skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That was my experience with Java. I knew C++ and I was able to start coding on Java almost immediately, for me Java was semantic subset of C++. Of course I had some books and checked out things here and there and, of course, Eclipse was of tremendous help to me, but I never did Java learning as a specific activity.

That was Java 5, though. And frameworks is a different story either, I spent lots of time trying to figure out what J2EE is.
It's a vast smörgåsbord. Choose the things you like and avoid those you don't. And if you're feeling adventurous or are simply curious, perhaps try a dollop of the odd or unfamiliar. You are perfectly at liberty to accept or reject the advice of others about your choices, as are they of your mutterings on the subject. Everyone ends up with a different selection of delectables and, most importantly, everyone eats...
> She talks the talk, but I haven't seen much walking the walk

That's not skepticism. You've already made up your mind.
I don’t have any ideological opponents... I’m pretty happy to be convinced either way on most issues. But colour me unconvinced on this one.

They aren’t banning you from speaking, just stopping you from doing it in their house, you can continue your message everywhere else.

This meta discussion about the actual point feels awkward. Is the alternative you are suggesting that you have to accept whatever anyone says always? Is it more nuanced than that?
Also the claim that the choice between Turing-complete languages comes down to "who your CTO plays squash with" is nonsensical.

I'm sorry, but I don't care if the vendor is keeping the CTO supplied with hookers and drugs 24/7, I'm still not writing our next product in BrainFuck.
I wonder why there are no tables in places there could be one - like in the list of metal expansion coefficients or gravitational acceleration by location.
NTS-1 – Programmable Synthesizer Kit
Where are all the HFTs looking to take a rake for "creating market liquidity"

Sure looks like a rigged game to me.
It’s not meant for day trading; it’s meant for investing.
Also very interesting this NAVY manual on mechanical computers:

https://archive.org/details/mechanical-computer-technical-ma...

There is an old book on building analog computers at home, but I can't remember the title.
If I'm always invested why aren't I living under a bridge because Pier 1 Imports went bankrupt in 2020?

Also, I'm concerned that the earth could get hit with a rogue planet.
"Although some short squeezes may occur naturally in the market, a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal" - SEC site. See link in my reply to the other comment.
> a short squeeze is illegal

No it's not
No, but the retail buyers getting in their way were
Casinos are OK. Gambling is a special tax applied to people with bad understanding of the probability theory.
"The government has been unwilling to use existing powers against powerful corporations, maybe if we give them new and more expansive powers that'll do the trick. There's no possible way that these new powers will be turned against the powerless, right?"
He lied. They’re forcing retail investors to sell their positions.
GME is $261 at close today. If you bought at peak and sold at close, you'd have a 40% loss at worst.

Moreover, this narrative that people are betting with mortgages and retirements is simply unfounded - most people are in on call contacts or with their "stupid bet" funds, or a few thousand at most. Please remember with WSB, and other 4chan-diaspora communities, to seperate the memes from reality.
All made possible by shrinking technology available in 1978.
But it’s more like a country club than a town square. And 100% country clubs kick you out when you say things they don’t like.
> Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary.

That is fine for creating applications. It still required drivers and other things that expose syscalls to be open and GPLed.

> Even if Linux were permissively licensed,

The tainted kernel was the attack on the GPL itself i talked about. After tainted kernel, it is pretty much NOT-GPL, hence the devs gave in to a more permissive license while still calling it GPL. So the rest of the point is moot. Linux kernel DID adopt a permissive license, which is the reason we do not have proper open source android today.

> But given the more or less total lack of adoption

chicken and egg problem. But that is *exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.
Today I learned that Lenovo touchpads have a mechanical click mechanism. After ~2 years.
They claimed they have exited "a" short position. We don't know how many short positions they will have besides that one.
"Somebody ought to take society by the four corners of the sheet and toss it all into the air! Everything would be broken, most likely, but at least nobody would have anything, there'd be that much gained!" -- Thénardier, Les Misérables, Marius, Book 8
Show HN: Analyzing over 650k GradCafe grad admissions entries
Short squeezes are not illegal, stop spreading misinformation.
Well real world gold is also limited. The California mountains used to be rich with huge veins of gold and now while you can still find some in these places it is very rare compared to the 1800's.
> Because the fact of the matter is, you're going to have retail investors who are now kind of on the hook, who might want to dump some of these shares, who are stuck. And it seemingly looks like some of these moves have now triggered the bubble bursting. So what do you say to that?

It looked more like,
what happened was you had retail investors that couldn't buy securities, but Robinhood was allowing them to sell them to make them available to customers in order to clear leveraged short positions.
> Apologies if this is too tangential, but does anyone know where I can find a good explanation of why patent "trolling" is seen as worse than any other kind of IP enforcement?

