skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sustainability does often not necessitate bullying, exploitation, massive wealth extraction or large economic risks.

Bullying/exploitation is something you are forced to do when you are backed into a corner and there is no way out. Still, fast growing companies and enormously large corporations do it on a regular basis.

Wealth extraction is something you can do when there is enough for everyone. Smaller communities, such as families, small businesses and so on understand this very well. But parasitic behavior is apparently accepted in larger communities as it can hide behind abstract notions of hierarchy and ideology.

Taking large risks is something you can do when you are punching up or when you charter into unknown territory, truly innovate things. Just because a business uses software doesn't make it innovative though.
> Some of them are making a killing, but how can you be sure it is the majority of them ?

Because they're mostly opening long positions (buying and holding the stock) and the price is way up?
ungated: https://archive.is/9rJ7z
Factorio is such a high quality game. Not just the gameplay, but the entire development process where every alpha release is actually really stable and playable, certainly more stable and playable than most big-budget games are on release day.
Sure, in an ideal world.

But every big city police department is at decently trained and equipped for dealing with riots at our expense.

So if we're gonna pay for that stupidity we may as well get the benefit of it.
You are building pressure into the system. It's like letting a dam fill up. That water is not circulating (please bear with tiny mistakes in my analogies). It's staying somewhere and it is ready to be deployed at any given time. If there is a natural disaster or any other kind of pressure to empty the dam then there is a very real risk of a flood.

The currency has not been debased. However, the potential for it to debase in the future has grown massively.

One day politicians are going to discover sensible policy (maybe Biden will do it, I don't know) and somehow magically increase inflation. That same day will open all floodgates on all dams.

The correct strategy would be to increase taxes and interest rates and cut stimulus spending once that has happened and we'll be fine. Crying hyperinflation is not the right strategy.
A company is a balance of power between:

Owners, Debtors, Executives, Employees, Customers and Suppliers - and the Externalizations (i.e. governments, regulations, treaties).

The purpose is whatever the owners want it to be, in the context of that balance of power.

Sometimes Execs or Employees have incredible power.

As a supplier to a monopsony like Apple, the 'purpose' may largely be dictated by that relationship.

Company owners tend to want to make money, the do so typically by growing.

To the extent that externalizes are minimized, there's nothing wrong with that.

Sometimes externalizations are unavoidable (i.e. imagine a Starbucks on every corner of every street), ergo, it can't make sense, but it's not always the case.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-ha...
The real reason is as follows:

You cannot use customer funds to cover dtcc collateral terms.

Your milk example does not work, because you are not settling up the milk buy 2 days after. You settle your milk purchase on the spot.
> Shorts are still up 120% percent

This doesn't mean that the original funds didn't exit the positions. It's likely that there are many new participants who are taking short positions in the last few days because the stock is obviously overvalued.
Governments Sign Secret Vaccine Deals. Here’s What They Hide
The zeitgeist seems to be “screw ‘em; they’re jackals”.
Back in t get late 90ies I wrote my markup in XML and be then used mod_perl to transform it to XHTML using XSLT on the fly. But to be extra 1337, I renamed my index.html file to index.xml,
Corporations have charters, and historically a lot of jurisdictions placed a whole lot of limitations on corporate charters, ranging from time limiting them, to holding the corporations to their charter - that is, limiting them to do what they were chartered to do. It has not always been a given that you would just get a charter, because a corporate charter imbues a corporation with rights that affects society that only exists by society deciding to honour them.

So this idea of making demands of corporations to have charters that maintains some balance of public benefit is not at all new (that is not to say that a corporation that primarily focuses on making profit does not provide some benefit, but it's not some sort of automatic given that is enough).

There's a whole movement around the idea of pushing governments to revoke corporate charters that do not benefit the public beyond the immediate economic effects (effectively dismantling the corporations in question). You don't need to agree with them, but it's worth realising that the history of the modern, purely profit-seeking corporation with expansive rights is not a very long one, and not at all the only model of how to deal with corporations.
As far as I know we don't grow any new fat cells, it's just that the ones we do have get larger.
It was already. We've been a rolling ecological disaster way before we figured out writing. We just went from place to place, leaving burned forests and extinct species behind.

Grokking physics definitely accelerated this, but we have an opportunity ahead of us to stabilize. Not sure we'll be able to take it, though. Not with the systems of incentives that we have now.
If the structurally possible outcomes are:

1) Shorts all come due and hedge funds pay all the retail investors big gains

2) hedge fund dies and defaults so retail get screwed

I’m pretty sure WSB would collectively declare victory. It’s a suicide mission for them.
Btw the mod_perl XML server was called AxKit. I don’t think anyone even remembers it.
Why? The only answer I see is that you make more money. But it is well understood that money doesn't lead to happiness.

