skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The gamma squeeze also works going down, if they had to load shares on the way up they have to unload on the way down, accentuating a down trend.

When you drive the price of the stock up you increase the interests the short have to pay on the shares they borrowed to sell, or maybe increase the capital requirements they need to maintain this position on their books, reducing their upside.

If the interests or the capital requirements for maintaining the position get too high, or the owners of the shares want them back, they might have to exit their position, "no matter the cost" hence the "squeeze" part.

(I'm writing it down to see if I understood it all correctly)
Recreating the NgRx Demo App with the Firefly Semantics Slice State Manager
I'd say, "tech" as in scientifically based engineering design arguably starts with Archimedes. (Mind that the Antikythera mechanism is generally thought to be an offspring of this revolution and that it is also considered by some as the first computer. The circumstances of the site, where it had been discovered, also suggest that mechanisms like this were carefully marketed goods. You might say, that by 90 BC, there had been an established tech business.) However, if you prefer to dismiss this as a lost tradition, then you might consider that there was certainly tech and a thriving tech business in the Victorian age. Even, if you wanted to dismiss any pre-electronics, I have a hard time figuring out what would mark 1971 as a starting point for current developments. (E.g., mind that Moores law was proposed in 1965 or that Kay's KiddiComp/Dynabook concept, which started the handheld revolution, was envisioned in 1968.) The idea that "tech" or technology started in 1971 is highly absurd.

Edit: Please compare a recent entry on the front page, which supported the idea that there hasn't been a key innovation since 1978. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25947901
You are right, except Adam Curtis doesn't get systems.

For instance he calls public servants 'devious' when they 'game' the system. This is not what happens at a personal level, the system is 'devious' if anything. It also doesn't address if overall people in the system are better off -

https://youtu.be/l1So7lNUD0E?t=2387

(Rewind 60 seconds for when they are measuring bird calls across Great Britain for quality of life, that's actually pretty cool)

"The Trap" was early internet, pre the popularisation of shoving ideas at people for the dopamine rush without an actual understanding.

I am interested to see if he adapts to the newer world where ideas are more common place, understanding is still lacking.
Narcissism. "I've read many books and governmental reports..." is (presumably) a fact. It's a fact about the person saying it and not about the issue. It's a way to claim "I know what I'm talking about" without evidence.

Unfortunately in today's world, you can be well read in any subject and still end up on either side based on what you've read.
they totally missed that not only tech is entering its second 50 years but also third 25 year period.
A lot of ff research is not very rigorous and highly suspect imo. it's more likely imo that smb is a risk premia than some sort of alpha factor
There are several other, deeper, dynamics at play that the article doesn't seem to deal with but that are still important. The situation is not as damaging as the author might believe (although it is very disruptive to complex arguments).

1) Synthesising other's words into a personal perspective is a slow process that takes days to a week. Part of the thought-process-shuts-down aspect of difficult conversations is new ideas hitting at a pace too fast to be absorbed at the time of the conversation.

The rational strategy for a person who finds themselves in such a situation is the just throw out all their talking points to see what happens - even if it doesn't quite make sense - then go away and mull on what the responses were. It is productive even if the conversation often looks stupid in hindsight.

2) The functioning of large groups is such that most people don't participate in the conversation. The large quiet majority doesn't have a mechanism to coordinate their opinion apart from instinct, so they will use arguments modelled in robust political debates by the vocal minorities because that is really all the majority has to work with. It is thus important for a rational actor, in normal political discussions, to make sure their arguments are represented for the lurkers to to digest even if in theory everyone in talking already knows them.

In practice, that looks like literally the same chain of comments playing out again and again. That is pretty much useless for the debaters themselves - but it is probably a very useful instinct to help the people not talking to work out what they believe.

