skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks for the voice of reason. It appears that, as always, people are interested in free money and not in learning how to invest. There's good advice worth millions out there for free, but people would rather pay YouTube 'gurus' to fluff their egos and then claim to be poor because of 'the establishment'.

At least Thanksgiving forces Americans to be thankful once a year.
Reminder that while apps like signal are more convenient for every day use, if you want to have a way to message certain people when communications are being blocked, you should setup Briar[1] with your friend group. It connects over Tor when you have internet access, but can also pass messages ad hoc over WiFi or bluetooth, so that messages can be distributed across a group.

1. https://briarproject.org/
Thanks. It takes a week for the whole thing to run. So I'm currently updating it from League of Legends PBE (next patch test) a week before each release.
Pre-seeding to join the next revolution as new stories emerge
It doesn't unless you're too lazy to spend 5 minutes making a playlist.
>The share can then, afterwards, be loaned out and sold again.

I've seen the same argument more than once this weekend but this flood [1] (also linked from the TFA) says otherwise:

In order to meet legal requirements, the broker has to find un-lent shares (so the same shares aren’t lent twice). The PB will “tag” those shares, indicate to the client the prevailing cost to borrow, and provide the client a “locate ID” that guarantees that client those shares.

[1] https://twitter.com/compound248/status/1355276755980980225
The number of shares reported is the number of shares existence -- not because of naked shorting or not.

Naked shorting would not increase the number of share available to be bought. But not the total number of shares in existence.

This is the same way banks use deposits to make loans. The dollar is the same dollar, but can be spent multiple times. Hence the money multiplier effect. The number of dollars in circulation is a constant. The number of times a dollar can be spent can be more than one.

At some point the loan still has to be paid off, which requires me, eg, to acquire a dollar somehow, then pay it back to the bank -- with interest.
Given that mechanical watches are not bought for their ability to report time, how do you even say what it's worth? It's really a work of technical art.
Only a one in 17B chance hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work: medical professor
The problem is they're likely to catalog and sell this information to 3rd parties even though they're probably even getting your emotional state wrong.
It's in the drop down menu:

Customize this build -> Add Engine Option -> Upgrade Kai'Sa Skill By
Neither Safari nor Mozilla will support these features.

WebUSB is considered harmful by both. As is WebNFC if I remember correctly.

WebHID has the same concerns as WebUSB.

Moreover, some of these are implemented and rushed into stable versions of Chrome even before other browser implementors even had the chance to weigh in on the specification. See, for example, https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459
> If you say this is clear but your comment doesn't include "clearing house" or related in it, you are likely getting a limited and biased perspective on what happened.

Ok, fill me in then... I got this from Chamath's analysis, speaking to an early investor of Robinhood (Jason) in the all in podcast, but go ahead and and tell us what caveats I missed out for all of our collective edification.
Does some tool like that exist but only for audio tracks?
While a cursory search appears to prove your point (given the constraint of "public funds"), the fed has bailed out hedge funds [1], I don't remember reading that all.

Probably the quietest "bailout" comes from Long Term Capital Management in 1998 was basically bailed out by banks at the urging of the feds[2].

It seems that most funds are left to die [3] (or, more alarmingly, dissolved at the hands at the SEC for insider trading (I'm sensing a trend...))

Perhaps, as "an exercise left to the user", I'll look more deeply at this matter; as it's quite interesting.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/business/economy/hedge-fu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/101515/3-big...
I don't know, but listening to Dan Carlin discuss the Nuclear Age made me think in some ways we're beyond all of that -- it's both already far worse than we imagine, and kind of amazing we're alive at all: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-de...
That isn't true.

1) Longing AMD your maximum loss is the amount you've invested in AMD.

2) Add an Intel short your maximum loss on the Intel position is without limit. Intel can go for a massive run for unforseen reasons completely separated from AMD and others in the industry, which is stunningly obvious right now.

is (1) + (2) can be a load more risk than just going long one stock.
> It could well by pyramid shaped — I’d put money on it.

