skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Largely correct. The only thing I would add is that I wouldn't be surprised at all if it landed a fair bit above where it started, because there being short interest 140% of the float has a pretty chilling effect on people looking at investing. You would see that and either think the shorters are morons in an insanely risky position, or they know something you don't and are _absolutely certain_ that the company is going to implode. This time the former is true, the vast majority of the time, the latter is.

Fog of War is the important bit here. The big difference between this and a pump and dump is that the FOW here is retail investors not having great SI data. In theory, a retail investor could still make this work in a "safe" way (safe used very liberally); it would be a hell of a maneuver for everyone with a short position to somehow close their position in a single day before Joe Retailer is able to get any word on what the outstanding SI is. In a pump and dump, your FOW/missing information is when the party working to pump the price decides the gig is up, which is effectively impossible to know unless you are that party.

A lot of retail investors with four days of experience under their belt are going to lose their ass by trying to suss out their exit intuitively, but for those that did their homework, this could work. For many, it already has. The argument that this needs to stop because uneducated retail investors can get burned can be reduced to absurdity -- "retail traders can vaporize their life savings by going long on a company facing imminent bankruptcy, so they shouldn't be allowed to trade with even the most rudimentary of instruments."

Price being in freefall doesn't affect the huge number of people that were in well under that, the way this strategy is working, or that people somehow still think that going short on this is anything other than a lottery ticket play because of "muh fundamentals."
I don't think Vanguard will, since they have a limit on orders per day precisely to stop people from, well, day-trading.
Here you can read the source code of first edition unix:

https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V1

Where can we learn the PDP assembly to be able to understand these historical source code?
I used to much thicker ones - is that what you have in mind?
Market manipulation is a crime. Stopping purchases so short sellers don't lose all their money is pretty obvious manipulation.
I do (parts of) this with Huginn.
It's kind of all over the news and getting a lot of attention. Couldn't that easily explain the attention Facebook now gives?
Old scarecrow, with no foundation. Read some more.
This is similar to thanking Google for bringing the cost of email down to $0. There sure is a lot of upside to the average user, but a lot of the costs are just shifted behind the scenes (data collection, privacy).

I'm not saying it has no place in the market, but a more informed user might calculate the risk and decide to use a fee-based brokerage instead (like ProtonMail vs Gmail).
Or, like, don't build on AWS. Last I heard Gab is still up because they run their own servers
You can find the answer here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...

This is the first thing that came to my mind as well...the current data on falling rentier rates, crises of political economy etc. makes sense in light of that old model.
I don't know much about all this gambling stuff and to be honest I don't care. But what happened and what is happening is, in my opinion, more important than this affair.

It shows where power is, in case we didn't notice yet.
And it shows that we should collectively act to regain some of this power, we gave them for free...
Yeah the IBKR chairman didn't even try to obfuscate their reason for preventing the buys.
He's the guy I compared myself to, at the time.
>After-hours is a bad indicator.

I'd be happy to bet you that it's a better indicator of actual price than the close.

$100 to a charity of the loser's choice that GME will open closer to $314 than $194?
Make no mistake, Reddit is absolutely loving this. WSB has 3 million new subscribers in the past 2 weeks. The only thing the executives at reddit care about is revenue and hence impressions, which is exactly what they're getting.
If the early bears have already exited I would have expected the price to jump higher though.

Also, from what people are saying on WSB, there's no liquidity left in the market which is why some platforms halted trading for $GME.

If the early shorts were all out I wouldn't expect a lack of liquidity, since more recent short positions wouldn't be under as much pressure.

I'm a complete noob, but it seems like literally no one can agree on what's happening and why even though there seem to be valid arguments on all sides.
I read this today about the Piggly Wiggly story was fascinating!

https://twitter.com/dollarsanddata/status/135456144478064640...
Another article, by the same person this story is about, excerpted from his published book:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25909261
Most jokes are half-true here, sadly.
Matt Levine has explained that even before the fees going to zero, the fees represented a small percentage of brokerage revenues. Elimination of the fees had an almost negligible effect on brokerage bottom lines—certainly not enough to change their entire behaviour.

> Commissions are way down there; in 2018, they represented a bit less than 7% of Schwab’s net revenue.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-02/the-tr...
> The "real question," imo is not about how FB, discord or reddit handle WSB's culture. It's why have they all decided to act right now, just as this gamestop maneuver is happening?

Because when you're short a few billion on a position, and your counterparty is a toxic stream of garbage, its a profitable strategy to paying someone to report all the toxic b.s. and disrupt their organization. In 2021, we figured out how to get hedge funds to pay content moderator salaries!
Well, it’s safe in that it’s correct. You could remove it without warning, and the program would behave the same.