- IP enforcement

I invent a new drug. I spent a lot of money to develop it, so I want to be able to exclusively sell it to recoup my investment. If someone reverse-engineers my drug and tries to undercut me before the patent expires, I enforce my IP.

- IP trolling

I invent nothing, I manufacture nothing. Instead, I have legal expertise and I plan to make money 100% through the legal system. So, I buy tons of IP from companies and individuals willing to sell them - the more generic, the better. I then troll around looking for companies that make products that might fit some of the patents I just bought. I legally shake down the companies for violating my patents and settle for a fat sum before resuming trolling for more victims.
Xbox Series S/X Scalping Market Analysis
Ok, since it's a fallacy, I have some mountain trails I'd like you to walk today. They are icy, but since it's a fallacy, I doubt you'll fall to your death.
Unless there's some transparency and investigation of the matter, it's harder to believe than it is for them to say it.
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm. Control plus F "short squeeze". Intentional short squeezes like what is happening in GME is illegal.
You’re misunderstanding what a short squeeze means. There’s no singular “the squeeze” - no specific point in time where everyone who holds a short position has to simultaneously obtain the underlying stock. If everyone who wants out of their short position has gotten out, there’s no guarantee that any further squeeze will be forthcoming.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3655841-why-brokers-shut-down-... is likely an honest explanation and isn't nefarious. The system may have issues, but Robinhood just wants to stay in business.
This was a better worded answer to the question I posted in a sub comment:

If I'm understanding (i might not be) this is why it feels like fraud/not following fiduciary responsibility to their clearing partners.

--

Does citadel clear their own trades?
I could be off here, but what I'm asking is getting at like if they are on all the sides of the transaction as market maker, participating or allow others to participate in 'betting', and clearing the trades themselves? Does a trade even need to clear if it's just moving internally changing col A owner ID from 1234 to 9999?
I am aware-ish of that and (edit, forgot the "and") Graeber's book but haven't read either.

The Geiger counter randomized debt jubilee is a bit of a play on the scheduling problem.

I do agree debt jubilees only make sense as a emergency post-hoc fix. If you think about it, UBI + good confiscatory taxes at the margins is basically a nice smoothed amortized debt jubilee. That's much better.
https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

> Rigging quotes, prices, or trades to make it look like there is more or less demand for a security than is the case.

By restricting only buying, they effectively rigged the prices to make it look like there's less demand than is the case.
Pentagon: Amazon court win, Trump deposition could doom $10B war cloud
I am all for the free market, but when companies grow too dominant it no longer works, and we should not pretend otherwise. Just look at what happened to Parler.
At this point I would expect RH to let you buy, but not sell, RH's own IPO stock hah.
What are you basing these statements on? Are you a legal expert in FINRA?

Legally this is nothing at all like not serving a specific brand of alcohol at the local bar.

IANAL, and I’ve only dipped my toe into studying FINRA while doing research on decentralized exchanges, but as I understand it, FINRA regulations impose a lot of requirements on brokers, particularly around fair dealing and around preventing market manipulation.
But if they are doing their own clearing, then they are taking the risk directly, which other clearing houses seem to think is significant. Robinhood isn’t obligated to put itself at risk of bankruptcy so people can make free trades.
yes theY are [still getting super long sentences]

three strikes laws still exist, it is still possible to push possession into felony territory. if there's a gun anywhere near the arrest you can probably tack on firearms charges, etc.

if you're reasonably white and middle class those extras will be ignored for a lighter sentence. if you're black or for whatever other reason they just don't like you then they'll tack those extras on and three strikes you.

there is a lot of "prosecutorial discretion" still, and if you dig into it hard enough that's a code word for racially biased prosecution. the fact that they we reasonable with you or your college buddies who got busted with some MDMA or something is not the same experience that lower income black people get.
It is. Halting trades always produces winners/losers.

Retail investors are RH's biggest customers. They're diminishing their risk of suits they'd likely lose/regulatory scrutiny by halting buys. The SEC will more likely hit you for allowing pumps rather than preventing them.
This is the approach I want to take as well - but I give up so many times because I can’t track down a method of communicating with that person. I looked a while ago and I couldn’t find a way to send a message to a user on GitHub. Any recommendations on effective ways of reaching out to project owners?
Didn’t IBKR do the same, among others?
This should help kickstart a new decentralization movement.
> phones are typically seen as more secure

Like most popular ideas in technology this is absolutely ridiculous and I actually laughed out loud when I read it. Most consumer phones (especially outside the US) ship with malware installed. Often worse than consumer PCs especially since even someone with little skill can install completely free OSes.

