skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That’s not really relevant. Zuckerberg didn’t outperform his peers at an expensive high school because he was white.

But, “for families with incomes under $75,000, Exeter is free. We pick up the cost of tuition, books and academic supplies, and we provide a stipend ... We meet 100 percent of our admitted students’ demonstrated financial need. [1]”

Sadly, the idea that we live in a meritocracy is so politically incorrect that GSIs (TAs at Berkeley) are taught to interrupt a conversation where they hear a student saying “America is the land of opportunity” or “I believe the most qualified person should get the job. [2]”

[1] https://www.exeter.edu/admissions-and-financial-aid/tuition-...

[2] http://gsi.berkeley.edu/media/tool-recognizing-microaggressi...
He's advocating for the users to move away from the platforms, not for the platforms to change (or surrender) their business model.
Who would really notice when the TrackPoint is so much better?
Well yeah, you probably aren't going to get a lot of business innovation from the poor, but because they are resource constrained, you'll see innovation in other forms - such as how they adapt to broken cars, appliances, shortage of food, clothing, etc. The rich have no need to come up with novel ways to mend shoes - they just buy a new pair.
People had books for that stuff back then, so I imagine it wasn't worth the considerable effort typesetting them.

I also have a book of data from way back, and since its still fairly accurate, it's still alarmingly easier just to look something up than Google it i.e. there doesn't seem to be one repository for (say) resistivity coefficients in one place alongside magnetic moments.
> Short squeezes are illegal

This is the first time in all this crisis that I see anybody say that short squeezes are illegal. Can you elaborate? What's illegal about them?

They have happened many times. I rememeber the VW one a while ago, and I don't rememebr anybody saying they were illegal.

Edit: Right, I saw the link now. Very interesting, thanks.
How is halting trades the same as only halting buys? By halting trades it is implied selling is also halted.
> Sounds exactly like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs

I don't think JPMorgan needed any government intervention. Goldman didn't directly, but if AIG had gone under so would they. (To be fair, so would the entire financial system.) But in the end, both of them got help.

Citadel didn't. It wasn't in that club. It is not now. If Citadel failed tomorrow, it would make headlines for a week, and then we'd move on.
It's absolutely not the same

Trading halts are at the exchange level and stop _all_ buys and sells

What happened here is some brokers/clearing houses prevented _retail traders_ from buying, but not from selling
I very much prefer when they explain too much than too little. Yeah, it might be boring to listen to or you might have to skim a big part of the text, but that is much better than being lost.
This is the only relevant thread in this ongoing class war.
Ok so let me understand. You can sell you position no problem. So who's going to buy it, if buying is not allowed?
If that's the case, then the cost of violating rules for them is trivial enough that they can simply just keep doing this: 1) pump a stock price by allowing buy but restricting sell, 2) then they short this stock to 100%+, 3) they allow sell but restricting buy to collapse the price.

Is the society already working this way?
Yes, the factors are governed by how they make money.

If one is not the customer, then they are the product!
Well not necessarily... didn't google use a dutch auction 15 years ago?
Thanks for building this. I'm trying to make my book available in all these formats but my biggest issue is that it is hard to read a book on both desktop or mobile.

Does anybody knows of any interesting UI that works for books? I've looked into interactive books but it's only fun for few pages and then it leans more toward annoying. Any suggestions?
There are thousands of building regulations.

Here are few examples among some EU countries: setting a minimum density and number of floors in urban areas to prevent "mcmansions".

Mandated commercial areas (aka shops) on the ground floor on new buildings.

Requirements on walkability applied to new road design to prevent sprawls e.g. limit cul-de-sacs.

Minimum and maximum percentage of buildings for industrial / office / shop / domestic use.

Minimum and maximum apartment size.

Tons of limitations on renovation of historical buildings.

A lot of this stuff makes it very difficult to quickly transform an already urbanized area into a bunch of super-luxury villas or similar.
So by that logic predatory lending is completely fine because they technically disclose their terms. Gotcha.

Just because something is in the fine print doesn't make it okay, especially if its marketing completely differently.
I feel like the people who say this have never been to a casino, they're pretty fun. I would wager most people going know they will lose money. Gambling addiction is a real problem, though.
I guess plenty of people installed Bonzi Buddy too, so this isn’t very surprising.
Chicago has a wealthy, top-tier global city of 500k inside a depressed Rust Belt city of 2.5M. There's significantly less economic and population pressure on the core global city.
But how can you get rich with protocols instead of platforms?
I'm new to the Kindle hacking world. But my understanding they can be have a custom ROM like an Android tablet.
> a tacit commitment from the project maintainer to maintain my changes into the future

Sometimes. Depends on the norms of the project. Depends on the scope of the changes.
> If you made redis and tossed it out in the world with a ta da! very few people would care.

