skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Complexity isn’t simply the number of lines of code. Where individual shaders are adding linear complexity subtle interactions between different parts of a simulation can easily end reaching full factorial complexity.

As such AAA games favor independent systems which add as close to linear complexity as they can achieve. 3D models are a great example where extreme detail is largely irrelevant to every other part of the game.

That said, depending on what you’re measuring AAA games end up having wildly different levels of complexity.
Because they are forced to carry collateral to make the trades happen, and need more collateral for more volatile stocks.
Whether or not it is market manipulation, who do you think the SEC could realistically go after here?
I discovered that doing the work of love makes me happy, so I began to spend my time in unselfish service, and became both happy and beautiful according to the goodness of my work.
New Massachusetts Bill Would Ban Broadband Caps During the Pandemic
Applying this logic, perhaps we can get "professional" stock ... manipulators off the TV. CNBC can go away entirely. Marketing speak would be replaced with value charts. Ban all forums that discuss specific stock values.

Then prevent people from buying stocks in groups. Mutual funds, ETFs, etc... all of these abstractions on abstractions, we can throw them away. The more abstractions we throw away, the closer we get to what all this should actually be meant to serve; people.
Legally they can. That doesn't mean they should.
My favorite line of the article:

> Every single part of his Frankenstein-esque device, which stands at about five feet in height off the ground when placed on a table, was built using materials that are less likely to cause melting or sublimation of the subject matter.

I'm seven and a half feet tall when I stand on a chair.
> Expressing "horror" every time data is mentioned in connection with health data is a very one-sided reflex.

Good call. It was a mistake for me to post such a once-sided comment.
Warren Buffett Explains Why He No Longer Shorts Stocks (2019)
I've had so many leaking alkaline batteries, particularly the Duracell brand, that I've replaced almost all my batteries with NiMH Eneloops, the LSD white ones. Even for low current applications (e.g. remote controls) where the simple calculations say that alkalines are cheaper, if I include the cost of the damaged electronics, I probably save money with the NiMHs.
so theres several different ways to buy calls and put.

Theres calls and covered calls. Some brokers will only let you sell the later due to the margin needed. With a covered call you have to own the stock and hold it in your portfolio. With a non covered call, if your option gets exercised you then buy the stock at market value and sell to the executor at the agreed upon price.

basically when people are saying they shorted over 100% of the stock they are saying that its a non covered PUT contract and there isn't enough stock to cover the volume of all the PUT options contracts.

BUT what we don't know is when this PUT options contracts expire, which could basically make all of this worth fairly worthless. If the shorts option contracts don't expire til next year then this really doesn't matter to them.

Generally the P&L dept will make them stagger the options contracts over dates spanning the next year or so though.

I would recommend reading up on call and put options for more information.
Robinhood managing its own risk, not yours.
CNBC Doxxed DeepFuckingValue
That's the thing: there is NO QUESTION as to the motives of the r/wsb traders. They are overtly conspiring to raise the price of shares in order to force specific parties to buy it. That's manipulation!
Many procedures that are common between today and circa 1960s have grown exponentially in cost. It was about this time that public insurance became a thing, and private insurance approximately the same time, in terms of actual usage. The median cost to individuals has gone up significantly since any insurance was mandated.
Strongly disagree. The laws may be unjust and immoral and civil disobedience may just be the cure. How many were arrested and imprisoned during the civil rights movement or to abolish the slavery?

Democracy is very messy and people who overly emphasize order naturally lend themselves to authoritarianism.
as someone who actually works in finance, I've just decided it's not even worth engaging with people on reddit, trying to explain that the actions of RH and other brokers is justified. There too much of this "us vs. the evil Wall Street system" going on for people to actually listen to reason.

Nobody gives a fuck about the fact that, if RH continued to sell shares and options to customers, they would be liable for billions in damages, and a whole host of related entities (clearing house, market markers they work with, etc) would be in the shit. It would effectively "break the system". Of course, that's what some people want. However, don't blame them for not wanting to sell customers illegal services, just because the customers feel entitled to it.

Also, there's this huge misconception that the markets are "free", and that means anyone can participate. Soooo not true. First of all, you don't get to rock up to any market and just ask to buy or sell stuff; only trusted members of that exchange actually have the right to do that. Even hedge funds with direct market access are usually sponsored by a broker, so while they get to submit their own orders, the broker oversees the flow and can pull the plug, because the fund is trading on their good word. Some funds (like one I used to work for) go as far as actually buying a seat on the board of major exchanges, like the CME, and that seat itself is worth millions or tens of millions of dollars. that's the premium you pay for market access.

