skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Tell me which platform allows me to make my own decision without any restriction ...

Also, restricting trades I do not think is good for the market. Eventually all will stabilize. With less trades this is less volume in the market (overall) and I'm what would come of this.
TD Ameritrade has joined the anti-retail investor cartel
C-for-Metal: High Performance SIMD Programming on Intel GPUs
I apologize, dang. I understand how my phrasing can be taken as a generalization of everyone in HN, but that was not my intention.

I wasn't trying to say that everyone in HN was advocating for censorship (if anything, I always feel a little better when I read people defending free speech, they're what keep me coming back, at least to this type of posts); I was talking about what those in specific who speak in favor of censorship say.

I'll edit it to make it less ambiguous. Thanks.
IoTeX to introduce the first decentralized autonomous machines (DAMs)
I am sorry to hear about your losses, but that does not disprove my explanation. I also am a member of WSB and read all the top posts. I think most of them make the argument to hold the position as a short squeeze is coming, and very few of them argue the stock is truly worth a ton of money. Very few people actually believe a company that sells video games the same way Blockbuster sold movies has a lot of potential.
Really, where do you live?

Because where I live the government via corporations is scraping up "metadata" which includes people's web cams feeds, phone records, etc. AKA searching their house. And if you haven't been paying attention, as despicable as the speech is, political "speech" is being suppressed by large tech and media companies, and to a lesser extent what people actually say in public spaces, be that the library or the workplace.
What are the recommended alternatives?
how would that cause a crash? Retail (and less shady institutions) will buy more aapl when it dips and all that's happened at the end of the day is a big transfer of wealth from institutions to retail (and less shady institutions).
Assuming this is all true, it still just feels like they're picking winners, which is probably the thing that's going to matter more than anything else going forward. People can and will point to a laundry list of rules violations by institutional investors (is a 140% short of a stock completely and unambiguously within the rules?) that show the hypocrisy of the little guy getting screwed.
I'm honestly confused. I'm seeing a lot of rage in these threads. More than I'd expect. I understand not liking the hedge funds, and wanting to "stick it to the man" in some way, but it seems like more is going on here.

Nobody is buying GME long at $400. The price is crazy. GameStop's business is selling used hard copies and leaning into customer dissatisfaction.

It's a clear bubble and people are going to be hurt when it pops. There should be some consumer protections, IMHO, because a bunch of people are amping up a price for lulz and hopes of timing things right, but not everyone can win that pyramid scheme.

What am I missing that is leading to the rage I'm seeing?
I closed some of my positions in these volatile stocks at a small loss because I had no faith that the people in charge would actually let people buy and sell the stocks they wanted to. I didn't lose much, but it feels bad knowing that I only lost because people in power used their influence to protect other people in power at the expense of the average retail investor. I was perfectly willing to accept the risk of owning a small amount of volatile shares. Now, Robinhood is saying they'll open up trading to an extent. I wish wall street would play by a consistent set of rules. I'm definitely not being protected by their heavy handed interventions.
I don't think they use Apex anymore.

https://blog.robinhood.com/news/2018/10/9/introducing-cleari...
Review recency matters in both app stores, AFAIK. It'll end up back wherever it would normally be as the review bomb ages out.
Are you sure this was a margin account, not sure what info in the tweet supports that.
Right, my company plans to let us work from home a maximum of 3 days a week in the future, but they're cutting our office space by at least 30%. So we wouldn't have a designated desk anymore, just a bunch of similar desks on a first-come-first-serve basis every day.

My main issue with this is that you can't set up your desk how you like it anymore. You can't set the desk height, you get a chair that's differently broken every day, often a different sized screen, you can't ensure to seat nearby the people you need to collaborate with, you can't put up some decoration or printed cheatsheets…
Every 10 minutes. Which is actually pretty glacial feeling.
what incentive do they have to do that?
The stock went south due to their halting purchases of the stock

There’s context to this that do not make this a textbook margin call scenario
If it's true half their current user base is long on GME I can't see it not having much impact. Not that handling them today better would have saved them from all the impending fury of people losing big on the way down anyway.

Whatever they said was going to be ignored by people still furiously insisting that Melvin Capital lied about closing their position yesterday, but you'd have thought they could have got that statement out faster than the rumours too.
OPEN is a tough one because it's also a recently listed growth stock SPAC which is exactly the sort of stock this crowd would like.
> And those retail investors made a ton of money.

A few that got in early and have liquidated their position made a ton of money.

Those HODLers? They might have paper profits now, but long term not so sure.
I had two companies reach out last year before finding current role that wanted me to take three coding tests before even talking to the recruiter/gatekeeper.

