skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, but (don't) think about where your life would be today if you had done those thing earlier. It's like you knew the winning numbers to the Powerball and just didn't tick the numbers at the shop. It just sometimes when life gets you down these thoughts just poke at you.

Same thing with the girl one never talked to.
Bad take. We need capital markets to effectively value and fund different business efforts (unless you want to do things Soviet-style). And no matter how much fundamental analysis you do, some things remain unknown; all finance is in some way speculative. There are rough patches, but you need to take the bad to get the good.
And people say advertising doesn't add value to the world...
Right - the bulk of the article is about how the “cool factor” of scarcity and variable rewards induce a demand greater than what might be there if they were simply wide open.
The amount of gleeful sarcasm in this thread is indicative of how incredibly divisive identity politics are even in places as relatively thoughtful as HN. It's a blanket accusation of political bias that is, itself, politically biased. The implication is that if somebody criticizes something an apparently left-wing entity does, they couldn't possible criticize something politically reversed, or vice versa, or the inverse: If somebody doesn't criticize something an apparently left-wing entity does, they couldn't possible fail to criticize something politically reversed. Further, in any politically opposite cases where opinions do differ, there is a blanket insistence that the two cases can only be treated identically, even if the other inevitable differences between the two cases make it reasonable to treat them differently.

It's perfectly possible to rationally think it's reasonable to ban Democrat A or Republican A for some infraction, but at the same time that it is unreasonable to ban Democrat B or Republican B for some other infraction. It's also perfectly possible to come to the conclusion that the platform did act with bias across the two cases, without necessitating hypocrisy to show support for one of the cases.

The subject of the discussion could be about the nature of the separate cases, whether each was reasonable, and, completely separately, whether there was evidence of bias handling the two cases. But no - all that seems to matter is that at some point person A was banned and there was any support for it, and at a later point person B of opposite political identity was banned and there was any opposition to it, and, regardless of what those two people even did, that somehow means that everybody is a hypocrite.

Edit: And yes, the article's author is also participating in a similar fallacy.
Everything can be said to be "theoretical". Theoretically you would have found a buyer had you tried to sell at 200, but nothing guarantees it
Ask HN: What are your thoughts on Dogecoin?
With its sudden uptick & strong Reddit community, really curious what you all think will happen next with its price?
The user count on r/thedonald was frozen as to not influence popularity, you are likely wrong about their relative size.
Pony and Rusts' solutions to the concurrency problem are almost identical - forbid shared mutability through the type system. In what way are they very different?
I don't think it's safe to assume it would come from/go to the nearest stars to us, as the flight path might need extreme changes that aren't in the fuel budget, especially given its already very high speed.
I think the issue is a little different than I suggested (though the small business ads are a part of it).

I think this is a worthwhile read: https://stratechery.com/2020/privacy-labels-and-lookalike-au...

> "Small businesses did just fine before FB."

You can't really compare the old pre-internet, pre-amazon world with our current one and assume things that were 'just fine' then still apply.

A local restaurant is a bad example, better examples are small companies making a niche product or independent platforms in a niche. This affects companies buying ads on FB, but also those trying to understand their own customers to compete with Amazon and the other large companies. I don't work in ads, but I've talked to Googlers that do and the ads really do have a big impact for small businesses. I'd believe this is true.

From that Stratechery article:

"Amazon, meanwhile, is increasingly where shopping searches start, particularly for Prime customers, and the company’s ad business is exploding. Needless to say, Amazon doesn’t need to request special permission for IDFAs or to share emails with 3rd parties to finely target its ads: everything is self-contained, and to the extent the company advertises on platforms like Google, it can still keep information about customer interests and conversions to itself. That means that in the long run, independent merchants who wish to actually find their customers will have no choice but to be an Amazon third-party merchant instead of setting up an independent shop on a platform like Shopify.

This decision, to be clear, will not be because Amazon was acting anticompetitively; the biggest driver — which, by the way, will also benefit Facebook’s on-platform commerce efforts — will be Apple, which, in the pursuit of privacy, is systematically destroying the ability of platform-driven small businesses to compete with the Internet giants."
You're saying that you read this to mean that all trades, even done in what otherwise appear to be cash terms, can be margin called?

If that's the actual intent of this document, it is substantially misleading.
Thing is execution of Software Engineering is highly opinionated. People with diverse cultures have different needs & skills. It is very difficult to write one doc that doesn’t raise questions or meetings. I guess we can minimize them by holistically understanding the use of the doc we’re creating.
I'm confused. Why is everyone getting mad at Robinhood? Wasn't it the market makers who stopped them from trading GME? And doesn't Robinhood have the right to sell margin stocks bought on margin?
I don't think the negative reviews of Robinhood in the last day qualify as "spam" under any definition with which I am familiar.