Right, it's the application/library distinction again. Developers might care a great deal, even if there's nothing interesting using it yet.

> open source was an explicit recognition that we care about and attach value to the big ideas that change the world, and that by making the building blocks freely available we caused more of those big ideas to come to fruition.

I suppose so, although the 'free' (as in price) component there can be separated out from Open Source. Freeware (software which is made available free of charge but which is not Free Software or Open Source) can also serve as a platform, but in practice often loses out to Free and Open Source alternatives. SkyOS is dead and gone, the Linux kernel continues to conquer the world.

The Open Source position is that Open Source is the most effective way to develop software, and of course it's had tremendous success in 'infrastructure' software (libraries, frameworks, operating systems, programming languages).

(This is quite different from the Free Software position, which holds that non-Free software is a problem in terms of power and control over users, quite aside from the question of how to most effectively develop software.)

We should be careful not to go so far as to say that Open Source is about enabling interesting/profitable non-Open Source programs. Copyleft licences are explicitly hostile to this, but are recognised as Open Source licences.
This is all jurisdictional of course, but in parts of North America (I'm including Canadian provinces as well as US states) you can incorporate in less than 30 min online for a few hundred dollars. There are a few other details you'll have to sort out before your first tax filing, but that's about it.
That's surely not in Robinhood's interest to actively regulate this. How can they determine intent at point of purchase?
Not with a direct listing.

Coinbase shares would be subject to an auction and the market for them will open at the price where supply meets demand.
> Can you provide me with examples of EU law that you consider abuses of power and that remove human rights?

Their previous attempts to making encryption illegal. I believe encryption is a fundamental human right.

You never answered my question. You seem bogged down on my characterization.

Let me ask again without the characterization.

What EU laws ensure the human right to encryption?
Show HN: Print a PDF Online
Hello HN,

I built an online service that prints PDFs through ClickSend.

I stopped owning a printer years ago because I it bothers me seeing it on the desk, and because the thought I might run out of ink scratches my OCD bad enough that I don't print stuff.

This might be one of the top five problems I had over the past decade+ that are unsolved in my life. I drove to Kinko's so many times to print stuff, brought the USB with the ext3 filesystem on it and had to drive back to reformat to vfat, or forgot the name of the file I uploaded on my webserver. Now I live in cold NYC. When my local print guy shut down, the next closest one is 15 mins away of walking in the freezing cold to print a flight itinerary.

I used Staples.com for a while (small fonts in their UI but it works) until they jacked up their prices.

I want to reduce the prices and initially built this over Lob until I found out Lob always adds barcode watermarks on their prints. Lob can't print and mail a blank page.

Love to get your feedback.
Intentional would be the key word. Would it be easy to prove it was intentional?
Banks are legally permitted to lend (create) money with less than 100% reserves. That’s the whole intent.

Whereas in public markets, a random hedge fund should not be able to essentially issue new shares / increase the float.

My point is simply a ban on “naked shorting” is obviously useless if you allow chain lending, therefore a ban on naked shorting implies a ban on chain lending.
I don't know if there's any communication protocol with eye contact. People were so afraid of persecution that they used only eye contact to exchange feelings, or so I read. One may argue that it's different this time aforementioned persecution came from the governments. Well, it's worth remembering that it was ordinary people who voluntarily snitched each other during those horrible times, believing that they were on moral high ground. Or just ask Chinese: who beat professors and school principals to death? Who thought that business owners deserved to starve to death? Who thought eating flesh of person was righteous because that person was born in a middle-class family?

It looks many Chinese have learned their lessons from their own painful history, yet Americans didn't even care about history at all.
Show HN: ChatWisely – a miniblog written in Haskell. (open beta)
"These gains flow from the transformation of computer manufacture from an assembly industry into a process industry." [from the posted article]

Fred Brooks is a true genius to percolate a generation's worth of transformation into such a statement.
IMHO you make the best point of all this far. Their customer base is essentially WSB wannabies, and they've managed to piss them good.

I am currently in a country where robinh does not operate, but I'd be absolutely reluctant to use them now even if it became available.
This was a formative essay for me. When I look around the software industry, it's completely full of accidental complexity. Consider Kubernetes and the entire Cloud Native world - how much of that is actual business logic that your customers need? None of it.