That does not preclude notifying the user, or getting confirmation
The single-button approach is valid, IMO - for the right audience. I hated it myself... and then I had to help my parents and grandparents learn the ropes with mobile devices. Turned out that iOS made them more comfortable for one simple reason: no matter where they ended up, if they felt like they were lost or overwhelmed, there was always that physical button, looking the same, and in the same exact place, that they knew would backtrack them back to "the beginning" - i.e. to a known state from which they could try again to do whatever they wanted.

So, in some ways, it is genius, and I really hated it when Apple killed it off. The problem wasn't the concept itself - it was trying to sell it as UX for everyone. I think that's one of the big problems with UX today - the things that are done under the guise of "simplification" aren't actually simple.
I understand your point here, but I think we're a couple of innovations away from dramatically reducing the cost of UI development.

The state of the art for web and mobile app development is a delicate stack of tools that require a lot of expertise to wield. However, if you pay attention, most the complexity of modern UI development is accidental, not fundamental.

Figma already has "auto-layout", which is essentially flexbox. Imagine a world where your designer just builds your whole app with in Figma with flexbox-like constraints, then they hand off to your developer who just writes a couple of snippets code to wire it up to a database and makes sure the elements are configured to be SEO friendly.

IMO developers dramatically underestimate the power of GUI tools to usurp their role because we think in terms of such low level tools.
Note DEGIRO is a Dutch broker that requires strict residency requirements. They are covered by a regulatory regime that outlaws payment for order flow.

You’ll pay a fee for trading through them even if you are engaging in activity that would get you a rebate on the exchange so they are taking their cut in other ways.
The Merry Adventures of Robinhood
Yep. It's a standing wave pretty close from the bank right behind H67. People surf there pretty much all year round, summer[1] or winter[2], it's pretty mental seeing them come out of the river with ice picks dangling from their beards.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVpLIN7Oxs

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36bq5W7tbxE (WARNING - obnoxious music, turn down the volume)
To all the progressives who were in favor of the BigTech censorship as long as it was aimed at conservatives, I have a question:

"Do you finally get it now?"
>I wonder which one RH cares more about...- their legal fiduciary duty - or shareholder value

Given that Enron ended up losing their shareholders 70 billion caring about the latter without the former isn't really possible. Financial authorities are the ones in the US you don't really want to mess with in particular.
Have you considered making the website actually show the comments instead of pinning yourself on every large post?
No, it's not.

For instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pool
It’s not fishy at all. everything that’s happened has caused these communities to grow exponentially to unprecedented levels. tripling or quadrupling in size. It’s like asking why a house party of a dozen people doesn’t get raided by the cops and a party of hundreds does.
Harvard attracts a different kind of student. I know in my technical field I have been far more impressed by graduates of Caltech than Harvard or others in the Ivy League.
That would be "on a spectrum," not "on the spectrum."

Wavelengths are all on a spectrum. Any particular wavelength may or may not be on the visible light spectrum, for example.

"The autism spectrum" does not and has never meant a whole spectrum of all people, some of whom are just "autistic enough" to be considered "on the spectrum."

The vast majority of people simply aren't on the autism spectrum at all.
I don't agree at all. I want to be able to rate an app that made it impossible to sign up with 1 star. Or that required access to my camera even though the app has nothing to do with taking photos or images. So, no time in but the app deserves IMO 1 star and potential customers should be notified to stay far away from the app

As for breaking apart reviews into categories that also has its problem. Zagat used to rate restaurants in 5 categories and it ended up requiring people to lie if they wanted to convey the message "do not go here".
Characterizing this as a "rich folk" vs "common folk" issue is hilarious. Aside from the early "common folks" that cashed out, there's also plenty of "rich folks" that cashed out as well[1]. As for the losers, well the hedge funds who were shorted initially definitely lost money, although it remains to be seen whether the "rich folk" hedge funds who shorted this week lost money. It also remains to be seen whether the "common folks" that piled on this week are going make a profit or are just going to be bagholders.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/large-gamestop-shareholder...
You argue that an inconsistency in armament would be more consistent with equal armament. I do not see the logic.
"Shut it down."
So sounds like..an average multi-billion dollar silicon valley startup.
I find it striking that a solution proposed at times like this is to depend on infrastructure in a foreign land, specifically Russia.

This is not a dig at you at all - in fact you're probably right, but it is certainly striking that after all these years, people are seriously suggesting Russia as a "freer" alternative to American/Anglo systems.
People said the same thing about MySpace.

