skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, and no.

Power will always be needed, as it represents a differential between knowledge and control over resources. For example, I wouldn't want kids to grow up without benevolent parents! There are obviously other societal layers on top of that that will never go away.

It's more about how power is legitimized and used. The more arbitrary it is, the harder it will to keep folks from fighting over the traditional levers of control vs seeking out more organic ways of bringing about and enforcing change.

It's utopian thinking for sure, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible to scale out... just hard. My wife and I don't always get along perfect, but we get along well because neither of us ever plays power cards to get our way. We hope to build a family along those lines, and have been fortunate to be employed based on these terms too.

Ultimately there is only "win-win" and "lose-lose". The "win-lose" scenario is delusional: it's ultimately self-defeating to benefit at someone else's expense no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. Our societies are a long ways from internalizing that, but I think we've made amazing progress!
That's really interesting, can't wait to take a look.

There's a good webos plugin for homebridge (https://github.com/merdok/homebridge-webos-tv) which is based on LGTV2 (https://github.com/hobbyquaker/lgtv2) which exposes a ton of features, including the ability to instantly switch between apps/inputs. I have my Harmony calling this via my fork of Harmony Span (https://github.com/garethflynn/harmony-span) which very cleverly impersonates a Roku device via SSDP to allow Harmony keypresses to be captured by a server (a Raspberry Pi in my case) and used to run a custom shell script.

It sounds super-fussy, but it actually delivers a really clean way of switching inputs, especially in combination with my Samsung soundbar which, amazingly, only offers direct input selection via http (you can only cycle through them with the remote).
I'm linking a comment to someone who kind of addresses this. I've also linked the interview below. It's 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.

Long story short, the clearing house (similar to when you buy a house) assesses risk and assigns terms based on that. The risk got so high that RobinHood couldn't cover it or their clearing house couldn't cover it anymore.

Whether or not the clearing houses are in bed with these brokerages remains to be seen.

I was also pitchforks out earlier today, and willing to move to webull all my stocks, but then I did more digging and this seems more reasonable. RobinHoods press release was garbage tho.

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

Link to the video from the OP. https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
Back when di.fm was an actual online radio and gave you a stream URL to play in a player of your choice, it was dead simple. I don't know what protocol it used, but there was no chunked encoding and no content-length, simply a 200 OK HTTP response and then an endless MP3 "file" with ID3 tags inserted every now and then. You could play it with Android's MediaPlayer in like 3 lines of code.

Oh and by the way. For this exact purpose, ID3v2 has a flag called "unsynchronized" that means all 0xFF bytes in that field are replaced with 0xFF00, so that players won't play the wrong thing. You're supposed to replace them back when parsing the tag. A very hacky solution.
For a network of sites I am developing I am planning a command prompt where users can type /command for basically every function: /msg username, /logout, /search phrase, etc.
Right, so... the shorts that need to clear their position before the price rises further.

Sounds like market manipulation to me.
My understanding is that is usually done by the stock market itself, not a trading firm. The implications of the two seem pretty different.
> Watching social media frame today as being orchestrated by some shadowy cabal was truly bizarre.

Once most of the brokerages started restricting, I assumed the SEC made the call. If it had just been RH, then some backroom deal might have been more plausible, though still unlikely given the regulations.
Yeah the title is speculated, should be more factual: “robinhood’s Google store ratings recovered”
I am not an expert obviously. But is this generally true in most situations?

It just seems like maybe in this specific once-in-a-lifetime situation, maybe this doesn't apply? The decision to freeze all trades seems more "neutral" than freezing just buying which perceptively seems to favor short sellers?
Well yes because conspiracy theories are usually associated with the far right political agenda. Plus a broken clock is correct twice a day.
The worst I've seen is cancelling a subscription to the French newspaper Le Monde. You have to print and fill a form and send it to them by snail mail. Totally unbelievable.
> Obviously, from my perspective, the economies of scale, the infrastructure, overhead, and institutional resources available to programmers at a dedicated software development firm would produce an application at better quality per dollar (however you measure it) than a high school teacher in their off-hours.

If you measure it by cost to the district (for which a teacher doing it in their off hours is $0), it's clearly not, even if you only consider the sticker price of the commercial software and not the other costs associated with purchasing in a school.

> If you were paid your actual worth,

The school would fire about half it's teaching staff in order to make budget, and still not have money left over to either develop or purchase the typing program, probably.
It's not worth it

Well, there you go. You determined it wasn't worth it, so don't be surprised if there's an outcome you don't like.

I read terms quite often and have flatly refused to use services because of them, or in some cases told them in writing I don't accept a problematic clause (for whatever that's worth). It's a real pain and I typically have very little bargaining power.