Also: Almost every popular OS has FDE as an option (often the default one) which was the main feature (other than sand boxing, which browsers do well enough) that supposedly made phones secure.
There is a case because of the reasons behind it. Say an auction house auctions off a picture. But right during the auction they announce, point to their TOS, that out of all the present bidders, only 1 person is allowed to bid. This one person then buys the picture at a fraction of the price that would have been expected if all people were allowed to bid.

On top of that it turns out that the one person bidding is part of a museum that has a significant stake in the auction house.

Of course comparisons like that break quickly. But it is very obvious that market-makers (or other players behind the scenes) were extremly worried about the coming squeeze and did that to stop the stock from going higher.
This is true. But if you read Reddit and Twitter this week, everyone is making the case to buy and hold to put pressure on short positions. This is an illegal short squeeze.
Sounds exactly like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
4e52b18e4a75abae#.YBM6ju2ZguM.Hacker News
There's Citadel the market maker and Citadel the hedge fund.
Thank you.

What if I want to host my own instance? Can I communicate with people who are signed up at element.io?
So if a new investor puts a stop loss order in at a 60% loss, brokers let them exit their position and then didn’t let them back in?

This seems unconscionable given the >300 point volatility today and the large number of brand new investors.

It’s hard to imagine how these actions didn’t benefit wallstreet at the expense of regular people.
Broker on why brokers shut down Reddit/WSB trading in GameStop, AMC and others
In Dark, we label (either manually for stdlib, or automatically for other functions) whether they are pure or not. Pure functions (most of them) do not need their results stored in traces (Dark has an always-on-debugger that uses "traces" saved from real inputs). Making a (mostly) pure functional language enables so much!
> No, you specifically said it's a first amendment problem and to let adults gamble. If it was a first amendment problem, gambling wouldn't be illegal in most states.

Maybe you need explicit help to understand my position. If hedge funds can short/long stocks, there should be nothing preventing a retail investor from doing the same.

As for it being speech, well, corporations are people and PAC/SuperPAC political donations (read: blackbox donations) are speech. These are current USA facts.

From there, I extrapolate that it would be unfair to regulate Main Street instead of Wall Street. This wouldn't be such a massive problem if Wall Street wasn't allowed so much leverage (and short 140% of the company shares...how is that even legal. That's literally fraud). I can't sell you 100% of my property and then sell 40% to someone else.

It's that simple, stop obstructing discourse.
It's all red :( No support anywhere but Firefox. In fact, I will now use this URL as my main argument in support of firefox!

even the grand-parent, javascript infused solutions, only two out of 20 support this extremely basic and obvious use case.

Web UI standards are a joke. Everyone involved only cares about rich ads and accordions/carrousels which are lame ways to shove lots of content in a badly designed space.
Python Package Managers
The SPAC would have to convince Coinbase that it's in their interests to go public via reverse merger rather than direct listing. This seems pretty unlikely, given that they've already filed their S-1, announced the direct listing, and presumably have done all the paperwork related to being a public company.

There's a bit of an adverse-selection problem with SPACs: not only do they need to find an undervalued asset that the public markets will value for more than the acquisition price, they need to convince that asset that the SPAC adds value and can take them public easier than doing the process themselves would. Big tech companies like Coinbase, AirBnB, and Roblox have plenty of money to hire the lawyers, accountants, and investment bankers that going public themselves requires.
Would be cool to see this in bar graph form, broken down by day.
Ironkey are a bit different in that they were actually designed by hackers to be tamper-proof. The bar is a bit higher on that one. Alex Stamos jokingly offered to crack it for a percentage. AFAIK nobody has actually broken those yet.
The article above written by renowned financial journalist... Tyler Durden?
> Stocktwits and few other websites do some good work in signal boosting, up and coming stocks

PLEASE people, look at what you are doing. If you want to "boost" a "signal" to get people to make trades the way you want them to, you are presumptively engaged in market manipulation. Stop this madness.

I know it's popular to think that big evil hedge funds do these tricks too, and imagine yourself as a hero. But that's not really the way they work[1]. And it's not right when they do it, and it's not right here either. Yes, people go to jail for stuff like this.

I'll take my downvotes now. But this really is just mass hysteria in our community right now.

[1] And to the extent it is, they tend to have much better opsec and don't post the logs of their criminal conspiracies on open internet forums.
> Although some short squeezes may occur naturally in the market, a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal.