What if your company was making enough money that you could pay everyone worked there generous salaries and your customers are happy. If you product is complete I don't see the need to add more. Why not let everyone work half time, and continue to deliver an excellent and focused product. Slowly adding features and integrations only as they make sense.

What we see instead by companies aiming to maximize profit is that they keep adding stuff that no one wants, hiring more people and squeezing every cent out of their customers. Sure, they make more money for a while but if you give me those two options I would much rather work half the hours and pay my employees more with happy customers.
That looks very similar (in gameplay) to https://www.puppygames.net/revenge-of-the-titans/ which is another great game.
I think you may need to reread the tweet. He isn’t saying they shorted during the drop; he’s saying they shorted just before they initiated the drop.

It’s obviously profitable to short a stock when you know the value is going to tank in half an hour.
>because they were always doing it only slower and manually.

That's exactly the difference. Because it was laborious and therefore expensive the techniques used to be reserved for when they were actually warranted. Now because it's cheap and easy those techniques get used for petty crimes.
Asserts are not for runtime errors, but for verification of assumptions in debug builds. Essentially, they are mini-test run on real data during normal use (of a debug build).

Making it so you can't have asserts will just mean that you won't have those kind of tests.
Correct. And more to the point, RH cannot use customer funds to cover that timeframe.

It must be its own funds. And the requirement of funds to be covering (collateral) can change on them with very little warning
The First Conviction Using Mind-Altering Substances Occurred in Ancient Greece
If you use a product, you are aware of things that people that don't use it, aren't.
A helpful way to think about burn-in is that you probably don't care about bias as such but rather error which is a combination of bias and variance. Burn-in reduces bias at the cost of variance (since you have fewer points in your final estimates).

My intuition is you want to be somewhere in the middle of the tradeoff. You want to tolerate some bias -- use burn-in to get partway but only partway to the stationary distribution. Here's a paper that advances this way of thinking: http://web.stanford.edu/~ngoodman/papers/LiederGriffithsGood...
A good hedge fund knows how to hedge the risky investments they make, and if they're just betting, they should know someone else might get the other side. It could be another fund/investor, but it's WSB this time.

I think there's a lesson here for people making massive short bets, and for hedge funds and anybody making a bet instead of an investment: that someone else might take the other side and have more power than you might think. This is all just betting at this point, with WSB still betting they can trigger even more of a short squeeze. If this has somehow crossed the line from "bet" to "investment" that starts affecting the rest of the economy, then the consequences should be interesting to watch. Trading on exchanges shouldn't be able to be restricted by someone like Robinhood, though they have other problems too.
Yes. AMC is reportedly contemplating selling stock, and it's certainly possibly GME could do something similar. Though they'd do it at the best price they can get.
Node.js/V8 dynamic code injection from outside of the process
I contributed to a monstrosity based on Xalan and XSLT at runtime. What a beast. I don't know how we planned to support 5 concurrent users.
Building an Authentic Online Community
I'm hosting a panel exploring how founders should think through authentic community building - how to build genuine conversations and turn your customers into advocates.

We'll explore how to start a community, best practices and common pitfalls from four of the best community builders around

See you there!
I don't have any skin in the game, but I like listening to Graham Hancock's theories. They're entertaining, just like Time Team[0] which is genuine archaeology.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvmEISc6e4tLwn8TyS14ncw (possibly UK only)
I agree. The interest rates should be mildly positive and go up over time. Inflation is almost on track in the US. The only missing piece is a public declaration that there will be no more easy money in the future. That will drive up inflation to slightly above 2% because everyone will be scrambling to do productive work.
We made this extension recently. It lets you query data in any `<table>` in any open Chrome tab. Pretty nuts what you can build with extensions vs. a standard web app. Good luck!

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sqanything/naejbcf...

https://doc.seekwell.io/sqanything
It's relatively easy to turn $100-$1000 to $50K-$100K with day trading/stock options. If you know what you're doing.
Guile has its own sandbox. You can probably also use lua-JIT.
Maybe those companies don't have net growth, but they still need some sort of growth. Regardless of what industry you're in, every business will face inevitable losses—customers will decide to leave, inflation will occur, equipment will need to be repaired/replaced, etc. Those losses need to be offset by growth.

While net positive growth isn't necessary, it is a major motivator for launching your own business. If you don't have net growth, then you're exchanging both your efforts in working at the business as well as in the day-to-day running of the business in exchange for a relatively fixed income. I'm not sure that the risk involved combined with the income to hours-worked ratio is much more beneficial than just working as an employee with much lower risk and no responsibility to run/manage the business.
Their multithreading story here was fascinating. Gratifying that they have such a visual explanation.
Bloomberg points this out: "particularly effective at stopping severe disease, preventing 85% of severe infections and 100% of hospitalizations and deaths" ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/j-j-single-dose-vaccine-13045... ).

