skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
'Reloaded' isn't a term I understand yet amidst the WSB stuff going on. Do you have a brief refresher on what it's slang for?
I mostly use a bluetooth mouse. I don't think I'm bothered by the pause when it wakes up from sleeping, and other than that it works great, no dropouts or whatever.

If I'm not using the mouse I double tap for click+hold.
Bridenstine joins private equity firm
You neglected to mention the third of the two hard problems: "off-by-one errors" :D
Do you have a source for why that is illegal?
> For all we know there is still lots of time for new investors to get in, make money, and then get out before the price crashes.

Yes, that means an equivalent amount of people will be holding the huge loss, because they bought in when the previous person got out...
You don't do anything to dissaude me by providing no information to actually dissuade me, but just emotionally reacting. This is the exact sort of hysterical emotoinal reaction to events that shows how dangerous a situation we're in.
No this actually happens and it's not the first time (see retail investors vs dot com bubble for more). RH likely has lawyers that referenced past instances of SEC action and decided to take the path of least resistance.
As a brokerage or an exchange, you are required to guarantee best execution and fairness among your customers.

It's true that it could legitimately be considered an exceptional situation requiring exceptional mesure.

But in that case the only way to do that while simultaneously respecting your obligations would have been a complete halt on that instrument.

So the market manipulation accusations seem legitimate.
Yeah I make exceptions too when the PR is something I personally care about. (Or I sometimes help out writing tests when someone finds a high priority bug they struggle to reproduce). But I think its a good baseline expectation. Keeping code bug-free is difficult work.
Yes, even if it's the same share that Anna sold to Bob short in the first place. That's how you get short interest > 100%. The market doesn't care, it only cares that a share was sold from Anna to Bob and then from Bob to Anna. The individual shares are completely fungible. (They don't actually exist, they're just numbers in a contract.)
This sounds nice but is simply not true.
"... the resulting SEC fines from this illegal manipulation ..."

Plus time in prison.
Market makers used to be actual people, nowadays they are in fact computers. The business role is similar though.

For all the things that are "guy" above, computers are heavily involved.
> Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week.

You're missing a party in that analysis. For this party, maybe it was a stupid idea for them to try and short sell in a market where the fed had pumped trillions into the economy and market activity, retail and otherwise, is at an unprecedented level of froth. But with that said, they are supposed to be professionals. It seems to be within reason to expect them to be able to hedge against the risk of a bunch of amateurs deciding to protest buy a piece of their childhood against being raided by Wall Street, no?

After all, "irrationally" holding assets that have sentimental value and allocating a large portion of whatever surplus earnings you have to it is a well known American tradition. Whatever the socioeconomic bracket, people have traditionally found ways to support causes and brands that they hold dear. Shouldn't large institutional clients be asking these fund managers why they're poking a beehive right now, and whether it might just be a little unnecessarily risky?
If you got a bunch of spare money and spare time, enjoy the casino.

If you got a bunch of spare money, enjoy the stock market.
https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1611872244745.jpg
Rocky Linux gets a parent company, with $4m Series A funding
I expect a larger cost from violating the trust of their customers. They'll lose many and if they do grow, grow more slowly. It's an advantage to their competitors.
In response to this accusation [0], this user has linked a document [1] which shows the exact opposite of his claims [2].

Please do not downvote me for calling out strange activity by an account which is also spreading misinformation.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947119

[1]: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ptetlock/papers/Kelley...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950657
there is no science, this isn't even how adhd really works
Okay, sure, so then block the entire stock for a while. What they did was block one side. They blocked people from buying but only allowed selling. Imagine all the market sells after that tanking the price.
> If you come to me asking to work together and I tell you no because I don't work with people that are trying to get me killed, it's pretty obvious what I mean.

But that's not what she said, even as a summary.

She said (summarized at the same level):

1. You tried to get me killed recently.

2. So, you need to quit.

3. Still, I am willing to work with almost anyone else in your party who isn't trying to get me killed.

Her unwillingness to work with Cruz was expressly predicated on his perceived recent past, not present, efforts to have her killed.
> A lot of us don't want to run a USENET node or manage our own git server to share code.

Yeah. See how well it goes when everyone takes the comfortable approach?
Robinhood is said to draw on bank credit lines amid tumult
The only manipulation anyone is engaging in are the WSB people, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and should be made to forfeit any and all profits made from this criminal scheme plus penalties and a permanent ban from trading securities.
Makepad: a shader programming environment
Trading activity can still be high regardless of new supply, and that is what Coinbase is capitalizing on.
hey, I actually was working on something similar ( forking from https://github.com/satorumurmur/bibi which is an open source epub reader ), but my objective was to allow

a) To save books in some place online like s3 or gdrive etc.

b) Allowing to use the "bookmark" feature across sessions.