Maybe now people understand why RH would rather play it safe and anger their customers rather than piss off literally the entire market and get kicked out, along with the clearing house and market makers going bust in the process. It's bad for everybody - even the retail traders, because their assets become worthless when there's nobody left to fulfill the trade.
Which is one take, certainly. But the problem is once you say that this is a market manipulation event you run into other issues.

Is going on CNBC and talking about the strength of a company that you invested in market manipulation? Before this blew up you certainly had more reach.

Is posting "research" or holding a conference call and telling people a company is garbage while you have the company shorted market manipulation? What about when you short a company and sell a ton of shares to induce panic? What about algorithms that are created to trade shares to reach a certain profitable price based on internal holdings/analysis?

Here's another thing - if WallStreetBets was incorporated into a hedge fund and took a huge long position is that market manipulation? It seems to me the main difference is that they aren't behind closed doors talking privately in a legal fiction called a company that is really the problem here...

You have to define what you mean by manipulating the market and apply that equally under the eyes of the law. The fact that this was done publicly makes it all the more interesting. Had it been done behind closed doors (like so many things are on Wall Street) it would have been an open and shut case, but it wasn't.

So sure, let's say it's a market manipulation event. Ok. Can you tell me what isn't a market manipulation event?
WallStreetBets craze pushes dogecoin up 5x in 24 hours
Quoting TFA:

> In August 2020, Facebook expanded its “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy”, aimed at removing the presence of far-right extremists from its website.

He doesn’t seem to have a problem with that, but now he thinks it’s wrong that it’s his views that are censored.
Why did you spell it out “dot com”?
Cesare Emiliani and Kurzegesagt make the case that we think of world civilization as much newer than it is, because our year count is now only to 2021. They argue for instead bumping our year by 10,000 to more truly reflect the age of our civilization, to 12,021, and (arbitrarily) commemorating Göbleki Tepe as its foundation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/94EO...

https://youtu.be/czgOWmtGVGs (2016 or 12016)
I was there too

Victoria Nuland giving out sandwiches (literally) in Kyiv is not the same as unmarked Russian special forces opening police arsenals and giving out weapons to criminals in Slovyansk.
I think he was being ironic.
>"When Google started deliberately making Maps harder"

I do not use Google Maps on my phone so I would not know but on my PC they seem to show street names just fine.
> This is part of a long history of Facebook treating leftwing activists as if they were far-right extremists

When they are on the left, they are 'activists.' When they are on the right, they are 'extremists.'

> An organization which finds it so difficult to distinguish fascists from Black leftwing activists should not be trusted to make such decisions.

While I disagree with Facebook banning people for their political ideology, as long as you agree with Facebook banning people for their political ideology, I will not shed a tear when Facebook bans you for your political ideology.
Because of the volatility of the stock, I believe. 100->300->200->300 in the space of no time at all. You could've watched the stock just jump all over the place in real-time, pretty much.
GME has the market cap of a S&P300 sized company right now.
Because there are many, many more of us than there were 1000 years ago. Per capita, sustaining the lifestyle of a 21st century Westerner requires less land than that of an 11th century peasant.
It depends on what your definition of is is, or something like that.
Excellent write up.

I used to work for a VFX company in 2008. At that point we used lustre to get high throughput file storage.

From memory we had something like 20 racks of server/disks to get a 3-6 gigabyte/s (sustained) throughput on a 300tb filesystem.

It is hilarious to think that a 2u box can now theoretically saturate 2x100gig nics.
Die Shots of the Raspberry Pi RP2040
People are far too quick to look at things through a lens of left/right at times when they really should be looking at them through a lens of institutional/outsider. Of course a successful institution of the status quo is going to take steps to preserve the status quo regardless of whether the outsider tends left, right or batshit insane.
It's manipulation, but is it illegal manipulation?

Remember, it's perfectly legal for a hedge fund to open a short position, and then release a big expose of the company that tanks its stock price.

For a prominent recent example: https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/
I'm tired of this BS argument.

When you reach full monopoly on a market you have to be regulated.

FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. This is the role of governments.
To further your point, things like these trigger a domino effect that ultimately hurt ones at the bottom.
I have worked for 5 companies in my 15 years career. One of that company was ecommerce consulting firm which dealt with a lot of mom-n-pop ecommerce stores. Let me tell you not a single one of them was willing to give up any dark patterns if that meant losing revenues. Unless you are working on non-revenue generating product like internal dashboard, it is all about get sales anyway possible.

I am sure there are ethical companies, I see many of them mentioned here, started by readers of this forum, but what percentage are those. Imo, they are less than 1%.
Qualtrics' IPO Gave Bill McDermott, SAP's Former CEO, a Win
Alternative Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/johndmcmaster/status/1355092011829719046
Thank you and yes! Medical education is mostly diagnostics and pharmacy education is mostly therapeutics. The most forward thinking health systems are relying on pharmacists to guide treatment decisions. And I’m sure you see this with specialty meds in particular.