It says market manipulation is illegal. It is not particularly clear whether a message board getting excited about a short squeeze does not count as something that "may occur naturally".
Sooner would have been more timely for sure. Now it feels like they release it when the endgame in reality has already begun. (Possibly barring a few Genetic Reshuffle upgrades)
I think the original has a lot of untapped potential, but I enjoyed playing a sim on this topic with a fair bit of ambition for realism on some dimensions (even though they completely threw it out the window on some others).
Can you explain why buying GME was more costly for them? I don't undestand that.
Exactly. So the risk department told them to shut down trading till things were saner.
Yes it is very similar in that you seem to have no idea what you are saying about either issue
There will be investigation undoubtedly. So who's got more skin in the game?

Is it Robinhood with an official press release stating their decision didn't come from their market-maker, Citadel, and if this isn't true would face repercussions in court?

Or is it Justin, who like the rest of twitter-verse, if wrong, faces zero repercussions?
Do you have an example of a broker halting purchases, but not sales, for customers who have the cash?
Sounds about right haha.
This sounds so frustrating and fascinating at the same time. Is there anywhere I can learn more about the kinds of problems you faced?
The Ancient Tree Inventory: results of a 15 year citizen science project
Yelling at the top of your lungs that cosplayers are a real danger to the biggest superpower on the planet makes you either dishonest or insane.

Either of those precludes a good faith argument.
I agree, its an open problem. One one hand no one elected these companies as arbiters of what is good but on the other society at large is not equipped to handle the tsunami of speech that the internet enabled. Something has to be done.
What happens if P1 and B1 2019-NCov hybridize?
I can't be the only one thinking that a year on, epidemiologically, this virus has progressed more than expected and is quickly approaching the emergence of a strain that has little or no immunological match with antibodies from previous infections. I worried about that potential in early January 2020 when the pandemic first began and attempted to warn authority figures we may need a strategic plan for more drastic measures, but i imagined we would have at least a few more years.

Mask and PPE suppliers are still in a massive shortage, also, even with extra production lines up and max capacity reached.

What do you think we will do? what do you think will actually happen?
What does DTCC collateral requirements have to do with retail investors trying to buy shares in a cash account?

Stopping margin trading, absolutely. Stopping short selling, of course. But we’re not talking about either of those things. We’re talking about cash-funded limit Buy orders on a duly listed publicly traded stock.
> Suspend / resume No The firmware does not support ACPI S3 suspend.

Lol at the state of hardware.
To my knowledge, RH sells its users' order flow to Citadel (which is how they make money).
It's unclear to me whether you are referring to the specific handle deployment or electronic components in general. If the former, I agree that it seems like a dumb feature but if people want to pay for it, so be it. However if you are talking about electronic systems in general, they are not overengineering for the convenience of the manufacturer nor wow factor. Components like solid state relays are chosen because they are safer and simpler than their mechanical counterparts - the fact that you can do more with them and they are cheaper is just further evidence of their overall superiority for most applications.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the vast majority of situations you don't want random people to be able to easily open up your doors from outside. What failed here was not the door handle - which operated exactly as it should under normal circumstances, but the emergency override that should unlock the car when the airbags deploy. However, it's completely reasonable for some systems to fail when you crash at extremely high speeds - you can't make things indestructible. I see no evidence that a mechanical failsafe would have performed better.
Ok, I know very little about the actual stock market, just some theory.

But what I heard so far was, that the fond was for high risk investment.

"Some people are absolutely going to lose their homes / retirement savings at the end of all this."

So people who will indeed loose their homes, would have lost with high risk investment. Which would be sad for them, but high risk is called high risk for a reason.

If you want to play safe, there are low risk options.

So I don't see need for regulation because of this. For other reasons, yeah, but not that one, unless I am missing something?
> If the price gapped from 300 to 5000 and those options were exercised, that trader could have a loss of $10,000,000. He would lose the value of his account, $200,000… but the brokerage would have to make up the rest of the settlement and take a loss of $9,800,000.

What if the price of a stock went from $300 to $5000 for legitimate reasons, perhaps due to some technological breakthrough. The exact same situation would happen. Would shutting down trading also be justified?
Exchanges have very clearly defined rules for when they will halt trading. With clearly defined rules, you always know why a stock was halted, and when it will resume.

Robinhood has no set rules, and it was impossible to predict when or if they'd halt purchasing shares. It was also not possible for Robinhood traders to know when trading of the stock would resume.

Also; Robinhood didn't halt the trading of GME, AAL, AMC, BB, and others. They just halted the purchasing of new shares. Robinhood tried limiting who could buy shares of those stocks to only the hedge funds. That would drive the stock price down, thus manipulating the stock price in the favor of Citadel / Melvin and their short positions.
I hold no positions related to the questions at hand. You however have gone from a random blogger who speaks largely about tech & politics and now is quite invested in defending a very crooked appearing move, all while making claims you can't support.