buy order with a quantity and a price.
Keep in mind that hobbyists sometimes spend as much, or more, time than professionals at a given craft.

I've known people with incredible skill at specific trades, but they had something completely different as their day job.
There is the equivalent at gaming conventions. I remember at games expo (Birmigham UK) playing an alpha version of a game in the main convention bar one evening.

While reminds me I really must try and put some of my ideas for doing a 'Allo 'Allo! / Colditz mash up
How do you know this to be true?
Shouldn't they? The world would probably be a nicer place if companies had goals other than profit. The fact that this is how companies currently operate has no bearing on how they should operate.
"Separately, even if the two scenarios were subject to the same regulations, I would still expect the doctor's office scenario to be more secure. I think that any given patient's home network/device/security practices are more lax than those of most healthcare organizations."

For the most part security for healthcare systems is like security for government systems. A lot of checkbox marking and little real security. Just look at the large number of successful ransomware attacks against healthcare organizations. Having at one time worked in health informatics and from observing the practices at my healthcare providers I am not confident my data is anymore protected at a doctor's office.
"So if you know on this screen you need to hit F1, and that on the next screen you will have to hit X, then on the following screen, you need to type in the SKU number, you could simply issue as fast as you wanted: F1-X-4112295[ENTER], and take your mind off it while the system would just go through the whole experience successfully at its own pace."

This gave me goosebumps.
This week's issue, the premier issue, of Makerwork is now available for free
Could you say that the only purpose of the universe is to grow? Not at all - so the analogy wouldn't apply. As someone else said above, this actually is more relevant to publicly traded companies, which by law have an obligation to maximize shareholder value - or even more precisely, to the ethos that greed should be welcomed because it will lead to wealth and well-being for all. Sure, there's more nuance to it, so it's not a perfect analogy (no analogy is) but there's definitely some relevance to the comparison.
Surprising a company with an invoice is immature, waste of your time, certainly not going to get you the job, and will burn bridges.

I answered your question. Expect an invoice at my hourly rate.
About 4:01
There’s only buy orders in these auctions: buy X shares at Y price.
This is configurable from the main app menu though. It’s nice not to lose all your tabs if you slip and hit Cmd-Q instead of Cmd-W
Analysis: How Wall Street gains from 'populist' trading movement
A whole day of interviews is very abnormally long. I've interviewed for CTO roles at SMEs and never spent more than 3 hours. Companies will usually break it up into rounds.

That said, interviews serve both parties to some extent. You want to know if you like the company, too.

If the company is inconsiderate enough to demand a whole day of unpaid time, perhaps the culture is a bad fit to begin with.
It's unbeliable how many things Django gets right out-the-box. I am talking about things like i18n and i13n which are usually are afterthought for most of these frontend frameworks but Django already includes a amazing system for it.
Not humanity, but capitalism. This need of constant growth is a phenomenon most other economic systems don't have.
I am not sure that holds up at least in the German market, most boardgames are what most other industries would consider failures with maybe 2000 copies sold and hardly breaking even if you would consider all the hours put in.
You make some money with semi-hits if they are licensed in our contries as you basically have no further effort for income.
The only big money pot is hitting Spiel des Jahres.
It looks like deliberate market manipulation by the broker, to their own advantage and apparently also to the advantage of some Hedge Funds with close connections to them.
Correct.
Unsung winners are counterparties to hedgefunds in trouble

The troubled melvins and maples are exiting succesful positions to be liquid and cover for the black hole that is GME.
>> Actually the whole human body is constantly growing, not just cancers. I'm am growing new skin cells as we speak, approximately every x3 weeks I shed old skin cells so need new ones.

That's growth at a replacement rate. Cancer grows at the expense of, and with no regard for the cells around it.

Any investor with an "exit strategy" is similarly looking to exploit, not sustain.

That's not to say all growth is bad. People grow to adulthood. Similarly there is a natural size for a company. Beyond that growth is harmful.