And WOW re: $300k per year. I’m certain we could do this for a fraction of that cost.
Ashish at InpharmD dot com :-)
You’re projecting. The comment didn’t say that. The intent of the commenter is being assumed, whether rightly or wrongly.
It feels like slow movement of money in our financial system causes a lot of these problems. Customer deposits take several days to settle (during which time Robinhood has to front the funds). Settlement of the stock trades / transfer of collateral to the DCC likely takes several days, etc.
"Our department is suffering. Badly. So are others. Complaints to upper management appear to go on deaf ears, or with ridiculous responses (like: well we saw one of you on your cellphone so you're not really busy)."

"And when we've asked for direct support for retaining customers (using their sales language), our team was told "just make less mistakes"."

Wow, that's literally Dilbert-level of bad management. My condolences. Where I work (a large international corp.), the two or three levels of management above me are fairly reasonable and in touch with everyday reality. I guess I'm lucky.
Doesn't "retail investors" refer to any individual, non-professional, investor? Sounds like to me the SEC is warning any party involved in this, RH and WSB included.
Until Google does something else I'd give them a pass. Steam, for example, will give you more information about the reviews to avoid brigading.

I'm more inclined to believe Google is trying to head brigading off. When they start being more active however ... then we can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt.

But I'm 100% with you wrt Discord/FB.
It's not really that the government can't go after WSB. Sure they're not going to prosecute 2 million degenerates, but it's not like they can't round up 50 of the big names to make a statement.

It's that there's really no appetite in the federal government for going after retail traders. Retail trading as an industry took a very long time to build and ham-fisted enforcement could tank it harder than a few lawsuits ever could.

Make no mistake, this was going to happen eventually. There's infinite ability to gather information, infinite ability to share it. Retail collusion was inevitable. The people who built the industry knew it was going to happen. They prepared for it. Everyone, including the SEC, knew it was only a matter of time before something like this happens.

Denmark did that because there's much greater financial regulatory capture than there is here.
> white men murdering random Black men.

Funny how only certain colors are capitalized.
Galileo has a 'gaping hole' in its strategy. Can PayPal’s Archie Puri fill it?
> Nevertheless, extreme stock price volatility has the potential to expose investors to rapid and severe losses and undermine market confidence.

Well, it has also the potential to expose investors to rapid gains. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This. Man walks into a hardware store and buys a Milwaukee drill. Bam, supply reduced, market manipulated.
But as everyone knows: the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/09/remain-solvent/)
Apple knows they're going toe-to-toe with Facebook, and they don't seem to plan to lose.
Maybe one or two specific individuals, but you're right in general. That's the part that frightens me the most here. The tactics that are being used are equivalent to the ones used by sideshow street racers and political riots: if we get thousands of individuals to break the law at the same time and place then law enforcement will be ineffective.
The issue isn't GME market cap vs the S&P 500. It's that the clearing houses, exchanges and other intermediaries that guarantee every trade may go bankrupt due to the $15+ billion loss on options that they may have to cover.
You were probably "inciting violence" or engaging in "adult sexual exploitation". /s

I don't think the answer is to legally regulate free speech on social media platforms. I want online platforms to have the power to moderate. However, Facebook in particular has an awful moderation process. Their knee-jerk reactions are a consequence of a platform with a ton of power and no incentive to wield it responsibly.

The rest of this is copy-paste from a previous post I made, explaining why I don't want full freedom of speech on social media:

Take a look at HN. HN mods do a brilliant job of moderating. We don't have 100% free speech here and the platform is better for it. The discussions here tend to be much higher quality than on similar platforms like Reddit. That's probably a big reason why you're here reading this comment thread.

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 think the HN moderation strategy makes for a much better platform. I'd rather talk with a respectful person who I disagree with than a jerk with whom I agree.
I think the inadequate data is the key point, especially as we've only seen two of these types of things so far - the best we can probably hope for now is to go "This object seemed odd in several ways - let's increase our observations for these kinds of objects and see what the majority turn out to be and importantly if we encounter anything which is odd in similar ways which we can identify".

So when the question is posed "What is a responsible scientist to do in this situation?" I think the answer is clearly, accept it as an "out-there" but currently not disprovable hypothesis, and if you feel strongly that it's incorrect, dedicate effort and time to showing with evidence (at least quantifiable empirical evidence) that this is the case, ideally in a published and peer-reviewed paper.
I'm no expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

There are two ways economies can grow:

* More customers.