Facebook is trivial to leave (I haven’t been on it in years now). It was not trivial to change to a different railroad, plumbing provider, etc.
At least when I was teaching intro HCI courses at Carnegie Mellon we did have lectures and discussions on dark patterns and the ethics of UX. Taking advantage of human psychology to manipulate people has been a problem in the field for a long time (e.g. gambling machines, advertising, dark patterns, screen addiction) so IMO it's a bit irresponsible not to at least warn students that they're likely going to be asked to do some morally questionable things.
How is that connected to issue at hand?
And should fee free trading be outlawed?
yawn. they still banned someone they didn't legally have to.
BigTech has been treating conservatives like this for a few years now. Welcome to the club, democrats. Glad you can finally see clearly now.
Another scarecrow. You are not 'paying someone' at all. It's not your money. The basic income is paid to all, similar to roads and police and fire.

The additional goods and services it buys, come from advances in automation, which are consuming jobs at a geometric rate. Nobody is enslaved to make these things for us (already true for most things).

This attitude is simply the old Protestant Work Ethic writ large - folks that cannot stand to think anybody might not have to slave away at a job.

To draw it clear: is it actually necessary to have an underpaid below-poverty class of workers to make our society function? It cannot exist without them? Was Marx right all along? Is that what is being argued?
> used to
> However Facebook is answerable to two distinct groups: The people who use the service, and the stock market.

Three, if you include regulators.
Depends who you ask:

It doesn't:

* https://phys.org/news/2011-09-child-doesnt-village.html

It does:

* https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol34/34/34-34....
* https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137386724_5
* https://theconversation.com/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-ch...

I think, if you go into genetics, you would be looking to the altruistic benefits to the gene pool of non-gene transfer roles in the community and effect on the gene overall. Lots of organisms show collective child rearing, for defense against predators, for food management, to ensure 'sneaky fucker' offspring get raised (that whole top-dog king-lion thing is a bit of a myth: everybody gets some, if they can..)
"But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will.

There is nothing about your personal beliefs and morality which obviously places them above that of anyone else in any absolute sense. They're just your beliefs.

We do not have the option of 'ban views that are actually bad'. We only have the option of banning views that lack power, or banning nobody.

Fun questions:

Many, many people think your views should be banned. What gives you the right to silence them while don't have the right to silence you?

Would you equally ban far-left, neo-Stalinist, black supremacist, misandrist, or Holodomor denial message board website that promotes the genocides of whites? Why or why not?
Not for the lack of trying though. It is because they suck at making hardware.
Social networks were forced to moderate with the capitol riots. Now they have to moderate left wing mob organization on their platforms to avoid the perception they will only censor the right wing.
Why are your options limited? I’ve got more options than ever. They’re all lousy, same as ever. The housing bubble was the same nutty crap excited bankers do every time they get de-regulated. The liquidity is a palatable way to surrender reserve currency status.
It all depends on what the tech company putting out the service is trying to achieve. While there may have been an era of increased hype in 'good UX' prior to 2008, UX as user exploitation has always been around. Both serve distinct roles for the tech company in pursuit of the ultimate goal: making money. One attracts users away from the competition, the other prevents them from leaving. The users themselves are secondary in this equation, because cash and profit come first to ensure the business survives and expands.

I looked at the some of the author's services like Good Todo and the law I have described above also applies to them. They are merely coming at it from a different angle, emphasizing user privacy and convenience as a competitive edge to get users to stay.
Depends on who you golf with(and don't), if we're being candid.
I understand but given the OPs comment, I would think it's always the case. Given the choice between a dollar today and a dollar tomorrow, you should always choose a dollar today since you can choose not to spend it. So it's strictly better than a dollar tomorrow.

The only time I see that it wouldn't be true is if there was risk in carrying it - taxes, negative interest rates, or theft. I could see for example a tonne of gold tomorrow being more valuable than a tonne of gold today since you'd have to deal with storage and security and such.
tealronaldcrumpet or something like that
Recently renovated, too.
Market makers were paying for order flow when I had to pay a $20 commission to sell my equity based compensation, and they still paid for order flow when I had to pay a $0 commission.