When two vocal people both incorrectly believe incoherent (and usually bad) ideas are the correct model arguments then situation gets useless and unhelpful very quickly, and there is no way the situation will quiet down without intervention. But rehashing the same situation again and again is purposeful.
Low Orbit SPAC Cannon
Would be interesting to look at smart watch data to see actual averages. You can tell when a person is sleeping by watching their motion activity (obviously) in combination with a drop in heart rate.
But you do fail to mention that the true democracy passed the bill without proper discussion and also with a voice vote even when the opposition asked for a division vote. Then there is the thing that even when the said governement is willing to discuss, they are not really ready to compromise.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I don't want to go on to a full length rant here on HN on a political post. But I believe that the media should always be against the government first. And not like Indian media which are dubbed as Godi media because it is so biased for the government, even reporting fake news at times.
Stop letting hedge fund managers group up together and have "idea dinners" where they plan their next strategic shorts behind closed door. Oh that's right you can't stop rich people from having dinners and talking about manipulating the market. The only thing imposing restrictions and laws in a free market now is solely to fuck over the retail investors while letting the elists continue controlling the market. I'm sure it's been thought about during the 1918 crash and the 2008 crash. Everyone is making it seem like the stock markets only experienced crippling manipulation only during 2000s. The game is set in stone and any government intervention prevents it from ever being a "free market" ideologically.
In many cases, there is direct, tangible existential crisis at stake when aggregated across all the individual disagreements. The rise of modern white supremacy, fascism, insurrection, environmental devastation, harm and denial of basic rights to trans people, and so on. If in every individual case, you leave it unchecked and figure “whatever, they can just believe whatever they want, who cares” then it adds up to rioters charging into the Capitol with Confederate flags and pipe bombs. Working backwards it creates impetus on everyone to not leave any of that unchecked, whether it’s your crazy uncle on Facebook spouting off about young earth creationism or anti-environmentalism or a white supremacist yelling claims that the presidential election was stolen.

If you’re just disagreeing about which potato chip brand is the best, by all means let it go and leave it unchecked, but it seems clear the general context is about disagreements on contested social issues with serious stakes.

In a lot of ways the main issue is that several generations of the developed world have completely wasted decades of prosperity, to the point now where it really, actually is true that “mundane” day to day problems for people actually tie in to serious existential problems that have to be collectively dealt with.
Nothing like that was on any TV i watched in the 90s.

Seems like something that I would have heard poorly described by some friend who had a giant sat dish in their yard and figured out how to reposition it when Dad wasn’t home.
Brakes, don’t forget brakes. Regenerative braking puts less wear and tear onto discs and pads, turning them from wear parts to something that might last the lifetime of the vehicle
> There's a reason that only a small minority of software can even run in such sandboxes

Again, it seems like you have not used macOS.

> Are you running your text editor, terminal, IRC bouncer, or audio server in such a sandbox?

What I am doing is not particularly relevant, given that I have needs that require me to run with SIP disabled (which, due to rather unfortunate design choices, means there are relatively trivial ways to escalate to root). However, there are many popular text editors that are sandboxed, for example the built-in TextEdit or CotEditor (which ships on the Mac App Store, to boot!). Terminals usually do not run in sandboxes for obvious reasons (although, many people are happy with the ones that run on iOS, so…). I don't run an IRC bouncer or audio server but I would certainly like it to run in sandbox, and can see a very clear way to have them do so.

> far more things they need access to that can escalate to full privileges quickly

The number of applications that need to do the things you mentioned are few are far between. I mean, honestly, does anything need to ptrace an arbitrary process other than a debugger? I think there is exactly one process on my computer that can edit PATH for my user…

> Do you frequently use your text editor to edit one file, and one file only?

Uh, is this not how you use a text editor?

> Give it access once to edit a script you wrote, now it owns the file; say it be malicious, it now changes the script so that next time it is executed, it allows for arbitrary code to run.

> Not to mention having used it once to edit the initialization or environment variable files and user profiles.

Yes, but again: user consent. If I give an app the ability to access a file, then it can access the file. If I don't, then it can't touch it. This is clearly better than "the app can do everything".

> In which case, it can exploit a race condition to replace a file that was created by something else immediately after the other software unlinks it to recreate it under the same name to trick the user.

> It can also then create a symbolic link to trick other applications and gain write permissions of files it shouldn't have since almost no software is secured against such symbolic link attacks.

Who said anything about this identity being tied to the filename, or even enforced by the application itself? Validation is done correctly in the kernel, of course.
I don't know. Seeing a greyed out post undeniably biases me against it, regardless of what the content actually is. It takes mental effort to give it fair consideration.

Not sure if you've done this analysis yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if downvoted posts are mostly unpopular opinions, and not necessarily incorrect facts or egregiously bad takes.
> No single entity owns or controls any of those things, perhaps with the exception of search.

Right, but it's about the level of control. It's not one single entity: instead control is effectively split between a very few megacorporations with an ability to obliterate smaller competition. Their incentive is to control the market, to control both ends of any pipelines they are involved in. Which is the same as any company, sure, but it is the level of power that these companies have that is worrying. It may not be a bad thing with bad effects -- it's really convenient in many ways! The power gives them the ability to produce some really good things! But history would suggest that, as a general rule, it is not a great idea to hand extremely large amounts of power and control to a few entities who are only beholden to (and whose only real aim is to) generate money for investors.
you're right, finance news should only be given in moderation by those upright and responsible folks who know better than us and work on wall street.
> probably not actually taking advantage of all the features of any of them

Yep they are probably too busy doing their job: creating value for customers. Instead of having fun fiddling with their OS.
> Boone directed readers instead to a short online spoof of Curtis’s films by Ben Woodhams called “The Loving Trap,” which describes his work as the “televisual equivalent of a drunken late-night Wikipedia binge.”