Maybe if the world wasn't full of people who simply don't care we could effect some change here.
If the reviews were reset, there wouldn’t be 180k+ reviews sitting there right now...
I think it's becoming crystal clear Americans live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.
This isn't just about margin, absolutely, this is about all sorts of order flow agreements, credit lines and clearing agreements that break down when your entire customer base has decided they all want to go long the same incredibly volatile stock at the same time.

>"If you wanna buy GME you gotta have the cash in your account to cover it".

That's great, but that isn't the only relationship in this agreement, RH has agreements with its brokers about capital requirements. It's fairly likely that the attitude of "You need to have cash on hand for everything" basically means "You're done". That's the entire point of these risk management strategies - you are covered for what might reasonably happen so that you're making efficient use of capital.
C# delegates are a kind of COMEFROM, from a certain perspective, so it's not a universally bad idea. The problem is just that using it in conjunction with other kinds of control flow -- like the @Annotations + method calls approach we see in Java -- tends to obscure the control flow overall and make it a lot harder to follow the high-level behavior of your system.
It is such a pleasant surprise to read an internet article and, instead of thinking "well that made me angrier, which in effect made me stupider", I instead think to myself "that article made me a tiny bit better informed". It's like it's the mid 1990's again.
"Incorrect opinion, Citizen Unit 263-29-2942."
Do not speak without knowledge. A cursory glance at history will show it is not a unique phenomenon of one worldview.
CSS3 Typography Effects Demos
Global real interest rates and the ‘suprasecular’ decline, 1311–2018 (2020)
But when you buy a stock, like just straight up purchase it, the cash is already there, on-hand, in your account. There's no Robinhood putting up their own money because YOUR cold hard cash is there, in the RH account. That is used for the purchase. So why stop people from buying the stocks?

This answers my question, I think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25951475
Private company, they can do what they want. Or suddenly no?
Traditional banks have lots restrictions _when_ you want to withdraw cash. Try moving more than $10000 between borders of countries that are not friendly with eachother, and you'll find those restrictions. You can travel with a hundred million dollars of BTC in your head (or a hardware wallet) and meet up random people if you want to buy something with it.

As an example Michael Saylor could change aegentin peso to USD in an argentin bank ($1M), but the surprise came when he wanted to move it to US.
Curious what you ended up deciding on? Building something in-house? Another proprietary tool?
I think Robinhood was faced with either doing this and getting sued or losing a huge amount of revenue from Citadel, which paid them to front run their users.

Lesson: don’t have an evil business model because it will catch up to you.
Honest question: why does Google care here? They don't really have a stake in the GME situation, with no short or long positions (I'm assuming). They aren't that connected to Wall Street companies. Why protect Robinhood at all?
Saw margins accounts being closed with GME sold off @ 120. According to my chart, price dipped down to 110 which appears to coincide with the selloff, but, much of the day the bottom support was around 200, and a peak of around ~483 during the trading day.

Capital Obligations doesn't mean you get to toss fiduciary responsibilities, which it appears they did.
They're just ahead of the curve.
> Saying that there's wealth deficit for millennials/genx because boomers have accumulated more wealth later in life is a little handy-wavy.

That's not what the chart I linked is claiming. The Boomer
line goes back to when they were 35. Not sure what the data limitations were preventing it from going back further. Meanwhile all age data is shown for Gen X.

I'm not sure what you mean about the future chart? I guess we'll have to wait and see :-)

But anyway, this chart appears to answer the question: "which generation had more relative wealth in its early 30s?"
His point stands, way too many people are talking way beyond their experience

In this case, the missing knowledge is that Robinhood is just another middleman: they're subject to margin calls and denials of credit just like Robinhood passed to you. Robinhood's credit facility was exceeded by the growth this week, and their credit provider was uncomfortable with "their" (really, Robinhood's clients) exposure if Gamestop collapsed.
Posting an old bookmark from several years ago. Note for mobile users: The demos require hovering the big logo-looking images and may not work on mobile.
"Its a big club and you ain't in it" - George Carlin

Politicians + Government Lackeys, Media Hacks + Corrupt Wall Street + Think Tanks + 'not for profits'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
> Honestly, I don't even see the point of this machine.

You can hire unskilled workers or open up a second store and the Tamales will be predictable.
Exactly, stopping buying prevents people from (potentially) making money by buying the stock low, whereas stopping selling (potentially) prevents people from losing money on the stock they already own, from the platform which they bought it.

I can't imagine the backlash if the completely froze the stocks while the market kept going.
It might look like it from 100,000 foot view, however a bottom's up approach would show that there are millions, if not tens of millions, of people quite aware of Robinhood's shenanigans and are pissed off about it - enough to leave a review.
Exactly. I have a RH account with zero margin and was not able to even look at GME in the RH app (i.e. not even see a chart – didn't show up in the search results at all).