A 01/21 300P on GME is roughly 25,000 right now, for a single contract. If you’ve got the cash, it’s almost certainly free money. Right?
>While failures to reform the country can be considered by many to be at the disadvantage of NLD, in a more cynical reading, it might actually be to the party’s advantage. Ironically, it helps to convince the people that there are still influential dark forces (read: the military) that deter the party from reforming the country. [1]

Do you believe that your consideration of the previous military power is widely understood and that the above quote explains the success of the NLD in the election?

Do you feel San Suu Kyi has been prevented from acting to protect ethnic minorities due to the influence of the military?

If so, is there reason to believe the military would perceive the beyond landslide victory in favor of the NLP as Likely to disrupt or erode their existing position of power?

[1] https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/myanmar-shattered-hopes-for-...
>> Motorola Edge

>I looked at all the screen defect reports and high price and decided not to risk it.

That concerned me a bit too. I got a deal ($499 IIRC) on the device and decided to risk it.

I've had no screen issues at all and like it a lot. Then again, I've only had it for four months, so I guess we'll see.

>More specifically, Samsung phones for the US with qualcomm chips cannot be unlocked. The nice little menu option in that article is just not there.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. I didn't catch that in my initial search.

That sucks. I'm glad I didn't purchase a Samsung.

I had similar goals as you did in a new device: fast processor, lots of RAM, large internal storage and large SDCard support, long battery life.

I considered another HTC device, but my experience with them dropping support almost immediately (~9 months after I bought it) for upgrades really pissed me off.

And since I'm not going to buy a new phone every year or two (there's no reason to replace a perfectly good phone just because the OEM drops support in an attempt to get you to buy a new one), especially when there are better Android implementations (e.g., LineageOS) without all the bloatware.

As such, rootable/bootloader unlockable was very important to me too.

Maybe I'm just old and crotchety, but I figure that if I purchase a physical product, I should be able to do with it as I choose, without restriction. This whole 'we decide what you can and can't do, and what software you can and can't run with the very expensive device you've "purchased"' schtick is unacceptable to me.

This is yet another area where we need legislation to address this in the US.

I am aware that there are specific FCC regulations that require specific ranges of transceiver power levels and related stuff, but since the baseband processor code is generally proprietary and requires binary blobs from the manufacturer, that really shouldn't be an issue.

Perhaps if we make enough noise, we can make that a reality.
This stops being generally true if you assign a non-linear utility to future dollars.

Above some point more dollars are less valuable to you, below some point they are much more valuable to you.

If your investment objectives will be very likely satisfied from the returns of the DCA and the lump sump has a higher probability of failure -- why wouldn't you DCA even though it has lower expected returns?
Oh man. I'd love to know more. I'm sorry you had to toil at such a rotten place though.
>Citadel's position in Gamestop represented a less than 1% loss to its hedge funds.

So far.
It's not at 1740. It closed at 28K last week. Peak was like 38K. Unless you stopped investing completely after the peak you'd still have done alright in the Nikkei. Not anywhere near as good as US stocks, but it would still be better than sitting in cash... especially after dividends.

It's now above any point through 1991-2020. Yes still down from the absolute peak, but if you consistently invested throughout those years you'd be well up at this point.

But I do think it shows the importance of being diversified. It is recommended to allocate a certain percentage to international stocks. We shouldn't assume the US will continue being the leading market.
Apple doesn't cripple Safari. They just don't want to engage in a losing war of implementing half-baked underspecified standards that Chrome rushes against any objections.

Mozilla is increasingly on the Apple's side these days.
The rule of thumb is that you can safely withdraw about 3% of you saving annually (same say 4%, some say 2.5%, depends on how risky you want to be).

So estimate what you can save over 10 years and determine if you're willing (or capable) of living on 3% of that.
>You can assume your normal or lognorm distribution of returns.

I think we're seeing how that all comes unstuck on a grand scale right about now. The assumption doesn't hold at the times you really need it and boom!
> Dump 100% of federal tax revenue into index funds and let it grow faster than the interest on T-bills issued for expenditures.

I don't come to HN for comic relief, but there it is.
There's this undercurrent in the FOSS community of people deriving a sense of superiority from using such software. This article is an excellent example with its use of the idea of domestication and other such terms meant to distance the author from the hapless masses.