"Based on the result, J&J plans to file for an emergency-use authorization in the U.S. in early February. The drug giant’s top scientist said this month that he expects a clearance in March, and that it would have product ready to ship then."
The author's proposal to start at a high-probability-density (HPD) point reduces the bias that you get from not doing burn-in, but it still creates a bias.

In order to get a reasonable answer from MCMC, you need to run for many correlation times. Burn-in should only last a few correlation times, so you don't lose that large a fraction of your chain by throwing it away. And the part of the chain you're using is biased, so you're probably not gaining anything by keeping it.
"Infinite growth is the ideology of a cancer cell" was written by Edward Abbey a ecologist and author of the book Desert Solitaire. Might be worth looking into.
The HIG is just as applicable if you use Electron, even it might take more work to follow the guidelines if you don't use the system-provided widgets.

That some choose to ignore the HIG and use the same GUI on multiple platforms is a problem, but it's not a problem that any guidelines can solve.
I need to watch your videos and learn more, but to continue your train of thought:

If the clearinghouses didn't put these requirements on RH, or ask brokers to stop buying of these shares, I assume they themselves are at risk of going under? (As you said, who's supposed to front those 5000% returns?) If that happens, would it not lead to a cascading failure of both clearinghouses and brokers going under? The end result being a major market crash?

The IB CEO seemed to be hinting at something like this on TV yesterday. It seems like there actually may be a lot at stake here, but I imagine that the clearinghouses and brokers will just shut it down again before any of that happens.

These means that the WSB narrative is sort of correct. It isn't direct collusion, but all these Wall St. firms are so reliant on each other that they'll always get each others back - if they don't they themselves are likely to go down.

EDIT: I just started watching the first video you linked and the CEO of WeBull is basically saying exactly what my comment does, so I guess I should've just watched that first.
Even when NYC was at 500% daily death rate, there was nothing resembling that level of lockdown. I cannot stress enough how much the US lockdowns resembled nothing like what some of the countries that got the virus under control did.

Groceries restricted number of simultaneous customers, but I could go anytime and as many times as I wished. Restaurants were open for takeout. Parks were open, and capacity was not enforced. Transit was operational. I could get in my car and drive wherever, Uber was running, etc. I’m fairly certain flights were running through this. So people were socializing indoors with friends&family obviously.

Many singles in their 20s I knew went back home to mom&dad, especially if they lived alone.

No curfew. In fact the only curfew we had was a few days during BLM rallies.
My advice for anyone still using Coinbase: get out as fast as you can.

Other than the periodic outages, they've been handling "account verification" processes locking folks out of their accounts very poorly.
The tweet is fine and I'm sure many hedge funds and prop firms shorted the initial catalyst. What I'm referring to is the "short ladder" hypothesis mentioned in the parent post which was originally spread on WSB that Justin didn't refer to in the tweet.
I don't understand why people think Melvin would do this. Sure they might be prepared to flout SEC rules if they thought they could get away with it but whether they sold is trivially verifiable and they would be guaranteed to get caught. Exiting the position was probably also a precondition of the new investors putting money in.

The comment you pasted is incoherent rambling. It's honestly like something from a qanon forum. Even ignoring that prices don't work how they seem to think the mechanism they suggest for manipulating them doesn't make sense (it would also be very illegal and again trivial to verify for the SEC).
I find asking the question:

Can money solve this problem?

If it can it doesn’t need to be automated unless your hobby is automation.

Nearly all the problems can be solved with either a better data plan or more storage.

Reduce complexity. Enjoy more time. Granted for many extra time forces them to think about the big question of “IT” so it’s safer to spend it on meaningful meaningless things.
A job interview is a (2-way) sales call, you'd do it as an investment. The better your product, the less of these sales calls you have to make with different "customers", to land a deal.
Maybe? I think it’s really useful to give people an economic incentive to do socially useful things, like pointing out when a company is in an unsustainable position before it literally starts locking out workers.

Journalists are better spent digging into political situations that aren’t directly tradable.

Even if you think journalists should do the research and make results public instead of funds doing the research and keeping it private (until they reveal their conclusions through trading), I think you want shorting available as a RESPONSE to the reporting. Why would the companies change their behavior in response to negative press if they aren’t subjected to economic pain for ignoring it?
What would the better higher-level scripting language be though? I'd love to use something better than sh.
Someone explained to me (perhaps incorrectly) that GMEs market cap was less than the value of it's real-estate holdings. Now GameStop isn't a great company but it's not bleeding as badly as you would expect and it has a turnaround plan that's it's executing.