Edit: replacement to avoid obsolescence is what engineering or product development does. Growth at companies is monitored by finance. Skin cells... Cancer.
painstakingly.
From the point of view of an observer INSIDE the universe.
You have no idea how it looks like outside the universe, so you can't really say that.
If this works well, I'd rather use this over being forced to use type hints and mypy.

Has anybody used this in conjunction with a python framework? Django, fastapi or something?
To this day I don't see how this "revelation" had an impact on anything. It's certainly interesting and I think it's inherently true (we're based of the same biology) but it doesn't change anything.
Agent Smith certainly was the most high-tech philosoph...
Are you suggesting that the stock market and investors are carcinogens?
Inflation happens when demand outstrips supply. This not only applies to consumer goods but also to labor.

If there are more jobs than workers those workers will pick the highest paying jobs. That's inflation.

Here, I'll give you a simplified example. There is this game called prosperous universe. You can buy FE (Iron) to make BBH (construction material). People need BBH to build factories or farms or whatever. When everyone is producing BBH the demand for FE goes up. There is only a limited amount of FE on the market. You are buying the cheapest FE first. Eventually all the cheap FE is gone and only the expensive FE remains. The price of FE has risen. That's inflation. How do other players respond? They start investing into production of FE because there is a very clear profit motive.

Every factory you build in the game needs workers. By building factories you directly decrease unemployment.

I can also give you the opposite example. There is a high end facility that creates ES (Einsteinium) but there is very little demand for it. You run the factory for a month and start stockpiling a months worth of production. Then you demolish the factory because you don't need it anymore. Those workers are now unemployed.

You have to consider that unemployment has a greater impact on your finances than the inability to make money off of a checking/savings account. Actually, the interest rates are generally high enough that your returns cover inflation so in practice you are not losing anything.
Put options let you take a bearish position without short selling. IMO it's a way less crazy way to do that.
Nikolai Antoshkin, Chernobyl firefighter and hero, 1942-2021
A full timer needs to have sufficient throughput to pay bills. Someone whose bills are taken care of by a dayjob income can give their side project as much time as it needs.
Does Elon Musk next call out Apple's business model of their lazy rent seeking behaviour with their App Store cut?
So if two people owned one share, they could simply pass it between each other until their shorts are covered?
Maximizing profit is a good thing.
I can assure you there are plenty of people growing well beyond their first 2 decades.
What happens to the retail investors if Robinhood became insolvent?
I’m sure some funds are still short GME but with small position sizes so they can absorb temporary losses. No way any large fund still has a concentrated short.
If a company with say $1bn market cap has more than 100% of shares on loan for shorts, how much money does it take to trigger a short squeeze? Isn’t it trivial for any investor who has enough capital?
No one actually wants the underlying stock, so it is really just a bet on the value at the moment they theoretically need to hand over the stock between the parties in the contract.

I think the parties would just be exchanging money in lieu of stock and whoever bought the actual stock will have Gamestop stock, so after the utility for screwing the naked shorts goes away, people who bought in the rush will probably lose just like any other pyramid scheme.
Trades aren't immediate they take T+2 to clear. During that time frame, Robinhood has to put up collateral.
(Disclaimer: my expertise in stock trading extends to knowing how to spell "stonk", but I've been reading enough HN and Matt Levine to perhaps be better than a Markov chain at this.)

Why wouldn't it be? It sounds pretty straightforward mechanically. A short means I borrow a share from you and sell it to someone else today, buy it back some time later and give it back to you. That someone else has a bona fide stock, which they can lend to another shorter.

If you mean why the metric of "how many [shorts to] edges are active" is being tracked? I'm guessing it's the best proxy for how confident market is the stock is about to tank. Also, shorting as an abstraction is its own thing, so counting how many shorts there are is as useful as counting any other distinct market activity.
That's the future defense against this kind of short squeeze. Funds will engage these subs (or hire people) and deflect interest from the stocks they're shorting and maybe steer it towards competitor's.