I'm glad this was mentioned, because i think it's hilarious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
I was under the impression that they’re more common in powerful positions.
Don't they have to buy stock to exit the position? How do you sell a "short position" that is hemorrhaging money?

(genuinely curious, I'm learning about this to distract myself from covid-19)
A VSCode extension attempted to read/write to my contacts and calendar on macOS. Thankfully the sandbox (?) permissions UI notified me, I reported it to Microsoft and I believe they either pulled it or wound it back to an older version without that code in it. It had no need to access that data, so god knows what it was trying to do.
Interstate idea. The title overstated too late though.
Following the premise that an expanding civilization is expanding near the speed of light and it's radio will reach us first.
We can expect hundreds of years between radio and anything physical.

1)
We started producing a lot of radio around 100 years ago.
And we are still a long way from expanding at near speed of light. Even with expodential growth in capacity.

2) expanding near speed of light is much less than speed of light.
Say 99% of the speed of light. And expanding civilization is probably going to be coming from far far away, just because there is a lot more far far away than pretty close.
So say they are comiy from 10,000 light-years away (still close by galactic standards, and incredibly Close by Universal standards). Then the radio they start transmitting when their grown begins has gained on their expansion ba lead of 100years by the time it reaches us

Sure on the million and billion year time-scales mostly talking about that 100+ years is very little but it is still generations.
Wow, nearly the same experience here although my main aim was to alleviate the immense anxiety I faced for years. The various prescription drugs were not helping so I decided to self medicate and bought edibles when they became legal here. It was like a damn miracle. All my tension and irrational scares melted away. I just hope my use won't build up too much tolerance and the effects will last.
Remember the Hertz story in June? They were thinking about issuing shares.

I dunno, it seems like meme stocks are in that position because they're small-cap companies facing significant headwinds and either got overshorted or have enough brand recognition that retail investors seem convinced they'll survive. I'd rather not be in the position of facing the headwinds and hoping a bunch of suckers show up who will give me money.

What's funny is this is pointing out big holes in the "but it's 150% shorted" story. The retail buy/sell order flow seemed pretty balanced on Thursday according to Citadel, so there isn't much HODL. If the price holds for much longer, Gamestop can issue more shares, and holders of convertable debt are converting, likely selling the shares ASAP.

I guess they squeezed some shorts, some more shorts probably moved in, and some of the money goes to debt holders, and some might go to the company. Some of it makes for a good story, but I wouldn't be surprised if PE and hedge funds quietly come out ahead in aggregate.
I don't. I can't find it now, but long ago I came across a description of a British captain and his crew landed on an island, and was confronted with the natives. The natives on had rocks, which they threw at them. They had the usual muskets and swords.

He described the rocks as huge, accurately thrown, and a never ending deluge. While you were ducking one, another hit you from another direction. He reported they broke arms and skulls. Had he been able to put more distance between himself and the rock throwers, so a musket could reach but a rock couldn't the outcome might have been different I guess, but they had just landed on a beach.

Rocks were the first distance effect weapons. The answer to "why doesn't anybody do it any more" is simply we have even better distance effect weapons now. Apes throw sticks now (not as effective as rocks), then we move onto rocks, and then slingshots, spears, then bows and arrows, and on we go.

If you came from Australia, you would know of a Test cricket batsman (ie, one of the best at the game in the world in a world that has over a billion following it), who misjudged a cricket ball (made of leather and stuffing, not rock), bowled at him (ie hand thrown) that was bounced of the ground (direct throws aren't legal), it smashed through the best helmets we had to offer and killed him. https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/30219440 He never regained consciousness. It wasn't some unfortunate stroke caused by some undetected aneurysm. It tore open an artery in his neck.
…and the source doesn't match with what they ship (often things get left out), and you still need to do reverse engineering to match it up with a stripped binary, and you can't easily load it into a debugger…yeah, it's not great at all.
It's not only about the resources allocated to your project. Bigger images also leads to longer deployment times, which increases the feedback loop for issues. Not to mention increased costs associated with storage, bandwidth, layer caching, etc.
My first real project in Turbo Pascal was a system to record the inspection of Fire Protection Equipment in Coal Fired Generating Stations (where small fires break out all the time due to the coal dust everywhere).