The main areas of complexity I perceive today in building software are:

- "infrastructure complexity" (see above)

- "deployment complexity": continuous delivery and getting code into production

- API complexity: using 3rd party tools used to be function calls, now they're complex distributed systems

- code complexity: git, pull requests, setting up your dev environment, etc

I wrote more about this here [1], but I honestly can't believe how complex it is to create software today.

[1] https://blog.darklang.com/what-is-dark/
No, I did not forget the user. The user is the victim.
All 3 Citadel companies belong to Ken Griffin/are related and are unlikely to have meaningful short positions..

The company that is Robinhood's customer and pays for order flow is Citadel Securities, which is the market maker and is definitely not short GME.

Citadel (hedge fund), is not short GME as they generally sell boring complicated solutions to rich people (fixed income, insurance, hedges etc). They do invest into other funds (like Melvin Capital), which may give them indirect exposure to the shorts.

Citadel technologies, sells their tech.
You keep posting this, but do you have any evidence? Other people have repeatedly refuted short squeezes being illegal.
Is the preview the full resolution? That seems very overkill.
A lot of software that was once innovative is now mature.

20 years ago, the bar for what you could sell was really low, because there just wasn't a lot of software available, full stop. If you had something that was even a little bit useful, somebody would probably want it. People who bought software from you once were also eager to pay you for updates, because annual improvements could be dramatic.

So what happened?

Features that were once unique selling points of one commercial application were copied by other vendors and by open-source implementations. Clever techniques were studied carefully and are now well understood. Smart people looking for a challenge would study every publicly available implementation of some algorithm and then come up with one that beat them all.

But why did the rate of software improvement seem to slow down? Don't we have more people working on software than ever before? Don't they have better building blocks than ever before?

Consider that everything that has ever been published as open source remains in the public commons forever. This body of work grows without bound. Both improvements and regressions continuously show up, but (eventually) the improvements are identified and the regressions are cast aside. So this pile of software theoretically improves without bound as well.

Yes, we have more people writing software than ever before, and yes, they have better building blocks than ever before. But they're not competing with other software developers and other companies -- they're competing with every piece of software ever written by anyone. So it shouldn't be surprising or controversial that the bar for marketable software is going to keep getting higher forever.

These licensing shenanigans and the steady march towards "Everything as a Service" is a result of companies pivoting from attempting to innovate to rent seeking.
If you're long on margin, the position will of course be closed when the stock price drops (and the value of the position (= stock price * number of stocks minus margin loan) approaches zero), not when it rises.

And it was impossible on RH and other brokers to buy more shares, selling (liquidating a long position) was always possible, AFAIK.
Yes, matrix is federated so from the communication side it doesn't really matter who you sign up with you can chat with anyone and join any rooms. What homeserver you pick is really just for the service and how much you trust them with your (meta)data.
Chance of lawsuit = potential upside * success chance * number of affected customers * unhappiness of customers

Robin hood had the most affected customers, so go the lawsuit and most of the bad press.
And they would surely be caught and word would get out if they did do it.
Do you listen to National Public Radio in the US? They broadcast all of their content for free on FM radio, and then ask for donations a couple times a year. Does that feel manipulative to you? Genuine question, because to me that doesn't seem that different the developers holding out their hat after releasing an open source library.
You keep posting this in every possible thread.

Question: who got punished for the VW short squeeze? That was illegal too, right?

The thing is, I think I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re not explaining it well enough, and are spreading (at best) misinformation.

A short squeeze isn’t illegal.

Organising a coordinated one might be.
You could deduce the working directory from the sequence of commands in your history file, so the working directory is implicitly contained in the history file.

I don't remember an option to save the working directory explicitly. But zsh has a number of history related commands, which can be used to execute shell functions before and after each command. So you could use these to write your own special history file, even one per directory if need. Example:

zshaddhistory () { echo "$PWD -- $1" >> $MY_HISTFILE }

This shell function defined here will run when the command has been read but just before it will be executed. The argument $1 contains the command line to be executed.
Totally agree that MOST people aren't betting their futures on this. But for one, it only takes a few instances for it to shape the public narrative. For another, in a country where 40% can't cover a $600 emergency, it doesn't take that much of a loss to dramatically alter someone's life (especially in our current economy). The end result would have been a flogging in the press and to calls for regulation in Congress.
This is its "about" page: https://crazypython.github.io/adhd-resistant-sticky-notes/
What statutes establish the criteria for manipulation?