I also see nothing wrong with brigading, if you are an actual legitimate user of an app and are unhappy with it.

Businesses solicit positive reviews all the time.
Very obviously not actual footprints.

But they do tell us something concrete about how the builders who carved them imagined their gods.
I really have no idea, but your question suggests its own answer: fiat currencies are also designed for eternal inflation (I think you swapped inflation with deflation) and many people consider that a boon.
From the article, they already use drones.
They're not even making them pay for the bikes, they're sending them for free.
No. The two contradict each other.
All 100G is enterprisy.

For a cheap solution, I'd get a pair of used Mellanox ConnectX4 or Chelsio T6, and a QSFP28 direct attach copper cable.
That's a lovely theory which somehow manages to ignore the industrial-scale, inhuman abuses excused every day.

There are far more examples of egregious abuse excused by the courts by QI than you can stomach looking at; just start searching.

Feel free to quibble about all the 'good calls we don't hear about', and then dive in to 'second guessing split-second life or death situations'. We've all been through this discussion before.
>Enormous difference between having a margin account and trading on margin. A margin account simply means you're allowed to trade on margin, not that you have actually done so.

You're technically trading on margin when you open a new account and trade before your cash has cleared. This is most likely what happened.
You seem to be under the impression that a stock can’t be shorted more than 100% without naked short selling. This is not true.
Software Development Culture Is Too Positive
Trouble is, the ones at the bottom already
feel that they are hurt so much and won't mind a new round of hurt.

That probably is not a verifiable truth, but the fact that this impression prevails for enough people to do this is probably where the real corrective actions should be directed at.
And doing it every day? Even now that the stock is $350 a share? If they are able to do that I have to question the “little guy” tag.
> Lack of ownership is the root of all evil

This is something I battle at every job. Every meeting should include as a documented outcome: who owns this gap we just identified?
One point that I disagree with is "Every question asked in an internal Slack is a policy failure. It means the existing information systems failed to deliver an answer, and the user falls back to manually asking the hive mind's tacit knowledge." I find it's usually a failure of the doc search mechanism. It's much faster to ask humans a vague question than try to form the right search query for the internal doc system, which is usually much much worse than Google.

This can be solved by making docs public, but also by having people respond with a link to the docs. So Slack can still be a good interface to Q&A, as long as a single answer is documented.
Pointing out that people are making money as the stock is currently going up completely ignores what is likely to happen next: the stock will go down. In the end this won't be a story of Robinhood traders making money but rather about how Robinhood traders lost a bunch of money because of internet hype.

The narrative about a cabal of rich people "nakedly trying to stop" Robinhood traders from trading is also manipulative garbage. Every reasonable and level-headed explanation of why Robinhood halted trading was about credit limitations, that is in agreement with what Robinhood stated publicly, and now that the credit has been remedied Robinhood trading has resumed. No conspiracy theory necessary. The hype is wrong and, worse, intentionally misleading.
Type Theory for All
The obvious solution is to close all trails to vehicles which tend to destroy trails and vegetation.
> Also, there's this huge misconception that the markets are "free", and that means anyone can participate. Soooo not true.

Yeah, it's almost like there's a company out there marketing itself as a service for everyday people to participate in the markets and offering you free stock just for signing up. Good thing that's not happening. But yeah, I do not know where someone would get such a crazy idea.
A training client of mine with hyperhidrosis was treated through surgery. To be fair he was still sweating a lot more than my other clients, but he said it used to be way worse.

I had a fever on a trip in africa where it felt like sweat was pouring out of my skin and it was incredibly uncomfortable
Yes, but money takes a few days to clear. If you open a robinhood account right now, deposit 1000$, then buy 500$ of stocks you will be buying on margin because the money hasn't cleared yet. How many people buying gme waited for the cash to actually be in their account before buying? In a strictly cash account you would be forced to wait, invisible margin accounts was one of robinhoods "innovations"
They didnt allow people to buy GME. Only sell. Forced one sided positioning. It's rather frowned upon. That's where a big portion of hate comes from.
The rally will continue as long as there are buyers given the price and the neural pathways have been fully mapped out.

What I'm worried about is that there were more than one Melvin Capital with several banks now involved who do not own enough shares to cover the shorts.

Which means we are literally witnessing a money printer go brrr situation where as long as there are people buying in due to FOMO or some us-vs-them politics, the prices will rally.