Noped out of both.
Although you have to see a bit of the irony in the similarity between Trump populists getting deplatformed and Redditors getting blocked from trading.
Facebook Said to Consider Suing Apple over App Store Practices
Exactly, until people need to work together. If I like talking face to face in an office, and you prefer talking via zoom from home: either I have to yield to your preference and setup zoom, or you have to yield to mine and come to the office.

And that's where company/team policy and culture will rule. Some companies will be "remote first" and zoom will win - most of the time. Some companies will be "onsite first" and office it will be - most of the time. Both policies are completely OK when understood and agreed upon by everyone. I know that it's important for me, personally, to work in a company that will favour the office option. I also know that some other people will prefer the zoom option. The key part I believe is that company should clearly set and communicate their policies and expectations and employees should seek to work in companies that have culture matching their preferred way of working.
Adjusting to a new company takes time. Most reasonable managers understand that - I hope yours is. Just out of curiosity, what is the tech stack/language?
> Why can't you trust your dad about his stock purchases?

It's not the stock purchases in themselves. It's the degree to which certain stocks are hyped, largely by misinformation and traditional bubble mechanics, that's particularly insidious here. There's a reason why pump-and-dump schemes are traditionally regulated by securities laws.
I've been a cypher geek for ages. I've used Signal before it was popular, PGP emails even when they were no longer popular, I've been an early enthusiastic supporter of ProtonMail, I was outraged by many of the decisions taken by the US government to break the right to encryption (and, most of all, harm the security of users through backdoors), and I'm alarmed now that the EU seems willing to follow a similar path.

But I also try to walk in politicians' shoes. Security agencies have the right to monitor the traffic linked to activities that pose a threat to public security. And there's no way of saying "open a backdoor only for the bad guys".

Just like a knife can be used both to cut an avocado and murder your wife, E2E encryption can be used both to guarantee freedom of speech in authoritarian regimes or protect intellectual property and PIIs, and to guarantee an un-monitored tool for the communications of terrorist organizations.

So far the position of the tech community has largely been "our job is just to provide the tools, not to predict nor oversee the perils that they pose". And politicians are rightly frustrated with this approach. And frustration at some point inevitably turns into bad legislation, often done without consulting a tech community that has been deaf to their use-case for decades.

Is it possible to build a tool or a technology that guarantees privacy while providing tools for investigators, without opening backdoors and without compromising legitimate use cases?

I know, it's a hard question, it's not how E2E encryption was designed, but I have the impression that in all these years we haven't even tried and sit around a whiteboard to brainstorm some ideas, and we are simply shouting "but privacy...!" whenever a politician tries to boldly (and often clumsily) break the wall between them and us and implement legislation to regulate our lack of action.
> They kept it ambiguous, did they not?

"We have closed out our position in GME (GameStop)" isn't ambiguous.

> Why would they bother to make such statements early in the AM if they had actually closed out their shorts?

Most likely: Citadel required them to. The bailout was going to be announced. Citadel didn't want informed observers speculating on whether Citadel had just ponied up to an unhedged falling knife.

Otherwise, Melvin is a hedge fund. Its LPs are nervous, and assuring them the worst is over could sow doubt in would-be defectors. This could also be done by way of confidential notice, however, so on its own it isn't enough. The other factor is, perhaps, to get the people prank calling and such off their backs. That was a stated factor for Left at Citron.
You may be confusing SAC / Point72 with Citadel.
Not sure how immediately effective this is. But interest seems to prove there is a hugely underserved community of people with ADHD who could probably benefit from software tools to help deal with executive function deficits. But the best people to make the tools are those with adhd. And they tend to procrastinate making...
This could probably be at least somewhat mitigated by checking whether the surrounding words are also in all caps.
Pricing and Packaging and the developer buyer – 4 insights from SaaS IPOs
- Does this advice apply to stocks?

- Does this advice apply to foreign currencies?

- Does this advice apply to local currencies?

See the contradiction? You're always invested.
Not really commenting on the guide, but for me, clarity of thought follows writing. Not the reverse.
I am not highly knowledgeable on this, but... even if it's the same share that Anna sold to Bob short in the first place?
To clarify, your company didn't stop hiring remote, it just stopped making a cost-of-living adjustment to salary offers to remote candidates? Did management also increase salary for existing employees who lived in ow CoL areas?
Extending pattern matching is a trap in programming language design
His high school was out of the norm, but certainly not the best. At that time, a school in LA had an IBM 360 mainframe. Having an oil rig on school property sure helps.
> logical induction, a necessary component of reasoning about the world

Bah! You're only saying that because induction worked the last n times ;)
Interactive Brokers does allow naked selling of options, and also shut down trading probably for similar reasons. Robinhood could lose money in any number of ways if a stock gaps and some of it's customers go bankrupt.