My use case is that sometimes I am reading a EPUB and I have it in my tablet, but sometimes I have my computer, and othertimes I have my phone. Currently I have to download it 3 times to read it and remember the bookmark.
It is already going up a lot in AH. It will be harder to show damages if this gets to $500 again. Also the halt was in the premarket, but GME surged at the open to new highs, until falling in half in mid-morning. So this further weakens the narrative and causality that Robinhood's actions caused robothood customers to lose money. The stock tanked maybe because it was just simply overbought, regardless of Robinhood's doing.
> RH, Etrade, etc are not manipulating anything.

I don't know how you could possibly argue that when RH is preventing the purchase of a stock, but not the selling (Which pushes the stock price down), and trying to use the argument of "we're trying to protect you from volatility!"

> If Costco doesn't want to stock your favorite item any more do you get to sue because you still want to buy it?

This is such an apples-to-oranges comparison here that I really don't feel you're arguing in good faith.

> 2- If the customers had no idea of the legal documents they signed when they opened their accounts, their bad, not the broker.

As others have said, EULA doesn't trump the law.

> 3- Certainly not retail investors (who are not the people doing this stuff).

Either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, or you are 100% incorrect. It is absolutely the retail investors that are buying the GME stock and doing this.

> 4- First off, the shorts are done

We don't know this yet.

> Second, the brokers are protecting themselves from default on margin loans as well as the headache and aggravation of closeouts when 'traders' moan about the fills.

Defaulting on margin loans is prevented by issuing a margin call. Some traders are moaning about their GME being liquidated because they bought on margin while going all-in on GME, but even on WSB, most traders understand that's how margin works.

> 5- Why on earth should the Biden administration go to bat for a retail trading mob?

For the same reason Ted Cruz is. RH is impeding the free market. It's pretty crazy right now. Ted Cruz, AOC, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Jr are all upset with RH right now, though for different reasons. The leftists are upset that the hedge fund managers are pissed that the poors are beating them at their game, while the right is upset that RH is interfering with the free market.

> 6- Shorts are not only necessary for a market to function well

If it was merely a matter of investors being able to say "I think this company is going to fail, so I'm going to short it", then yes. But then that quickly creates extremely perverse incentives. Now, it becomes "I have invested my money into the failure of this company, so I'm going to short it even more and publish articles about how this company has no future."

GameStop got a new CEO and had a path to recovery, and the hedge funds didn't like that since they were already shorting, so they doubled-down on the shorting. The funds are using their money to kill a company. While this is technically legal, I think it's incredibly immoral and unethical.
I can't find any evidence that a short squeeze is illegal. (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=illegal+short+squeeze&t=ffab&ia=we...)

Also:
If a big hedge fund shorts a stock, expecting to drive its price down, that's cool. (Search "big short drives down stock price")

But if regular people buy a stock expecting to drive its price up, that's terrible.

Sorry, this position just isn't credible.
You are a bit out of date on your assumptions. You can read further here: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html
If you count cards, the pit boss will ask you to leave.

Personally, not a fan of the casino metaphor.
Hi I'm Michael, co-founder of ChatWisely.
We used Haskell to build this, and would love to get into the details about how that is working out for us. Spoiler: it's awesome.

Front end - https://reflex-frp.org/
Webserver Product - https://www.servant.dev/
Webserver Landing Page - https://www.yesodweb.com/
Database - https://www.postgresql.org/

Let's talk tech!
Same, I usually end up writing anything important twice because the first draft is when I realize all of the things I hadn't thought through.
I don't know about bash, but zsh allows you to define a shell function "zshaddhistory" which is running right before a command is executed.
There's BIbi which is a nice open source ePub reader ( https://github.com/satorumurmur/bibi )
> Hi, I made it change every minute, instead of every 10 minutes. Please refresh to see the changes.

Shouldn't that be configurable? It seems like "catches your attention very frequently like a distraction" is actually not the right behavior for this. Seems like the goal should be to call attention to itself just enough so the notes aren't forgotten and are brought to mind to be started during a distracted moment.

I like the idea, but probably won't use it because it's not a desktop app. Some random ideas:

1. Color changing is a good idea. Kinda skeptical about the font mattering much.

2. Moving location is probably a good idea.

3. Probably should pop itself up occasionally to be in front of the active window.

4. Probably should avoid popping up in front of "work apps" (e.g. an IDE, Excel) and pop up more frequently in front of "distraction apps" (e.g. web browser).