People who already owned shares were able to sell, but nothing else.
> they are not the NYSE

That's the point: they are not, so they shouldn't act like it.
A modern service whose whole concept is built on scale and somehow they couldn't handle the scale here. I don't buy it.
Yeah, sounds good to me. Maybe some AOC staffer will read this comment and put it in the next bill.
Because college in the United States, at least, is more about networking and moving out of your parents' home than actually attending classes.
Robinhood is only a clearing broker that works with executing brokers to complete transactions. Citadel is an example of an executing broker.

https://www.benzinga.com/fintech/18/10/12481341/why-and-how-...
You can't just turn on the TV?

It seems like all of those other steps allow you more flexibility to do a bunch of stuff you probably couldn't do as a kid, such as watch BBC from any country in the world, or watch something from the BBC that came on earlier, or to pause the BBC so you can get some chips from the pantry.

Every once in a while, Netflix will take like 15s to load. But before I cuss out my XBox One, I do try to remember that as a kid I was happy downloading one picture off a 300BPS modem in like 10 minutes from a BBS (which sometimes took 30 minutes to finally get into) back when I was kid.
It's not possible for an app publisher to delete reviews.

However, in the Google Play Console, as an app publisher you can flag comments as against the Google ToS, about 100 per day maximum and then the reviews go through moderation at Google.

Here, it's more like a bulk deletion was done (certainly manual action) and I doubt it's just one single moderator taking action to delete 100k+ reviews.
I'm confused why you're bringing up "blocking people from selling". Has that ever happened? It certainly isn't happening here.

Edit: I'm guessing it's because the above comment said "only BUYING". I think that was a distinction from blocking both buying AND selling. If you block only one, it forces the market.
Did anyone actually think that online ratings represent anything meaningful?

It's numbers in a database controlled by the seller who makes more money if the numbers are better. My insight that it's all fake came when I tried to purchase a baby carrier on Amazon and found a product with hundreds of 5 star reviews, but all the pictures were teenagers with their plush toys...
CNBC's interview with Chamath Palihapitiya on GameStop and Reddit-fueled surge
This would be a good NFP strategy until US gets universal healthcare

@hanklazard best me to it
HN has lost its mind. Everything is suddenly a conspiracy against the noble individual investor. Story after story voted up to the front page with minimal relevance.

I mean, just think: were there really 100k legitimate Robinhood accounts that were blocked from an HME buy to justify a bad review? No. This is spam. It's just spam. People are angry, and this is a tool. And it's treated by Google exactly the way any other review spam would be. There's no conspiracy here.
Just because a company can does what it wants doesn't mean there can't be vocal discourse denouncing that opinion
Basic question, but why are transistors not considered fundamental?
I'm gonna say it, then: it was pretty good tech. It worked similar to Turbolinks/Hotwire, you could make reusable components like React, it had much better benchmarks than interpreted languages at the time, and it worked very well with or without Javascript active on the browser. The WYSIWYG was nice but it would be alright without it.

What killed it was lack of community best practices. It NEEDED Custom Components and separation of concerns (using something like MVVM) for it to work well. But without a community around it (and with Microsoft's lack of interest), most people ended up writing spaghetti code.

MVC on the other hand had a large community around it developing best practices. MVC code could also be a clusterfuck if you wanted to: you could put all your logic in the view for example. The reason it didn't happen was because there was widespread education around the MVC paradigm. WebForms didn't have this.

Also it didn't integrate too well with jQuery, which was the new hotness. Today most people are smart enough not to use jQuery to mutate a DOM tree generated by a React component, but back then jQuery was the new kid on the block and people blamed the problems on WebForm, rather on the fact they were mixing two incompatible paradigms.
Not only do I agree, I called AOCs congressional number and the house financial services committee’s office to voice complaints regarding this behavior (I am not a Robinhood user, so I have no standing in that regard).

I recommend the public complain loudly to both Congress and regulators.
Is it? Or is trying to call it """bitcoin"" cash an attempt to confuse potential users?
Uniswap can only trade ERC-20 tokens, though.
Robinhood doesn’t buy and sell stocks, they just run an app. Downstream they have a relationship with Citadel, which does the actual trading. In theory it could have been Citadel that decided to stop allowing these trades, but Citadel has announced that they haven’t done that.
They disabled it altogether, cash and margin.
Shopventory.com Is Hiring a Senior Software Engineer (Python/Django/React/Postg)
I think one aspect getting overlooked is who lent the stock to the hedge funds? If most of GME is held by robinhood clients I am guessing it would be robinhood ? If the hedge fund goes belly up is robinhood on the hook for stoock they lent out?
Write it.