I wrote a set of routines to allow field based text editing, and built up a CRUD (Create Read Update Delete) database of locations, routes, equipment. I took 4 weeks instead of the two I estimated.

The customer loved it, it met all the requirements... and was totally impractical as a system. I spent the next year rewriting it in a fairly agile manner working for the Russ, Assistant Plant Manager. He taught me how to make user friendly software in a simple manner... we would pull a person from the plant and say something like

"This is Mike... he wrote this program. [Worker Name], I don't expect you to be a computer expert, it's not your job... I want you to do X,Y and Z... If something goes wrong, it's Mike's fault"

"Press F1 for Help" was ALWAYS at the top of the screen after the first 5 seconds of the first user trying things and not knowing what to do. I learned an amazing amount about writing software from Russ.

One time... he asked "what would happen if I disconnected it right now?" I didn't know, and said so.... I got that taken care of in the next week. You could disconnect at any time, and never lose a record.

It was a fun job.
Imagine if each of the the web developers creating these websites actually ran a physical store and had to deal face-to-face with the public. Real, live customer service. No keyboard to hide behind. What would those businesses be like? Would anyone shop there?
> Your investment thesis would then be that GME becomes a token of value independent of the underlying business, dividends, and so on. More of a collector's item.

Yes, that's basically the point we've reached with the stock market as a whole right now. Nothing is tied to any kind of fundamentals. It's all about "we like the stock".
That’s really only true for new cars. As an ICE car ages, the standard deviation for maintenance costs starts to go up quite quickly. Some cars will only need oil and gasoline until they fail, but some will suffer extremely expensive failures.
The factors in the Fama-French model are risk premia, I cannot make any sense of what you say.

See for example
https://www.msci.com/documents/1296102/1336482/Foundations_o...
> when we all know perfectly well what the normal usage of the word technology is

yes, exactly: technology goes back to the ancient Greeks, or the invention of bronze, or maybe the first chipped piece of flint.
Ironically we've already been doing this for so long that at this point there are way more female only clubs/universities/organizations than there are male only.

Even Boy Scouts is now just Scouts and accepts everyone, but Girl Scouts is still girls only.
I love coming across things like this. This is what makes the internet so cool to me, being able to just watch tv from decades ago completely wild.
I concur and am also a stafford beer fan. I also dig Adam Curtis body of work - however his demonization of cybernetics is frustrating.
dividends are irrelevant when valuing a stock - it's the company's earnings (and margins etc), and the future expected earnings that matter.
Why not..? Asking because the explanation might end up helping me and also cure folks' HN addictions :D
Well, Verdana at least doesn’t, and that’s when I first noticed it :)
>Most racism in the USA can be explained by poverty—of which "POC" are disproportionately represented

And why do you think that is the case?
If there is any benefit of making everything "smart", may it be that one day we can turn off all the lights for 20 minutes and let city dwellers see the stars
Has anyone ever factored in battery replacement cost? All of the things you mention (pumps, etc.) Break only after long usage (60-80-100k?)

Oil changes and filters are reasonably cheap, i guess $50 every 5-10k miles?

I would really want to see long term cost of ownership of ev once you include replacement battery.

Edit: of course the repairs add up as the car gets older for ic (because of things you mention), but i wonder how does that stack against battery itself.
> because the short sellers have to buy at ANY price.

no they don't. They can bankrupt, and default on their contractual obligations. And if they are smart, what they will do today is setup a structure that protects their existing assets from seizure, and then short GME, and then default if it doesn't turn out well (or gain massive profit if it does fall).
An alternative explanation for the these discussions is that not everyone agrees with your position, nor thinks that a small(er) government would be helpful for society.
The Plaza Accords were a complete failure at their twin objectives of increasing US exports to Japan and decreasing Japanese exports to the US, neither of which happened.

They did trigger a wave of Japanese overseas investment and Japan's own asset bubble, leading to the Lost Decade when it burst, but these were hardly planned effects.
With market manipulation being so vague and up for interpretation, you might as well ban every CEO and any possible influential individual from voicing their opinion (tweeting, upvoting, chiming in) since their reputation and personas will impact the market value of the stock. People who trust in say Elon, Jeff Bezos, Trump, etc. will be likely to buy up shares of a company because these influential leaders pick sides. What is and isn't stock market manipulation is very nuance and there will be no laws that elites/hedge funds can't bypass simply with a bit of elbow grease to the lobbyist and law makers. Law makers and market markets are in the bed simply because it's almost a guaranteed successful ROI on anything they do. In the end the retail investors are stuck holding the bags.