skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> 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.

I like your questions.

I'm not disagreeing (unsure myself), but this talk of what "the fundamental" is, it makes me want to share about another hypothesis: that the mind's ability to operate via "recursion" is the feature from which a bunch of other things emerged. A good book that lays the case, still reading, but very thought-provoking: https://www.amazon.ca/Recursive-Mind-Origins-Language-Civili...

So if that's true, it's less about there being some fundamental core difference between us and animals. I think I agree that the same underlying drives motivate. I understand that the core drive of all life (below the particulars of our biological strata) are perhaps seeking the right alchemical mix of (1) entropy/micro-diversity and (2) cycles/periodicity and (3) compartmentalization [1]. These drive information-creation about the environment -- mapping information of the environment into the structures "trying" to buffer themselves from change in a chaotic environment. But "trying" is anthropomorphizing (and applying false agency), and in essence, this simply allows a structure of any scale or medium to "persist" better into the next tick of the engine ;) And a structure that persists tends to have information about the environment (and the environment's future) encoded within itself. This encoding in persistent structures is what we tend to read as free-will and agency.

But anyhow, in a round-about way, I'm just proposing that perhaps "recursion" was the "new innovation" that biology of human mind stumbled upon, that really expanded the capacity to persist. And language, which not a result of new drives, fell out of that new ability of minds :)

[1]: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.cocis.2007.08.008

ps, sorry for rant, i get excited about this stuff! sorry if overload, and apologies for not citing the web of readings that led me here. Happy to linkshare, if you're interested, as I certainly have sources and go back to them often! e.g., [2] [3] :)

[2]: https://knowm.org/thermodynamic-computing/
[3]: https://nautil.us/issue/9/time/life-is-a-braid-in-spacetime
You have to allow selling or else you risk forcing your customers to hold a stock while its price is dropping. Robinhood customers would be even more pissed about that.
So the argument is that if they just froze trades (both buying and selling), then people who own many GME shares and want to sell would not be able to and there would be a subsequent backlash? Maybe? I am trying to compare the lesser of two evils here and it still seems like they made a poor choice.
GPT-3 Impressions
I'm going to start spreading this around. It's a comment by someone else who points to an interview of the WeBull CEO and why they had issues. It's pretty clear that this is a process issue, not necessarily a RobinHood is evil issue.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191

Edit: I didn't know before listening to this how much was going on behind the scenes for every stock trade. It reminds me of what it takes to buy a house.
> No, obviously.

But the true question is: can an algorithm figure that out?
> They could have just completely frozen trades of these volatile stocks then?

I assume Robinhood also blocked shorting GME. As such, it wasn't blocking buying per se. It was blocking the opening of new positions, long or short.

That's very different from blocking someone from exiting a position that you sold them.
I'm going to start spreading this around. It's a comment by someone else who points to an interview of the WeBull CEO and why they had issues. It's pretty clear that this is a process issue, not necessarily a RobinHood is evil issue.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191
True, but that's for leveraged positions. So I wonder was that leveraged position or just plain "own stock" position? If the latter, I never heard about broker liquidating a position against the will of the client, when settlement of debt is not involved. Does it happen?

Edit: screenshot from reddit: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Es1pb5KWMAE19CD?format=jpg&name=...
I know :( it’s sadness
Also if you'd like a bunch of free credit to try out, just let me know the first part of your user id (in /account)
Oh no people had to step down? They fucked up, lost their company loads of money and gasp got fired?!

Like. I understand your point but a lot of people really don't think that is punishment really
You can do exactly this through: https://ripmedicaldebt.org
A lot of other brokerages stopped allowing people to buy as well.
When has it happened with music in the last 60 years? If you’re talking about mostly classical music clusters then there are a lot more reasons for that than you’re suggesting
Suuuuper... Suuuuuper Frank.. Suuper... Suuuper Frank..
Yup, in absolute terms that's a concern.

But if/when we ever have right to repair laws that apply to Dell & Apple, based on their track records, I'd probably still invest my future computing dollars in the one that has the strong game.
Tim Cook calls out Facebook's business model, says it leads to violence
I've been studying the history of the settlement systems, and incidentally, this is a lesson learnt by each successive generation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25791646

A part of the reason why the Automated Clearing House system was setup was the collapse of Herstatt, which was a settlement failure that led to the global push for RTGSes.

It is not that difficult to imagine another such storm. A heavily shorted stock, where retail traders "rally" to stick to the man and buy + hold on to the majority of the stock in circulation. And then the shares left in pools + the open market aren't enough to cover everyone's position. Creating a cascading failure.
Based on what? I'm curious.
shame on google
Using a bookmarking service such as Firefox Pocket (alternatives include Pinboard) helped me reduce my Internet time. I just bookmark all the pages I find interesting. This is, of course, entirely useless since I'm never actually going to read the thousands of bookmarks, but I get all the gratification of internet browsing from bookmarking without having actually spend time on reading (or RAM on keeping tabs open).