If you buy or sell stocks with the intent to manipulate the price (either through a pump and dump scheme, or a short squeeze scheme) that is illegal. It doesn't matter whether the action is only buying or only selling. It is the intent.
A simple disclaimer "We're not responsible if you get wiped out!" with another popup "Are you really sure you want to proceed?" after pressing ok twice would suffice before placing a bet. Who are we fooling? This damage control operation was to benefit their friends.
Apologies about the title. It was really hard to give this a title.
These are examples of specific, ahead-of-time rules for entire types of stocks, not a sudden, reactionary move against particular names.
You might want to try out Against a Dark Background, and The Algebraist. They're part of his non-Culture novels.

Against a Dark Background is The Culture without advanced AIs or intergalactic space travel. It's essentially a heist/chase novel about a character looking for a certain weapon of mass destruction. The central metaphor of the novel is the main character's isolation, mirrored by a planetary system that is too far away from any nearby galaxies to ever develop the technology reach the stars. It's a very, very bleak novel, but it also has that energy that powers Banks' best noves.

The Algebraist is mostly just fun and lightweight. The premise is great: Humankind has been able to scatter across the galaxy thanks to a network of wormhole gates allowing instant travel, but since each wormhole gate takes a hundred years or so to be transported into a new location, this puts each location at huge risk of being isolated for a very, very long time if their gate is destroyed. Which, of course, exactly is what happens.
Someone not wanting to explain what is in 50 news articles to new commenters does not make them a conspiracy theorist, why should they do your google searches for you?
> In the article: "Individual investors are being stripped of their ability to trade on [the Robinhood app]. Meanwhile, hedge funds and institutional investors can continue to trade as normal."

w.t.f?

So like the 2009 crash, let's see how to screw again the retail investors?
Sure. I think there is a lot of incompetence at play here.
You're not missing anything, pyramid scheme at the expense of latecomers, Robinhood or otherwise.
Keep them coming.

I want other examples where it's appropriate for some brokers to restrict _buying_ but not selling, especially in the context of a short squeeze, with potential conflicts of interest.

I understand that brokers can restrict trade on risky items as yes, it impacts their risk model. I'm failing to find justification for RH and others to restrict buying but not selling of GME.

Your first link is for penny stocks, and the restrictions revolve around the usual pump-and-dump. You're allowed to go long, and can trade between days.

Your second link is for OTC, and I fail to see how this is relevant to GME. GME is traded on formal exchanges, and brokers that haven't arbitrarily restricted buying aren't having any liquidity issues.
That's the abstraction that gets presented to the end-user but it's not how it works under the hood. When trades occur money doesn't change hands immediately, settlement only occurs two days later. The clearing houses require the brokerages to post collateral to ensure that they have the money required to settle the trades. When volatility goes up the clearing houses demand more collateral to deal with the higher risk. If the brokerage doesn't want to post the collateral the clearing houses won't let them trade.
What's next? SPACs with tickers HODL and LMAO?
> I think what many don't realise is that it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive. And by that I don't mean centralized technical or organizational structure, but rather stuff like a culture of downvoting destructive, inflamatory or snarky comments, a good and mostly invisible moderation, a strong focus on certain topics etc.

I'm over it. I see many comments that politely present the opposing view get downvoted to oblivion. It isn't just the "inflamatory or snarky" comment. Dissenting opinion is censored on this platform.

I made the mistake of reacting to it the other day and was punished for commenting on moderation. Fair enough, I guess, but the reason for the comment was exasperation at the downvoting of opinion.

And it bites that downvoted comments just fade away, so later readers can no longer consider it, or respond to it. Remember that I am talking about unpopular opinion, which may sometimes be objectively wrong, but not rudely presented. It's common for such additions to the thread to be obliviated through moderation. (I know about showdead, but only learned about it recently).

That's the thing about free speech: we often don't like what other people say. The price we must pay for that freedom is to be exposed to speech we do not like. It's a cost, that we must pay because we are imperfect. We make mistakes, we think incorrectly from time to time. So I say, let it all ride. On HN at least, the culture of thoughtfulness and intellectualism serves to curb the worst rudeness, but let us be willing to expose ourselves to views that we don't agree with. Let's be prepared to have the argument, and possibly be persuaded.