It never should've been shorted as much as it was without hedging the other side of the bet. What was Melvin going to do if GameStop found a way to be wildly profitable in e-commerce?

This is fundamentally terrible risk management coming back to bite people in the ass. This time it was a Reddit internet mob but it could've been anything.
I do remember the name, but I never used it or got into direct contact with it.
How can that draw users in? The point is it's exclusive. If you read the article it says 'and boy, are invites hard to come by'. So they can get my interest... but they literally can't draw me in can they because I can't join if I wanted to. They can't convert.
> It'd be demotivating if someone thinks they can do your project better than you can, right?

If it is a labour of love, then maybe.

If you had plans to monetise then I expect it would be rather annoying too.

But if the project is at least partly "scratching an itch", to make something you want because it doesn't already exist in quite the form you want/need, then someone coming along and doing it better is great. Your itch is scratched and someone else is dealing with maintenance, so you can get on with your next plaything! And if you are counting life karma points, you can claim at least a few for having inspired the other person's/group's work.
Uh, how do you plan to use FastAPI while avoiding type hints?
Purpose of a company is to create value in whatever way it has identified. Growth is a corollary of that purpose. Once the company has identified what value it provides, creating more of that value is the next logical step - hence the pursuit of growth.
But you can only grow for so long. There is a limited demand for basically any good. Signal is clearly not at that level, so I am glad that they are growing, especially if they aren't sacrificing much just for growth. (Although IM isn't the best example either because more adoption makes the product better in a way that many products don't).

However look at Apple. For a large part everyone in the US who wants an iPhone has one. Sure, there are some people who can't afford the high price but that seems to be a small portion. However because Apple wants to grow they are working on making their devices less repairable and implementing trade-in programs so that people upgrade more often (and they can destroy the old ones). Is this growth evidence that they solved a problem? It seems that the problem they are really solving here is raising the stock price. And I will argue that raising Apple's stock price doesn't really help the world at all.

I think the initial growth of the iPhone was a sign of a good product. However I think this demand for continual growth is harmful to society overall.
> The purges and gulags under Stalin were very from-top organized.

I'd like to ask you though, who exactly sent in all those millions of complaints about "enemies of the people"?
I’m a parent and whatever is advertised to my kids is meaningless because I’m an adult who controls the purse strings.
Almost everything is undecidable. Yet static analysis still works well. It turns out that real programs often don't trigger the nasty behavior that makes things behave badly.
> Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely...

Their trunks keep getting wider.
> This person is kinda suggesting that companies should have some noble higher purpose.

Not necessarily. There's nothing inherently wrong with making money. What's wrong is never being satisfied no matter how much money you make. "Growth, where it no longer serves a purpose beyond the accumulation of more growth", "endless growth", "growth unchecked". The author doesn't say that growth itself is bad. If you're a sole proprietor, it's not necessarily bad to grow and hire employees. The question is, at what point do you stop prioritizing growth and start prioritizing other things in life — happiness, love, friendship, leisure, ethics, the environment, etc. At some point there are diminishing returns to accumulating more wealth, but there's a collective insanity that says no accumulation is too much. Society celebrates the ultra-wealthy, but to me the ultra-wealthy seem more like gluttons. Would you celebrate someone who eats constantly and weighs 500 pounds? That's not healthy.

Look at Warren Buffett. Dude doesn't even know what to do with all of his money. He only knows how to accumulate, he knows nothing else. He's pledged to give away most of his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation... which means he's delegating the spending of his wealth to someone else... after his death! Buffett literally has no idea how to spend the wealth he has accumulated. Doesn't that seem bizarre to you? Why does he keep accumulating?

Some people will claim that if you don't constantly strive for growth, then you're "complacent" and "lazy". But that's completely false, because financial wealth is only one aspect of life. If you only strive for financial growth, then you are one-dimensional; you're lazy and complacent about the non-financial aspects of your life.
I don't see 2) happening when it would actually bail out greedy traders that shorted GME like crazy in the first place (with the obvious intention to run it into the ground, regarding the short interest of ~140%).

It is however very interesting how all this plays out and I think many people will have learned a lot afterwards.
Thanks for these suggestions. I will implement some of these ideas soon.
Ditto. Shutting down my account. Enough is enough.

Robinhood has proven its intentions by its actions all the other things they say is just marketing and PR bullshit
I have a pinephone. Once the modem manager stuff gets up streamed (so MMS works) and the distros make it easier to update the modem firmware (or they start shipping with updated firmware from the factory) these will probably be in the "just turn it on and use it" state.

There's been an insane degree of improvement in the software over the past 6 months.
For the tiny minority of people who lift for hypertrophy, they do gain new myonuclei. That's probably the only real exception though