On a related note, I once read a very powerful post about the illusion of knowledge which Reddit gives you, but I cannot find it. If this rings a bell with anyone ...

Maybe a tool such as Self Control (Mac) can help you. It blocks websites for a certain amount of time without a possibility to unblock.
The dead code elimination step just drops the framework?
Well, that was incredibly quick. Big money talks FAST.
> people would have understood if they just came out and said so yesterday

Agree. But generally speaking, financial services firms don't like to say "we ran out of money."
Firstly, really nicely done. Very clear, and the interactive gradient explorer was excellent for quickly exploring the spaces.

To understand the comparison it is critical to state what absolute luminance was used for media white in the ICtCp gradient. 80 100? 203? 10,000 (surely not)? The SDR to HDR mapping chosen has a big effect on the results for these HDR colorspaces using PQ or PQ-like transfer functions.

That mapping also has a big effect on the comparative transfer function graph. I worry that the curve for ST2084 starts and ends at the same place the others do. Does that mean you mapped media white to full-scale, absolute maximum small-area peak white?

I would have liked to see the arguments in favor of a single transfer function vs. a piecewise curve-plus-linear (or curve plus curve, in the case of HLG) expanded a bit more beyond computational efficiency and GPU-freindliness and more in the direction of correctness and fitness for purpose.
Can you please elaborate on systematic risk in the light of not allowing to buy GME stock (not options) without margin (no money lended from broker), what many brokers did today.
They didn't mention any of this in their first announcement though, instead it was some patronizing PR fluff that they "truly believe everyone should have access to financial markets" while at the same time mentioning that they were going to restrict access. Maybe if they didn't treat everyone as little kids, they wouldn't get as big of a backlash?

It was only until after the markets closed that Vlad Tenev really explained what happened: https://twitter.com/vladtenev/status/1354900958942175233
If you thought they were doing an IPO then this post will tell you they are planning a direct listing.

They sent a draft in December for this, so yes we knew, but now its official.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25935959
I'm going to start spreading this around. It's a comment by someone else who points to an interview of the WeBull CEO and why they had issues. It's pretty clear that this is a process issue, not necessarily a RobinHood is evil issue.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191

Link to the video from the OP. https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
It will never be easy. People should understand that and take the hard part as a fun part or as a price to pay for their digital independence.
Our society have both elements from capitalism (eg. property rights, voluntary exchange, competitive markets) and from socialism (eg. collective taxes, social redistribution, centralisation, market regulation).

What the parent is complaining about is coming from the ability of a central body to regulate the economy and it's complaining more about socialism than capitalism.

We don't have an unregulated market.
It is far far worse to be prevented from liquidating a position, than it is to be prevented from buying.

They can't freeze all trades since they are not the NYSE, so trading will still happen, just not for any of their customers.
Evidence of what? Of wrongdoing? No.
> In the single biggest public health crisis in the world, New York can't build a usable vaccine website. The telephone - 1950s technology - is our best option, after 25 years of web development.

I think the latest thing in the 1950's was Touch-Tone. The telephone itself is actually 1870s technology.
They took an action to prevent buying before the market opened. Then they closed those positions ~during~ a point in time when GME was the lowest... Criminal.
Me too. I just cannot use them.

I remove the red nub too because I don't like how it feels when I'm typing. I just wish a touchpoint-free keyboard was simply an option. Other than that I think ThinkPads are perfect though I lament the lack of ac real Ethernet port on recent models
Not anymore, Google deleted the bad reviews.
They actually tilted the table so all the chips slide away from the winner towards the looser
Great to see. The Raphael court has always been my favourite single room in the V&A, I always make time for it whenever I visit. The scale of the cartoons is brilliant, you feel very small looking up at a five metre wide tapestry in such a cavernous space. It's especially nice on the rare occasions you find yourself alone in that room, which has happened more than one would expect in central London museum.

The V&A is really wonderful, I've missed it this year. One of the best kept "secrets" is the top floor, which houses a huge ceramics collection and is a haven in what can be a very busy museum. Often there are only a handful of people up there. There's a small lift you can take: pass through the Raphael court, up the stairs, on your left.