I'm much happier paying $0 than $20 for the privilege of turning my compensation into cash. The spreads decreased a bit over that time too, which is also nice.
Honestly with free stock trading retail is getting a pretty good deal. People can complain all day but it isn't a profitable business any more.
By "generally speaking" I meant in like 99% of regular every-day cases. Heck, I even gave some counter-examples. It just seems you're being uncharitable because the spirit of what I was trying to say I feel was pretty straightforward.
Except it's nothing like that because it directly caused their users to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars of unrealized gains.
Making the rich, richer and the poor just stay where they are.
> WSB removes posts and comments that don't toe the line that everyone needs to buy and hold GME

WSB allows both sides of the conversation, but because users have become especially dogmatic recently, any opinion that runs counter to the narrative gets downvoted.
I’m sure it’s as free as a bird until you begin to criticize Putin ...
What’s the real reason? That a horde of clueless children totally ignorant about the stock market blissfully traded highly volatile stocks on a highly leveraged platform without ever considering what was likely to happen?
https://youtu.be/eiyfwZVAzGw
Presumably puts some burden on them? Like they have to maintain your credit card, review it once in a while, etc?
He is the one that posted the initial GME due diligence (DD) last year. Started with 50k in stocks and options, was valued at 48 million yesterday and 33 today and been posting updates basically everyday recently [0]. He did cash out 13 million yesterday.

[0]: https://old.reddit.com/user/DeepFuckingValue
Fair enough, but since about the 90's I don't recall much in the news about "out of control black kids terrorizing whites".

COPS isn't even on the air any more, you know.

These days it's pretty much wall-to-wall "out of control white cops terrorizing black kids". There was a big thing about it last year, as you recall.

Before that there was a thing about "out of control white kids terrorizing a native elder" which turned out to be a total lie as well.

Trying to think of any major news story about "out of control black kids terrorizing whites" in any recent decade. Last I know is the Central Park jogger case from the 1980's.
Interesting! I had a similar idea but as a library to drop into existing sites, perhaps even be a browser extension. Vimium does a great job of enabling keyboard control over a website but I think a generic web CLI could take the experience even further.
Paid brokerages charge you money AND still sell your order flow.
There is no actual proof that Melvin got out. No.
> supposed Robinhood engineer who overheard a call between their CEO and the White House instructing them to stop trading $GME

Isn't everybody working from home? How do you overhear things?
When a private platform has a monopoly, censorship sucks. It's time to break these companies up
I regret every one of my degrees. The “big lie” isn’t the regular round of election skulduggery, it’s convincing millions of young people to waste their time and treasure on useless degrees.
I’m far more concerned with deleting an entire group than a single account.
>It's why have they all decided to act right now

I suspect a large part of it would be to protect themselves in case the recent publicity brings forth some undesired attention from regulator with regards to market manipulation.
Short squeezes and similar battles happen all the time. Normally it is one Wall Street behemoth vs another, and the winner gets lauded as being a genius. The Herbalife saga is a good recent example. The only difference this time around is that there is a completely new and unknown outside entity involved. The average retail investors and consumers, social media, mainstream news etc. have all just never been this deeply involved.
"Let's protest because we can't sink our money into GameStop stock after seeing a stock promoter online hype up the stock!"

Do we forget that GameStop is a mall retailer that sells physical copies of video games? This is not the next Amazon or Saudi Aramco. Anyone who is convinced to put their money in GameStop was likely tricked by someone with a financial interest (and that was probably a rich person). This entire narrative about retail investors taking billions from evil hedge funds is just that, a narrative. It's not even true; Melvin got rid of their short position.
No, but it may be manipulative to encourage people to buy a stock. There are classic schemes, usually referred to as a pump and dump where a person encourages people to invest in a worthless stock then dump their own holdings near the stock's peak. Algorithmically encouraging a pump and dump scheme is a bit iffy.
But what if you had an artificial cessation of economic activity which then suddenly resumed in the midst of a massive fiscal stimulus, unprecedented supply chain disruption and geopolitical manipulation of free trade?
You're asking me to take a position on your completely hypothetical and theoretical social network. This is no more useful than asking me whether I'm in favour of the universe being a simulation.

I'm in favour of you building it. Then let's see what happens. Does that answer your question?

> I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.

What of it? I've already said Facebook has too much influence. You can be against having a king, and in favour of the king doing something about, idk, taxes.

> Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't?

This is such a weird question. Are you asking if I'm in favour of Facebook existing? I already said I'm not. Or is your question "if you were King of the World & Master of the Universe, would you make Facebook disappear?", which, again, this isn't the Matrix.

These aren't useful questions, you're just trying to figure out what my stances are. My positions don't matter. I'm just trying to try to help you understand a concept which is incredibly easy to grok to a lot of people.
Rising tax burden and fiscal mismanagement. Check out property taxes and the debt Chicago, Cook County, and the state carry.

Your dollars go further in Tennessee, Florida, or Texas (all of which have no state income tax).
The reason is if they can make more money by lying. If still make a net profit even after any penalties for lying, then why wouldn't they lie? It's not like wall street has shown itself to be upstanding actors.
Except it's not because the restaurant doesn't have to abide by federal trading law and SEC regulations?
The name rhymed with Pump and Dump?