So the next time someone says "You know, I think Trump was an alright president, for <reasons> .. ", curb your outrage. Let it ride, and engage with the argument.
That's not what she's claiming. She said previously that during the capitol riot, there was a moment when she thought she might be killed (don't know more than that). She blames Ted Cruz for his role in creating that situation.

The present tense here is misleading without the additional context.
Docker on Apple Mac M1
docker desktop on apple macbook pro with m1
It is debatable whether "the fundamental change that caused sapiens to dominate all other life" i.e. "our ability to abstract and conceptualize" is unique to humans.

Cat's and dogs abstract and conceptualise. So do crows and whales. But more than that, before you get too carried away with the importance of this "fundamental change", consider the possibility that the ability to "abstract and conceptualise" doesn't yield a "fundamental change" at all.

How can that be?

Consider the ends to which all this abstract thought is being applied.

Why do humans spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours buying and applying makeup to their faces?

Why do humans spend thousands of hours in the studio creating the latest dance music hits?

Why do humans buy the biggest, fastest cars?

Why do humans spend weeks comparing and assessing home insulation materials from multiple vendors?

Why do humans spend thousands of years developing steel making traditions that result in the finest weaponry?

Why do humans use google maps navigation?

Are humans, with all their advanced skills at abstraction and conceptualisation, and vocabulary and communication sophistication, doing anything that birds and bees and whales and cows aren't already doing?

All us animals are just waking up every day, checking on the kids, going to work, getting hungry, fixing lunch, getting horny, feeling frustrated, lashing out, seeking to impress, preening our feathers, and, from time to time, thanking our lucky stars.

What else can we do? Technology doesn't change that. It just gives us different ways to do the same things we and other animals have been doing since the dawn of life on earth.
Can anyone in this social movement articulate what exactly those “shenanigans” are and provide evidence that they’re occurring.

Not that there aren’t well founded criticisms of the financial industry. But as far as I see WSB appears to have zero overlap with any of them. All I see are gross inaccuracies (“short interest over 100% means they were naked short”) and zero-evidence QAnon like conspiracy theories about hedge funds colluding to shit down Robinhood.
Do you believe that GameStop buyers think that the company is as doomed as the short-sellers did? The origin for this whole thing was a DD post that argued that it was a value stock that was over-shorted. And there were institutional investors and analysts like Michael Burry who also saw this happening.
For me it is open-closed principle I am open to hearing people but I am closed to including their work into mine unless I feel like it. Notice that it is "mine" work not theirs.

Whole discussion here is about toxic behavior of people whose PR's are closed. It is not about closing yourself to contributions, idea is that everyone can still make a feature requests. One can still propose changes but there should be less pressure on integrating piece of code on maintainer, option to remove PR's on repo would do that.

I see why GH would not consider option to disable PR's because it is a killer feature of GH and it would be bad for their marketing when a lot of repositories would become 'read-only'.
It varies by state. There's a list at https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bankruptcy-exemption.... Basically you can keep stuff like the house you live in, your not-flashy car, household goods, tools of your trade, a small amount of personal property (if you own, say, a nice musical instrument or some jewelry worth $2k or whatever). As a general rule, anyone rich enough to have to sell property in a bankruptcy already has health insurance.

And please don't take any of this as a defense of the current abominable US system. I lost my dad to complications of untreated diabetes because he didn't have health insurance. What I'm saying is that people who should declare bankruptcy often don't, because they think bankruptcy will ruin their life. It won't. It protects you from predatory lenders and gives you a fresh start.
My colleague who is a pro at R gave us some internal training on using this in Python. Never going back to Matplotlib again!
Searching Active Directory with Ldapsearch
Casino is right but you can't easily get to one. They're highly regulated and not everywhere for a reason, which is they make masses poor and are generally bad for the economy. Great you get tax money but you've destroyed people's lives to do it and people are a country's most valuable asset.

Don't know what you're on about the house losing here. Brokers make a killing on any trade action. Heavy retail day trading inevitably falters and ends up creating tons of poor while money flows into the pockets of a few. See: the year 2000.
Because of net capital requirements, maybe? Or... pressure from clearing houses whose buddies are at citadel et cetera?
It's Elm, not an easy language to pickup!
I know that he was being sarcastic... hopefully that will mess up with the AI wannabes...
So why shut down the ability to buy with cash too?
Perhaps you're so naive that you think that a murderous mob successfully overthrowing an elected government is unprecedented in US history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...
> That would be securities fraud.
Are you saying that they wouldn't commit securities fraud?
No, you specifically said it's a first amendment problem and to let adults gamble. If it was a first amendment problem, gambling wouldn't be illegal in most states.