The most shocking part is how exposed not only the brokers are but now the banks are also exposed. We are literally seeing a repeat of 1929.

https://www.history.com/news/1929-stock-market-crash-warning...
I'm not advocating for anything specific here. :) And frankly, I take your point and actually agree wholeheartedly. The status quo of data mining and tracking is terrible, and leads to exactly what you're talking about: people changing their behaviour (not just online) because they feel like they're being watched[1].

I realise I'm not providing a solution. I wouldn't even feel confident at pointing a general direction. I'm merely pointing out that I don't believe the right way to solve this problem of personal data aggregation is consolidating all this personal meta-data into a single spot.

[1] https://www.socialcooling.com/
Even if that is the case (which I don't disagree with you on) Robinhood has done, and continues to do, such a shitty job education it's users on what they're actually buying that they don't know this.

So is this action Robinhood's fault? Not really. Is the fact that the user doesn't understand this at all Robinhood's fault? 100% absolutely.
First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

Then they...
I haven't seen anyone in the scientific community actually push for this. I'm not sure it is even what Avi Loeb is pushing for.
There was a period of US history where a particular region of the country was primarily (although certainly not singularly, and certainly not to the extent 1619 chaplains would have you believe) resourced through slave labor, specifically plantation style slavery which indeed was formed in this region, yes, but that is much more nuanced discussion and tosses out this whole grandiose vision of America being a big power struggle between white men cracking whips at black people.

Btw not sure who is flagging you for asking an honest question. This is how people learn and refine their thinking.
That's... all vehicles, including feet.
I spent time at a large medical device company. I'm lightly familiar with the FDA submission process. I would not refer to it as rigorous. We were encouraged to keep the information light or the FDA would be easily confused and reject. Rejection had more to do with giving the FDA simple warm fuzzies rather than rigorous data analysis. The FDA process is more an exercise in paperwork, not in rigorous drug/device performance.

As you say, doctors and pharma have done unsafe, harmful, and fraudulent things to patients. How much was the FDA complacent in this?

All of these drugs were approved by the FDA's "process".

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/drug-...
> you’ve provided zero evidence for this. You claim that Apple have implied Facebook

There were dozens, maybe hundreds of news media stories yesterday stating that Apple was attacking Facebook, so it's not just me. Here are 2 examples:

https://gizmodo.com/tim-its-pronounced-facebook-1846152682

https://www.engadget.com/tim-cook-privacy-cpdp-2021-slams-fa...

Moreover, the original comment that I replied to said "Apple knows they're going toe-to-toe with Facebook", so I'm not even the first one in these comments to make the suggestion. Some commenters are acting like this all came from me, but it didn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958158
> In the US, this would allow us to end this thing within 90 days.

It... would not. We need half a million (edit: billion of course, oops) doses to "end this thing", and those just aren't going to be there from any combination of manufacturers. If that kind of result was really on the table, a new administration and congressional leadership would be moving mountains to get that win.

But yes: AZ should probably be approved faster than it is and I don't know what the delay is.
The arguments posited in terms of "I think it probably works THIS way ..." are arguably the best ones - they qualify someone's lack of expertise and save the reader from assigning undue confidence to claims :).

That said, Internet discussions are run on Cunningham's Law - you say what you think you know, and others will call your errors out, or challenge your assumptions. As long as people don't read any single comment as gospel, but consider the whole discussion in context of their own knowledge, applying basic critical thinking, everyone gets to train their reasoning skills and learn something. I'd expect this to be a baseline on HN.

I'm confident being the protagonist of that XKCD is a rite of passage in this industry :).
So, every broker is on margin with DDTC, they don’t have to have 100pct cash for the dollar amount of the buy orders they send to DDTC, as long as they will have the cash in 2 day.

I'm assuming you mean the DTCC? This actually isn't true now, as the DTCC have reportedly upped their margin requirements for GME orders to *100%*. That's according to the CEO of WeBull. That's why these clearing houses, and by extension brokers, cannot afford to sell GME stock to retail traders.
It's already happening. Remember what it was like 15 years ago? Technically minded people hosted message boards for small to medium sized special interest groups.

All that's changed now is we can federate between these "message boards".
It requires less land because of the heavy use of fertilizers and non-reproducing hybrid grains. It's literally and unquestionably and unsustainable process.

The CO2 emissions per person, which is a much better way to measure how much energy it takes to sustain a persons life style is unimaginably higher.
Yes, yes yes. I started Ruby because I got a job at a Rails shop. I didn't like it all that much for a while, but then I decided to write a CLI program in Ruby and break out of rails.

I quickly realized nearly everything I didn't like about "ruby" was actually rails. After a couple of years I moved on and don't do rails anymore, but I ruby is still my go to for any script that requires arrays or maps (the point where bash begins to be really painful).

Ruby is the best scripting language ever IMHO*. Ruby one-liners (inherited from Perl tradition) make it plug nicely into a bash script also.