For most people, the calculus is simple: they want to live their lives and have little interest in the tools themselves. The author mentioned the emotional drain they felt each time they had to reiterate their stance on privacy to people, but failed to consider the validity of the mirror image sentiment there, that is to say the frustrated puzzlement of friends and acquaintances just wanting to interact without jumping through hoops and bothering with things that they do not intrinsically care about. This is the same theory of mind issue that causes many open source programs to be plagued with poor UIs. The enjoyment of feelings of superiority prevents the very empathy and understanding that would not only diminish it but could also ironically probably lead to better privacy-focused services that more people would adopt.

That's not to say that I don't think online privacy is tremendously important, just that there are multiple dimensions to it. It collectively matters, but for any random individual to be concerned is often the result of vanity. In reality, there are too many people jostling for attention for any one person to have a statistically likely chance of being scrutinized, even if it does happen regularly given the size of the world. Even social norms themselves are changing to make a wider range of lifestyles acceptable, further shrinking the problem from the individual's perspective. Prominent individuals are now doing things that would be frowned upon a decade ago, and doing well. In the end, perhaps the prospect of being revealed as unimportant after all can be much more terrifying than the familiar and more manageable fear of tech surveillance.

Note that I am not making the tired "but I have nothing to hide!" argument but simply stating that attitudes to privacy can't simply be divided between "intelligent and perceptive software persons" and "silly, animal-like masses". Ressentiment and casting the rest of society as inferior is a classic trap that only leaves misery in its wake.
The basic principle is that when something is made illegal, the law has to be enforced. This is done by taxpayers and/or participants in the economy spending money to hire police officers and various other agents. Therefore, laws should be deployed sparingly and only when positively justified, to keep the burden of enforcement as low as practical.

There is no reason to make this illegal and put effort towards banning it. Eg, I'm not losing any money and it is entertaining. If I think the price after the shorts get involved is too low I can buy the asset in question. Why should I, in my capacity as a taxpayer, be getting involved and spending money through my government?
The vast majority of GME shares are held by large financial institutions and mutual funds, so theories about government favoritism toward big money just don’t make a ton of sense here. Whatever the SEC ends up doing here, we can be virtually certain they did not strike a corrupt deal with Melvin Capital against Fidelity and Blackrock.
I call BS. If margin were an issue, they could've easily paused that functionality. (just like how they magically paused trading on specific stocks)

I'll stick with Occam's razor here. They were trying to appease the hedge funds who pay them hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Let me curb your enthusiasm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25986079
Yeah I'm currently updating it a week before each release using the data from LoL PBE client. Community Dragon + Mark Yetter's twitter feed.
Isn’t this a startup idea cliche?
The problem is a perception that the stock market continues to go up, yet the lot of the average person is either stagnant or getting worse. It isn’t an impossible double standard. The frustration is with the ever increasing wealth inequality.
Hedge funds are playing at an advantage because of all the money they have to work with and the additional information and connections that they have compared to retail investors. Slight advantages can scale up to massive gains. It might not be "easy" to generate returns but it's definitely "easier" when it shouldn't be.
Grain of salt and all, but a year or so ago a local deli owner said caviar charged 17% of the bill as a fee.
How much money can you expect to make from users that can't afford $1/year? I can't imagine that you get a lot from ads in that target population.
isn’t the “rigging” mostly a function of the Federal Reserve’s money printer? seems odd to argue it isn’t rigged by showing stocks always go up.
TeaVM + Flavour makes a superior alternative to Blazor.

* TeaVM supports threads, Blazor does not.

* TeaVM apps can start in 3s, Blazor apps cannot.

* TeaVM eliminates unused code for fast startup, Blazor is architecturally limited to download an entire VM at startup.

Details: https://frequal.com/java/TeaVmVsBlazorWasm1-0.html

Comparison chart: https://frequal.com/java/TeaVmVsBlazorChart.html
I have a similar impression of the 90s, though I've been skeptical of it since that happened to also be my childhood
The game is not just rigged, it's fundamentally broken. Parasitic practices such as lending money with interest and shorting are the basis of the modern economic system. Practices that we've known for literally over 1400 years to be bad, yet we continue to engage in them, then cry when things go south.

If we want a proper economic system, we should have proper fundamentals. Ban shorting, ban interest, ban packaging debt and selling it in packages, etc. encourage proper investments (not casino gamblings) and things will improve drastically.
I’m no expert on the Japanese market, and I understand that this did happen, but I think you’re missing a digit in your second number. Googling around seems to support that.
I think you will succeed in getting close to being financial secure simply because you have no choice. Thirty eight is late to the party, but the pressure is on.