As an openbsd user, I will say that bluetooth is pretty far down the list of things I care about.
If you sort by `Newest` and `1-Star`, I am seeing pages (paginated) and pages of reviews. What am I missing?
Imagine a C compiler that produced sarcastically formatted assembly
Just to be clear here, they are restricting opening new positions. If you are short on GME, you are allowed to buy in order to close out your position. However, most people are long, so they only have the option to sell.
They could have simply let people take the risk and that's that. What happens when I buy stock and the price goes down and I lose? Does any platform really care? Nope. Why would they care now? I'd understand if it was only margin trading but why restrict a chance of (winning/losing) whenever they need to?

They always had a huge lever but it was not to be used so soon to help their friends. I now hope it becomes deserted. At least I closed my own account after this.
Oh no! Better not give it to anyone!
Money. These people are fixing to lose to much, they'll pay their way out any way they can while they still can.
or Mussolini style Italian Fascism. Corporatist economics and authoritarianism
> In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform.

On the contrary. In most cases, it is imperative that illegal speech remain on online platforms. It's bad enough that governments censor criticism, alternative viewpoints (including ones we may abhor), and leaked information using the police, the judicial and prison systems, and their close ties with large media companies.

> Disliked speech is not illegal speech

Not so. There exist all of:

* Well-liked, illegal speech

* Disliked illegal speech

* Well-liked, legal speech

* Disliked legal speech

It seems like you're assuming the law, everywhere, is just and fair and should be not just followed but upheld.

> our first amendment

Most people don't live in the US, you know. In fact, less than 5% of people do. Not that I would agree with you had I lived there, but online content is not a US-local affair.
There are over 5 million subscribers to /r/wallstreetbets as of right now. The majority of them joined this week. 2% of them voting on the app doesn't sound like bot spam to me.
Yeah true.

My point is more that I find it a bit sad that 'just buying bitcoin' rather than doing work paid better than basically any work anyone has done since 2012, even building insanely successful startups.
WSB users can just self host their own review platform in Russia if they care so much.
Modern surveillance capitalism is far beyond the wildest fever dreams of 90s shortwave radio conspiracy nuts.
How exactly does halting buying on not margin decrease their exposure?
Some of the worst offenders in this area were the preinstalled
apps on Windows 8. Their official OneDrive app had I think 1-2
options to toggle and didn't even show how much of the cloud
storage was used/free. It was basically a picture viewer but
without properly working right click.

And in terms of performance I fear slow, ad-filled websites
slowly trained users to accept bad performance in applications
outside the browser as well. At least I don't know how to
otherwise explain the widespread indifference toward those
things, often even among developers.
> Well, that's absolutely false, actually, Zack. There is no way that a customer would not be able to sell a position they hold. We are simply stopping opening of new positions.

This is a problematic statement. Because to sell your position there has to be buyers, and the only buyers who were allowed at the table suddenly were those who wanted to pay significantly less then the stock had recently been trading at.
The anger is justified.
Quick note, settlement risk is indeed serious and I've covered it somewhere else.

Side note, I am against the Tobin Tax. I think public markets are more important than most folks believe.

I do believe that frequent trading is a good thing, as is retail participation in markets. One of the amplifiers of income inequality, I suspect, in the past few decades has been the fact that high-growth companies that normally would have gone public sooner have stayed private for longer, denying participation from the public market.

For example, a well chosen index of Dot Com stocks that included Amazon, Google, E-Bay etc. picked in 1998 would have, provided there was continuous investment and a long-hold, injected a large amount of capital back into the public and retirement systems, which would have helped lift all boats so to speak.

AMZN was originally at around $4/share (adjusted for splits, provided this data source is correct, https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-... ), if you had bought 1k stocks of the company in pre-2000, and held until now. Your originally $4k position would be worth 3.2M.

That's quite crazy. And it's retirement money for a lot of people.

Amazon's growth has occurred in the public, giving retail investors the ability to tap into the formation of new wealth. SpaceX's, AirBNB's, DropBox's etc hasn't. They're playthings of the well heeled. Not the gumshoes.

We need to re-orient public markets in such a way that everyone gets to participate in wealth creation. Not restrict it even further.
> By this logic though, if you're already in a short squeeze, then the retail buyers (the ones who are doing the squeeze) not buying any more should not cause the price to drop: the person getting squoze (did I use that word right?) will have to buy whether or not Robinhood traders are. The price would still be shooting up. In a short squeeze all that WSB had to do was hold.

Obviously the blocking of buys will have an effect on the price and availability of the stock. Not that it provides any reasonable justification for RH either way.

> If your "short squeeze" is dependent on people buying more in order to create a short squeeze, then you are just coordinating to create a short squeeze, not dealing with a "natural occurring" one.

Even if you want to buy the stock because you know there is a short squeeze ongoing, that is not illegal. That is just analysing the market conditions and seeing the obvious.