5. Steer users towards one thing per note.

6. Occasionally in specific situations (e.g. long time with browser active), the pop up should be unclosable for a short time.
Brokers must often sell customers' positions if they have insufficient margin. Where did he say they wouldn't?
Not exactly, but there's $PS0 if you have bash 4.4+.

https://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/PS0-prompt/

(Thanks Dan!)
From what I've read in the complaint, the reason they're alleging is "no reason," although one claim does list "market manipulation" as a reason with no other facts to support that (which strikes me as something to be stricken as a conclusatory allegation, not a factual allegation, but I'm not a lawyer here).

Especially for something as complicated as security law, I'd expect to see an entire section on market manipulation laying out what the precedent says they need to allege to substantiate their claims and then detailing enough facts (or beliefs to be made good on in discovery) to make that claim credible. Without it, the complaint comes across less as "Robinhood clearly broke the law" and more as "I'm whining because I don't like the contract I signed with Robinhood."
Preface: I'm totally in favor of people going to casinos if they want to.

People say this and chuckle about how witty they are but it's the only "tax" that we let billionaires extract from the poor and act like we're okay with it.
Right, OP mis-spoke about some critical, leading detail of their argument, while going on to support questionably legal action giving off a great appearance of market manipulation by large entities with great vigor.

I think this supports my point. This user is spreading misinformation and arguing against a point their past blogging and commentary would not suggest them to be an expert about nor impassioned by.
thank you.
Open source Accountability: any one can audit our calculation of the win-to-loss ratio

Open Source Auditing: Anyone can get expired Research reports for free.

Hope that answers the point. basically anyone can access data, we don't hide behind closed doors or hush-hush industry. Currently, no one is doing this in our niche.
> "Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this."

> So people who will indeed loose their homes

This is a rare example of spelling de-correction.
The issue isn’t citadel it’s all these hidden connections in the secondary market where they get the money to leverage up. I bet we will find out in the end the reason they are panicking is the repo market where they likely got the money to leverage.
Again, I think you're overestimating the negative sentiment about the market being driven by the madness that is GME, BB, KOSS, and EXP over the last few weeks. Most retail investors are watching from the sidelines and scarfing down popcorn, not actively participating. You're hearing about a very small portion of the market and extrapolating that out to everyone, but that's simply not the case.

Market manipulation is not new, and it's not impacting most retail investment strategies, which are much longer term. This is exposing inequities in the market that have existed for a long time, but I would be shocked if it has a significant impact on the assets of retail investors. As others have said, what other options are there? The game is imperfect, but that doesn't mean everyone stops playing all the sudden.
The article doesn’t explain why it’s illegal.
In fairness, you can close out your positions if you are long or short. If you are shorting the stock, you are allowed to buy to close the position.
Of course. A lot of the time there’s not even a commitment that the project isn’t going to be entirely abandoned at some point in the future. But if you make your improvements available for other people to benefit from, you’re greatly increasing the chances that other people are also going to help maintain them (or maybe just devote some effort to avoid breaking them).
> Since when do you have to prove your innocence?

Were he charged with a crime, he would not.

Were he to file a civil lawsuit for defamation, he would have to prove the required elements of that case. In defamation law in the US, falsity is an element (in some other places truth is a defense, which is somewhat different), and for defamation against public figures, in the US, so is actual malice.

Note that both of those requirements have been found by the courts to be necessary to preserve Constitutional freedom of speech.

> There's a huge difference between trying to get someone killed and calling for an election audit or objecting against the election results.

Sure, and in court Cruz would have the opportunity show that he was only doing what you described and neither trying to get anyone killed nor doing anything that might reasonably be mistaken for that. But that's not something Cruz probably wants litigated in court of law, which is why he won't file and litigate a defamation claim.
I'm absolutely not saying it's as bad as the capitol rights, I'm saying I'm seeing the same disinformation, unsubstantiated claims and absolute freedom from fact based reasoning we saw in those other communities. I made it a point to go and look at the communities that were pro-Trump in the aftermath of the election. There are clear similarities. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but I think we need to seriously take a step back and look at what's actually happening, and what's happening isn't a level headed discussion about free markets. It's a conspiracy riddled hysteria where many people are claiming they're never going to sell a crappy retail stock for what can quite clearly be understood to be emotional reasoning.
That seems excessive. Not to mention unrealistic - how do you prove that any single person engaged in a crime?
The class is all Robinhood customers, or alternatively, all Robinhood customers who tried to buy GME but couldn't.
> Any broker is free to decide what the let their customers trade.

This exact point turned up 4 hours ago in another thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946004
>> This lawsuit will go nowhere... increasingly desperate if they're willing to brazenly manipulate the market like this.

IDK... I'm probably missing something about norms or precedents, but allowing selling and not buying is not just brazen. It's straightforward enough that the average person is incensed and understands specifically why. This isn't systemic risk and turtle stack complexity.