Ten year plan sounds aggressive (again, what choice do you have), and will probably require aggressive investing.

One thing I think you can do is eliminate the notion of age. Having a home asset should be a good enough goal. If you can drop a big down payment on a home or outright buy a condo after 10 years of saving, then you can reasonably expect to not have large mortgage/rent to worry about later in life. If that stops being a worry, the need for a job starts to become less of a worry. By that time, you should hit retirement and ride the social security checks until the end.

The goal should be to remove the dependency on the economy for your livelihood.
What law would that break? It isn't fraud, the individual could still reasonably expect to to be able to fulfil the contracts. Taking big risks with their own money is not illegal.
You should choose your asset allocation to fit your risk-reward preferences. Once you've done that it's suboptimal to further reduce risk at the expense of reward by holding more cash for longer.
Hah. My original already quite ironic final words were “I’d put money on it”. I have edited to further emphasise my point.
Companies file patents all the time; they aren't typically indicative of strategic direction. Having a strong patent portfolio is important for defense (it's like carrying a huge knife down a dark alley) so companies horde them. Getting support for filing patents is also a side perk for employee retention since most people don't have the resources or desire to file patents on their own dime but they look good on your LinkedIn page.
I'm confused. It looks like you work at Google[0] but you're actively [1][2] trying to advertise this piece. Why?

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25829757

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25979135

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975560
"I have seen more stocks go to zero than infinity"
Link to the original:
https://hackernoon.com/how-google-collapsed-b6ffa82198ee
Not very, but the point is that the necessity to set up an assembly line is a sticking point for adoption. You need to deploy a lot of these to make it useful so skill or time bottlenecks are a big disincentive.
Few things to unpack here.

>Honestly, if the only winning move is to invest for the long term then why even bother with capital markets at all

Because they are gamblers, that's why. Most (reasonable) people only invest long-term.

>Sounds like a waste of time when what we really want is for people to own the means of production.

Yup.

>Dump 100% of federal tax revenue into index funds and let it grow faster than the interest on T-bills issued for expenditures. Churn for ~50 years and start paying UBI from the massive profits.

Tax revenue is not 'profit' by the state. That's not how tax nor money issuing works. But to the topic at hand: There are countries that put money into investment funds that will invest into infrastructure and safe long-term assets. But usually not for UBI, but for retirements (e.g. Denmark).

>If the market can magically let everyone with enough money invested in their youth retire happily then it follows that letting the government own all the stocks and issue UBI would result in roughly the same outcome.

Generally the idea of not having to work at all is still heavily controversial within science. Some believe in UBI, some in job-guarantees and others just in relatively high minimum wage and very strong retirement plans.
The site has collapsed, instead.

"Resource Limit Is Reached"
If a client is shown to be connecting to endpoints it shouldn’t connect to, you can switch to another client.

Holding messaging service provider accountable for what a third-party client does in this scenario would be similar to holding mobile service provider accountable for actions of a phone manufacturer.

True though, in this scenario popular client apps (as well as their runtime, including OS) could become higher-value targets, and infosec research would grow more valuable.
Because problems don’t change at scale?
Yes, they show that the problem has persisted over time. Black or Hispanic people still wait longer for a car, which is the problem you described.
Robe de mariée naturel avec sans manche
>the social graph already exists due to contact books

But you don't have to share your contacts with the app, no?

In case you do, then I really don't see how Signal is considered secure. Having to share your phone number is bad enough, but uploading my whole contact list is just Orwellian.
>it seems more likely than not that at least one person there was influenced by Parler.

I think that the real, concrete harm done to Parler's by their instant removal from Amazon is definitely not balanced by whatever "harm" in some Parler client's head before 6 Jan. I don't think it's a close call, and it is scary that federal judges are willing to make such a judgement.

The standard here seems to be that any unsubstantiated theoretical harm from user-uploaded content can be used as a basis to instantly kill any AWS client's business, if Amazon suddenly feels like doing so.
If so, shouldn't they not stopped to buy ALL stockes, if that would be the case?