I heard (from a non-authoritative source) that the coordination on reddit, etc. is not manipulation.
I have seen this before. Middle management graded teams on story points per sprint. Of course the shittiest team took that to the extreme. They had 15X the story points of everyone else. The problem is that every file edit was a story point. Every bug fixed was a story point. They shipped ridiculously buggy code constantly that cost us tons of money through lost customers. Fortunately each team owned separate service, so they had to handle the continuous calls for their crap. And yet, every time, management would scold them lightly and praise them for their hard work. The one time we had a bug that made it to production, management jumped on us. Thankfully, I left that company after a short time.

I now ask exactly how management attributes time for bug fixes. If they aren't allocated to the person, team, and story point for the original feature, then I explain to them my story and why I won't work for them.
They did not lie, they just neglected to disclose how much of their shorts were closed.
Let's save these "as bad as the capitol riots!" hot takes until WSB organizes a protest that takes over Citadel HQ.

Trading securities and/or advocating for a free & fair market in which to trade those securities =/= literal violent insurrection.
Wallstreetbetsnew
> What EU laws ensure the human right to encryption?

Article 7 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

> Article 7

> Respect for private and family life

> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

See also ECHR Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms article 8 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

> ARTICLE 8

> Right to respect for private and family life1.

> Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
It's not about RH at this point, it's about faith in the market. It's like you were winning at the casino and a cop came in, put you in handcuffs, then gave all your chips back to the dealer.
Why stop it if you like it? Eventually you will get bored of everything.
> an integrated touchscreen

Invented in 1965 [1].

> inertial measurement sensor

Commercially available since 1949 [2].

> a half dozen wireless protocols

This doesn't mean anything. Wireless data transmission was invented long before 1970.

> two to four cameras, an array of microphones, speakers, LIDAR, OLED, a rechargeable battery

All of these can be done precisely because there has been a reduction in size. None of this completely new tech. It's incremental reduction in size.

[1] https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/....

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294669755_The_histo...
Anyone who has a bit of experience trading the markets saw this (or something like this) coming for days. Just because these people don't know the first thing about market regulation doesn't mean they have a case.

What they did was effectively form a public stock pool for the purpose of disrupting the orderly function of the market, and drive up the price beyond all reason. This kind of thing used to happen regularly a century ago until regulation was enacted in order to stem that kind of abuse. If the SEC weren't in what appears to be a coma, they should have enforced those rules days ago by completely halting trading in the stock. But it seems that falls on private companies now for some reason.
Mdysnp
I don't think "entitlement" is an appropriate description for people angry at their trading platform for suddenly working against them to spoil trading opportunities and cost them money. It's like saying the victim of a robbery is entitled because he's upset at criminals taking his money.
> Net effect is likely higher cost of trading for everyone.

Good, trades are not zero cost and should not be treated as such.
Update on the News Media Bargaining Code and Google in Australia
> most short positions are actually held by retail investors

This is the claim you sought to support. Within this very long document you have linked and handily not shortlinked or hinted at the source data, there is no conversation towards this end. Not surprising.

In fact, there is, on page 39, a table looking at some statistics using their defined measures: AllShort (all short trades), InstlShort (institutional shorts), RtlShort (retail shorts). This table holds the "mean" value of these items to be:

AllShort: 26.219% of volume

InstlShort: 26.045% of volume

RtlShort: 0.127% of volume

You have just shown the very opposite of what you claim amidst these extended length diatribes purporting that RobinHood and others are acting legally and in good faith all while acting as if you are very knowledgeable about the entire domain.

Sickening. Shill.
yep I'm on Gnome. Maybe I'll give sway a shot, I used i3 a few years ago.
> What does DTCC collateral requirements have to do with retail investors trying to buy shares in a cash account?

See [1].

Long story short: Robinhood lets you buy and sell a share instantly. In the real world, those trades take days to settle and clear. To bridge the gap, Robinhood loans you the difference. And Robinhood, in turn, is "loaned" [2] some of that difference by the DTCC.

So when the cost of that loan goes up, their costs go up, and they responded to that cost pressure by turning off trading. (There are other options.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950361

[2] In quotes because it's technically a collateral requirement. If you sell $100 of stock, DTCC may tell Robinhood it only needs to put up $2 of stock as collateral while Robinhood gets the rest from wherever it's getting it from so it can pass it along to the next person. The $98 is "loaned," as in it's owed to DTCC. If Robinhood fell down, DTCC would sell that collateral and buy the rest of the shares in the market. In this case, DTCC said "these shares are super risky, and may lose all their value in a heartbeat, I need you to hand me 100% of the shares you say you are selling when you sell them." And Robinhood said no. Because that's expensive.

[a] DTCC says put up $100 per share because DTCC is not a lender either! It has lines of credit with various banks. And the banks bear the risk of the loan defaulting. So they're setting their rates and then DTCC draws from the cheapest line.