This is probably my info-bubble, but nihilistic rage of WSB seems to be spilling out into the world. The social media (dischord/reddit) aspects, hedge funds, markets/brokers... it all adds up to symbolic whole that has ordinary people cheering on a bunch of maniacal gamblers. The SEC is looking more like a belligerent than a regulator.

Remember that the SEC is, first and foremost, a bunch of cowards.
Further info here: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1354911653582630915
Remember when Robinhood tried opening checking accounts the first time and made a bunch of claims about SIPC insured and what not, and then the SIPC was all like "We told Robinhood we don't insure checking accounts", and then the FDIC was all like "Robinhood never talked to us about opening, or insuring, any checking accounts"...

Seems like something any financial lawyer would have checked the box on prior to making a HUGE announcement, so it's pretty plausible that Robinhood has no ideas about FINRA's laws about arbitration...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2019/01/02/the-robin...
A framework that makes things worse on purpose
Yes I'd seen the act summary before posting, but had thought this phrasing "Former President" in his actual office title was an unusual initiative so I interpreted it as Trump's first significant statement/trolling post-office, so kind of culturally newsworthy.
Wait, I thought Goldman came out ahead from the crisis.

They had the, "we didn't avoid the mortgage mess, we just made more money on shorts than we lost" and "we are very well positioned" emails that became evidence in the Senate investigation into the GFC. The ones are the namesake for the book/movie The Big Short.
If they rule it doesn’t get around binding arbitration then there is no method for Robinhood to aggregate cases and they might face the costs of having 25,000+ cases to deal with.
What is alleged is that Citadel took on more short position after disabling RH.

If this isn't market manipulation then I don't know what the hell is the point of having SEC and regulatory enforcement.

The whole system is in existential crisis. This is now a spin zone: If the Biden administration shows leniency towards Wall Street, his popular base will revolt, especially after AOC has sent out that tweet.
> So, I buy tons of IP from companies and individuals willing to sell them - the more generic, the better. I then troll around looking for companies that make products that might fit some of the patents I just bought.

That fits my understanding of patent trolls' behavior. What I still don't understand is, why is this seen as worse than e.g. a streaming service like Funimation/Sony buying up exclusive rights to anime that other entities have created, and then Funimation/Sony sues other website that continue to stream those videos?

My best guess is that because the USPTO has issued patents that seem unjustifiably broad/vague, it's harder to be certain that you're not violating some patent, than to be sure that you're not violating someone's copyright. But if that's really the reason, it still seems to me like the real villain here is the USPTO / U.S. Congress. Because (to my current way of thinking), they created the business landscape that rewards this kind of behavior.
Thank you, this is very useful. I will come back to you with an answer and update the website too.
Whilst there are difference, I'm not sure it's really true that the underlying always exists for futures. The main difference between the two is that futures are standardised contracts traded on an exchange and typically subject to daily margining/price settlement which has some impact on the behaviour of their price over time.

Futures are useful to a broader group of people precisely because they don't need to involve physical settlement. Many people use commodity futures to hedge exposures to the price of assets which are not the underlying in the future but where there is a relatively predictable relationship between the two prices. Others use them to speculate on prices despite having no ability to deliver or take delivery of the underlying. Some contracts are even purely cash-settled.

(Edit: made clear that it was the point that futures always involve an underlying which already exists I disagreed with.)
Yes, to a point, the 'internet is free'. But you are sort of twisting the point a bit I think. Not only does it cost money to have a website in many cases, but to be close to 'free' in terms of what you can post the theoretical person you are referring to needs to run their own web server, and their own DNS server, and hopefully they don't expect to need a domain name...

Otherwise, it is not in fact free. Registrars can take your domain (look what is happening to eu domains owned by UK folx) and web hosts, are in part responsible for the content they host and can refuse to continue to do business with you.

Hell, even if you roll your own setup, the ISP you use can still choose not to do business with you, leaving your entire setup offline.
I still don't understand this point. I am not describing chaos. I am describing the specific drawbacks of a lack of centralized authority overseeing things. Isn't that the dictionary definition of anarchy. What am I missing?
Its gonna be WeWork
The bean counters are to blame for a lot of stuff.

But they didn't give us flat UI.
Brokerages do not have a fiduciary duty to prevent customers from losing their money in bad trades. It's one thing to shut down margin trading or even possibly options purchases, but to not allow people to buy a stock with their own money is pretty bad. There is zero risk to the brokerage there.
AFAIK you could always sell the stock, just not buy it.
Recap of Android app hacking workshop partnered with HackerOne
The real owners of the markets have showed up:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950306