* More value.

The first is obvious, just grow the population (and it's one reason a shrinking population is bad), but the second is more subtle.

When someone invents a new product, say when the vacuum cleaner was invented, whether or not it adds value is determined by how much the product helps its user either:

1) Save time (so that more time can be spent creating something else of value).

2) Make something else of value possible.

3) Increase the quality of life.

In the case of the vacuum, it does at least 2 and 3 (less dust is definitely better quality of life).

But when it comes to growing economies, things that do number 1 and number 2 are huge. That was why the Industrial Revolution and Computer Revolution were so huge; both produced things that did 1 and 2. And because time was saved and not things became possible, those things started to get done, growing the economy.

And all of that included companies growing big, but in the presence of 1 and 2, the growth of companies isn't necessary to grow the economy.
I’m sorry to say but if the left is upset about Facebook censoring them, well, you kind of asked for it. I hate censorship and I don’t want them to censor anyone, but once you cheer the censoring of others you should be prepared to be censored yourself.
It kinda feels like that to me. The nostalgia value of owning 1 share of GameStop is pretty important considering the joy that going to that store brought to me as a child. I can totally understand if 20 million people also want in, especially given the idea that we're fighting against a short position to cause a squeeze. It's like a dumb feel-good movie where we had a bake-sale and everyone buys a cookie for an unreasonable price to help our favorite local grocery store avoid bankruptcy by the evil liquidators who want to turn it into a Walmart.
Keep your URLs healthy using GitHub Actions and Go
Absolutely. I mean, what's different now in comparison to Ackman shorting hotels then going on CNBC and saying hotels are going to burn financially? Except for the fact it's one rich guy compared to thousands (maybe millions?) of not so rich folks.
I definitely agree that nothing has such a simple answer, but isn't it a little dishonest to ignore the fact that the US was built on the back of slave labor?
And unsprung weight is a much bigger deal when your vehicle actually has to use its suspension, weighs practically nothing, has 2" of sidewall, no contact patch to speak of, rims made out of toothpick, etc, etc. Hub motors just suck for bikes and motorcycles. You can kind of get away with them for driving on really nice surfaces but that all goes out the window for anything even mildly off road.
There’s a long history of similar occurrences that follow along a common line: whatever appears to support individual investors will be the path taken by politicians and regulatory bodies.

Right now it appears that the public wants to be able to trade on their terms because there is this narrative that the little guy is finally sticking it to the big bad hedge funds. In reality there is probably very little truth to this. However, support for the individual investor plays extremely well which is why you see politicians from both sides joining forces on this issue. A rumor makes it halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its pants on. Nobody is interested in the subtleties around these issues where there almost certainly should be regulations in place or at least warnings from those who do actually know better. But late in bull markets when speculation is running wild those who try to be the voice of reason are run over by the masses until they shut up and go away.

Galbraith wrote about this in the 1950’s and if you read his account of the 1929 crash the parallels are eerily similar. Nobody wants to be told they aren’t making money due to skill but because they’re caught up in a dangerous bubble. In the aftermath of a crash when tremendous sums are lost, nobody blames the speculators, they always find another scapegoat- the regulators, the brokerages, the hedge funds- whomever. It doesn’t matter so long as the speculator is held up as a victim. I expect this to end no differently.
As said in another comment, these thing can easily slowball due to leveraged positions.
> Hell, in my main project I've been unable to use any version of gdb & lldb for something like two months as both segfault a couple seconds after reaching a breakpoint for some reason. It's a shitshow.

I'm really surprised. In my experience it's really rare for either of those debuggers to crash, let alone for both to crash on the same target.

A bit of a tangent, but would you mind sharing some details about your compiler / OS / debugger / target-hardware versions?
>force specific parties to buy it

I think they forced themselves to buy it by taking the short position they did.
You've got one case, from three years ago, that was successfully prosecuted. So you're saying i'm right?
People are free to purchase stock how they want to. If those people collect together and discuss potentially profitable strategies for trading who is to stop them? Do you think its possible youve fallen ill to the rhetoric that this is bad purely because the rich people didn't get their way?
Ignoring the green part you could probably send them 15-30 gas motorbikes for that.
Sure it is, and most of us have enough capacity for shame that it works on us. Do you think Bernie Madoff feels ashamed about the money he lost? People who have no shame are very powerful, which is exactly why we need actual, meaningful punishment for people like this.
The SEC has some case studies on this that are really itneresting...

https://www.sec.gov/files/Market%20Manipulations%20and%20Cas...

The idea that there has to be behind the scenes coordination (i.e., non-publically available communication/information) runs pretty clearly through all of them, but IANASEC