* I haven't tried Julia yet but plan to.
EMA recommends Covid-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca for authorisation in the EU
Doesn't seem to work on Firefox mobile.
That is probably the best interview/podcast made with Avi Loeb.

Mindscape podcast (Sean Carroll) is really good.
mRNA, not n. It’s short for messenger RNA.
Fractional reserve.
The new risk that's I'm seeing exposed here is populist outrage can tank your business even if you've done nothing wrong, but operate in a space that isn't intuitive or won't allow you to act intuitively.

Finance is complicated, and often unintuitive and yes, the rules here tend to favor the large movers (at least larger than retail investors). How do you operate a business for retail investors in an environment where the rules will force you to screw over your retail customers (one could argue the "real" customers are the consumers of the retail investor's trade information but let's set that aside for a second) once in awhile?
The FDA more than justified its existence when it prevented the entry of thalidomide into the US market without more evidence of its safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
Planck's Principle: "Science advances one funeral at a time" [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
How would one fact check this?

It is true that it is not illegal to accept speaking fees.

You could write a think piece about why the practice is shady or creates bad incentives, but it's not a fact check situation like we have had so many times in the recent past.
Well it exists because of natural resources.

Quebec has in some ways paid the price for lethargy, I think due to the resulting institutional inefficiency, it's clearly poor for a more advanced province.

That said - it's hard to fathom how Ontario is that much richer without the indirect stimulus offered by large scale immigration. When newcomers arrive and eventually take out mortgages at inflated prices, we basically print money for those and flush it into the economy.

At the end of the day I'm not sure there's that much difference between Quebec and Ontario.
Rh was probably losing money on widening spreads. If a client buys and holds and volatility increases and spreads widen, when the client closes out the trade, Rh will eat the difference in the spreads. If a client opens a short position and spreads widen, RH will make a net gain when the client closes out. I think this is why they halted people from buying and probably why they closed out the trades for clients, I would guess it was during periods of lower volatility.

I don't know how legal it is for them to do that but when volatility is high like this that's when a broker like RH can really go under.
The most absurd thing was that the bank, RBOS, callee me few days after about the late fee asking me if i was having money problems... It was a bill under £2 that had just slipped my mind. If they had checked any of my other accounts they would have seen that i had about £50k with them.. . But no a £2 bill has them calling me almost sounding like they were shaming me over an inconsequential amount of money!
Because scientists don’t know exactly what the mechanism is yet. But yes, they could potentially identify the mechanism and skip the worms.

That said, Coronado Biosciences ran a pork hookworm clinical trial in the treatment of inflammatory bowel syndrome and it failed. More work needed.
> I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light

I've been on HN for six years, if you truly want to know them, you can look at any of my older posts.

Since you can "only assume", maybe seeing that you're wrong will finally get you to stop "assuming"?

& personal attacks are not tolerated here, FYI. Going to stop replying now.
> However... I've noticed a difference between HN and the likes of Facebook or Twitter. As far as I can tell, HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say. If you're civil, respectful, and on-topic you're seemingly allowed to present just about any idea.

> Meanwhile, most other social media platforms seem content to let other people be complete pricks to each other as long as they don't present any ideas which the platform have decided are wrong or "dangerous".

I don't think there's as much to this observation as it seems. Firstly, HN is a different site than Facebook, which means it has a different userbase with different moderation problems. It's not like people are civilly and respectfully planning insurrections here, and if they were, the moderation would probably shift to stopping those "wrong or 'dangerous'" things. Also, the kinds of dis- and mis-information the the major social networks are fighting hasn't gotten much of a foothold on HN, and is often moderated away when it shows up.

Secondly, to your earlier point: HN has human moderators who can (more or less) keep up. While Facebook has human moderators too, there aren't enough of them to keep up, so it relies heavily on automation and crowdsourcing. They don't have the capacity to pay attention to "how you say it," even if they wanted to.

It's sort of like day care: if you have one teacher and ten students, the teacher is doing a good job if each student gets a lot of high-quality personalized attention; if you have one teacher and fifty students, the teacher is doing a good job if she manages to just barely keep them from hurting themselves.
Intriguing, it sounds like this uses the piezoelectric effect, but could you DIY a surround sound electrostatic speaker using the same kind of form factor?
> I believe the statements were worded in such a way to try to make people believe that the short squeeze was no longer in play, but the short interest in fact never changed and maybe even went up.

I've seen this "claim" all over the internet. It's not true. The statements released by Melvin Capital were unambiguous and of course short interest on Gamestop is going to go up when it surges to such high prices.
Frankly, I wouldn't collate any of my data on this service.