Hopefully I'll find myself there in the not too distant future.
Top+Crypto+and+Blockchain+Predictions+for+2021+and+Beyond+&#8211;+Part+2
When the loans are repaid, it unwinds.
I do agree Citadel, which I believe helped out one of the hedge funds in trouble form the short squeeze, being the clearing house is a "moral hazard" and a conflict of interest.
Depending on how new the account is, RH may not have gotten any funds from the account holder yet. But, while waiting for funds, RH will let the user buy some amount of stock (IIRC $1k worth). Is this enough on a large scale of new users to put them into a risky situation? I would hope not, but who knows how close to the capitalization they are running.
Have you tried http://vanilla-js.com/ ?

It’s a framework with a math library and ajax embedded, 0 bytes minified, 25 bytes compressed as zip.
have they acknowledged this? how can they justify it? are we should it's google and not robinhood somehow? IIRC, the iOS App Store allows developers some control over how ratings are presented (i.e. by allowing them the option to reset ratings when uploading a new version)
I am pretty sure that Wall Street is full of manipulation and insider trading.

This kind of blatant manipulation is the first time. And yes if they get away with it, chances are that they will do more of it.
> it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive ... stuff like a culture of down-voting destructive, inflammatory or snarky comments ... a strong focus on certain topics etc.

Cultures of upvoting/downvoting are completely orthogonal to whether protocols or applications are free software or proprietary. Neither does the subject matter focus on a news aggregation site.

> What if the free platform you are hosting is used by a ring of child molestors and pedophiles?

Guess what? The telephone network is used by "rings of child molesters and pedophiles". And strangely enough, nobody expects the phone companies to "deal with this". Same goes for a decentralized instant messaging and chat platform.

Also, the government and corporate opponents of privacy routinely inflate the prevalence of rings of supposed terrorists, pedophiles etc., because bringing them up instills excessive fear and clouds our judgement. You write that you're "aware" of this, but apparently you're fine with it, as you're making that the center of your argument.

> Do you accept that freedom for all also means freedom for them?

Your question is phrased ambiguously, to manipulate us into believing that a free decentralized communications platform means that we agree that people are "free" to molest children, whatever that means.

Well, you should be free to pick up the phone and call whichever number you like, without having to first prove you're not a child molester. And the same goes for putting up some flyer on a neighborhood notice board. And for putting up a website.

> One where the discussions enrich... or rather the lawless zone...

If-by-whiskey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
Nothing new to see here, they did similar things in the past for other apps too.
I don't know if they thought it was doomed, but I highly doubt a single one of the buyers think it's worth $500+ a share. That's not why they're buying it.

Unless there's some other scheme that I'm unaware of, I think Tesla buyers do think it's worth that much, though they may be wrong about that.
I mean, Coinbase offers a service to customers. Sure the service is selling cryptocurrency but that's beside the point. Just because Levi's sold jeans to gold-rushers doesn't mean they had to believe there was gold. Just selling a service/product to those who do believe.
That really long bendy heatpipe looks so weird. Not clean.. Irksome :P. Might consider this machine anyway though.
And in my experience, you also have to get used to different "neighbors" with different annoying habits every time you come into the office.

May god have mercy on you if your company lets sales and product who are constantly chatting on calls (often at high volume) into your desk area when you're trying to focus on programming or design...
If there's no evidence backing it then it is a conspiracy theory, whether coming from an anonymous Reddit post or from a billionaire's Tweet. I don't know Justin Kan's background but he could very well have his own angle behind all this, or just faulty information. And even if he is correct, he is saying something very different from the post I mentioned.
I see the stock market in general as a lottery. Or a mix of a lottery and a bit of ponzi scheme, but the lottery has a positive expectation value, unlike real lotteries. And the ponzi scheme still has some real value behind it.

The WSB bet is extremely risky of course, but there's absolutely a chance that it will pay off enormously. How big that chance is, I couldn't begin to estimate.

From what I've seen, the people who are getting in late know very well that they're likely to lose money, but they're fine with that if they get to stick it to the hedge funds.
Thanks! I must be blind, I was looking in the bash man page right around PS1 and somehow didn't see this, but it's definitely there.
GME Resources Halts Trading
Would bitcoin be where it is today without Coinbase?

Not to say it's impossible, but their work and approach definitely helped bring Bitcoin to the masses.
Aren't apple still buying conflict minerals and employing child labour? I don't like Facebook, but it's a bit much to hear a hardware maker talk shit about a service provider...
Do you honestly think the situation would have been better if they prevented both buying and selling? At least with the current approach people could sell their shares as the price dropped. It would have been much worse in my opinion if people just had to sit and watch as the value of their positions evaporated with no recourse.
If they block selling then people can't cash out their positions and are forced to hold a volatile stock against their will.

That is much worse than not being allowed to buy the stock.
Did you not think through the implications of the course you propose? If they froze buying and selling, the stock would still be sold elsewhere. The price would crash, then people would be outraged that they weren't allowed to sell.

"Robinhood sold me a stock that was part of a huge bubble, and then they wouldn't let me sell it"
They did the latter didn’t they?
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation settles most listed securities transactions in America; in 2011, it did $1.7 quadrillion [1]. You've never heard of it unless you're a professional trader, but it's actually quite fascinating to read up on.

Trading looks instantaneous. But settlement takes a few days. In between are a series of credit agreements. From your broker to you. From the clearinghouse to the brokers. DTCC is the clearinghouse. Robinhood is the broker.

There are rules and contracts between DTCC and its members, including Robinhood [2]. Those contracts ensure that when you buy shares through your broker from a Robinhood customer, if Robinhood falls down two days later, there is collateral sufficient to make you whole. Those collateral requirements change in reference to, amongst other things, the volatility of the security. (If a broker falls down, the clearinghouse liquidates their collateral and makes their counterparty whole. More volatility means more chance the collateral will be insufficient.)

In this case, collateral requirements on GME went up. Because of its volatility. So while before Robinhood had to pony up collateral for a few shares of GME for every hundred it traded, it now had to, at close of business, pony up one hundred shares' worth of collateral for every hundred it traded. That creates a cash crunch. One that exacerbates itself with every additional trade in the security. If Robinhood fails to satisfy those collateral calls, they go out of business overnight. Into receivership. Done.

Most brokers have policies for these situations. Higher brokerage fees for securities on a schedule. Not making shares and cash from trades available until the trade settles, sort of like what banks do for large cheques. But I don't know if Robinhood is able to do that quickly. So instead they pulled the plug.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_...

[2] https://www.dtcclearning.com/products-and-services/settlemen...
> Instead, they only blocked out buying these stocks and still allowed selling.

That isn't the case, they inhibited opening new positions but not closing them.

So if you were short you could but to close.
No, I'm afraid not. But the answer would sound very sophisticated so you can't really discern if it's conspiracy or not.
If it predicts supersymmetry, it is falsified. Right?
The Man is pulling the strings and everybody knows The Man lives in the White House.

It makes a perfect kind of sense. Nonsense.
Like the article mentioned, this technique to corner the market has been tried before. I read an interesting story on Piggly Wiggly where the owner tried to do just that. Unfortunately for Piggly Wiggly, the powers that be changed the rules and got screwed over. [1]

[1]: https://twitter.com/dollarsanddata/status/135456107992655053...
If someone predicted 10 years ago what Big Tech did in the last years, they would have been labeled conspiracy theorist.
100k 1-star reviews sounds like bot spam FWIW

also the link provides no proof
What would that proof look like? Even if it was 100% what happened, I wouldn't hold my breath to see actual proof.
I couldn't buy and the stock went up = theoretical loss

I couldn't sell and the stock went down = real loss

Generally you are only liable for actual losses in court. So stopping the purchase of GME comes with little liability while stopping the sale could open them up to lots of liability.
Sounds frustrating to coordinate meetings between different teams.
I have no dog in this. I've stayed away from RH as I always suspected they are shady. However, blocking people also from selling is even worse imho. If the exchange does it then that's OK because trading halts for everyone. But if RH does it, people can still sell on other platforms. I would be very upset if my trader is blocking me from selling. I do understand that disabling buying caused the stock to tank, but I think it would've happened even if they disabled both. Was that their way to manipulate the stock price? idk but it makes sense.
Well, the margin in those accounts is specifically Robinhood’s problem.
No, robinhood by default opens margin accounts, so they loan you money to buy stocks with. Those were the orders they forced out, as far as I'm aware they never messed with cash accounts beyond not letting them buy.
How were these not overall real reviews? If they can't prove otherwise, this just entrenches the idea that big money is vastly more powerful than small voices. I honestly don't see how if this trend continues how things will end well. It's not just about Robinhood, etc, it's deplatforming, using AWS, etc as a weapon against smaller voices. I can't see this ending well.
I've started using Turbo (Hotwire) on the new version of LibHunt (https://www.libhunt.com), and it is amazing. By adding preloading to all links, most pages load instantaneously. Then, if you need to keep the scroll context, you simply wrap the area in a <turbo-frame> and everything "just works". You can experience that on the homepage by switching the "Weekly"/"Monthly"/"Stars" views of the main table.

On the whole - it's a huge productivity booster.
I'm trying to figure out HOW this is an analogy for the comment you are replying to and can't. Can you explain?
The current candidates being floated by WSB are Nokia, AMC, Ericsson and Blackberry. Even though Virgin Galactic is second on this list, my impression of the WSB crowd is that they look for companies that are both high-short-interest and some nostalgic notion of being “worthy of saving”... Virgin would probably not fit their MO given the high-profile billionaire owner...