skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here's the kicker: none of this is dead code. Vendor libraries alone take 28MB.

Apparently one of the second order effects of rolling your own components is having enormous bundles because there's no incentive to minimize them.

3rd party libraries on the other hand usually go out of their way to be as small as possible.

I'm doing my best not to be sarcastic about this.

EDIT: we treeshake the bejesus out of it, but it's possible that there's some code duplication going on, because the build pipeline is, ahem, custom made.
This theory quickly breaks down when the same applies to B2B SaaS as it does to ad driven businesses.
> Why would they care now?

Because they need to post collateral for every trade that they execute but which hasn't yet settled, and they don't have enough collateral to sustain the concentrated trading volumes they've been processing.
In essence it was not a show, but it turned out to be. Roscomnadzor (same as FCC in US) was desperately trying to block Telegram by KGB (FSB) resolution, because Telegram did not obey to their orders to provide keys and it turned out into complete farce. During this endeavor as a side effect they blocked almost any service that was using AWS and/or other cloud services, a lot many companies in Russia had been suffering from IT ifrastructure disruption including government institutions, yet Telegrams was up and running. And the most fannies thing was that almost all middle rank officials continued to use Telegram for their daily work and leasure. In the end Roscomnadzor "silently" quit their attempts. It was so humorous to follow the event. That was the first time in the modern history of Russia when govt completely failed while acting against their citizens. After that, Durov turned into real "rock star" here. :)
I doubt it. Robinhood is now citing misinformation as the reason to "protect its users". Misinformation and disinformation are really the weapons of mass destruction. Cite it, and you get your superpower. Twitter does it. FB does it. Media, oh media loves it. So, what's wrong with Robinhood again?
Proof to me is more than Justin Kan tweeting out he heard that Citadel and Robinhood are working together ...
Or, just possibly, a hundred thousand one star reviews in one day trigger some sort of automated spam system and not everything is the work of shadowy big financial institutes?
WSB has over 5 million subscribers right now (up 1 million from yesterday alone) and some threads get over 100,000 comments on a single thread. I don't find it hard to believe that a 100k Android users got angry enough with Robinhood to leave a negative review.
I misunderstood your initial statement. I interpreted it to mean there would be no buyers, anywhere.

Regarding you theory, I don’t know if it’s blatant but I agree it’s suspect.
I am a real user of the app and I can confirm my review was reviewed without my consent.
If anyone predicted Trump becoming president 10 years ago, they would've been labelled a lunatic.

Reality is stranger than the fiction we all live within, because fiction has the constraints of being something we can comprehend and live with. It has to be redeeming and hopeful, reality doesn't.
agreed, at least jack-booted thugs are visible to those they oppress
and if you are making a gradient with more than two stops, (which is super common) then piecewise linear will give obvious artifacts where the slope changes; much better to use some smooth curve such as Catmull-Rom curves to avoid abrupt changes of slope at the intermediate stops
You may think reviews are calculated as:

SELECT app, AVG(stars) AS display_stars FROM customer_reviews GROUP BY app;

It’s actually an ML algorithm that optimizes for revenue.
They'll just play themselves into regulation eventually. Once FTC comes after them the only people to blame for it are themselves.
Why do people keep needing proof that big money runs everything.
Could you explain what the problem would be then? What exposure would Robinhood and their credit provider have to a situation where a stock collapses that is being held long and not on margin by their clients? The client would definitely no longer be able to do a sell order that will get them any money, but what difference does that make to Robinhood?
Yikes, that typo turned dark quickly. heroine -> heroin
And it just got a lot more democratic.
> They aren't that connected to Wall Street companies.

Lol. Sure they aren't.
Optimistic.
There is some kind of revolution coming. The big catalysts are things like censorship on social media and wall st changing the rules on the retail investors.

But actions like these only mount the problems. Why on earth would google remove these reviews? What Robinhood has done this week is an extremely reviewable act.
The owners have shown up:

https://intercoin.org/nothingisfree
> capitalise on Melvin's greedy position

Oh please. As if whoever has their thumb on the social media scale isn't greedy. Greed runs the street in longs and shorts. You can invest modestly by diversifying and avoid all that.
If nature of the project is simple then you can easily get away by just using StimulusJS.

I really liked the simplicity of AngularJS v1.2 & StimulusJS has some of it's simplicity.

I dont know why using plain old html has become a frowned upon!! Or at least that what I've felt in my tech bubble.
Well, at least there is a cancellation page. Seems like the exception on the web.
Me neither. This month is crazy with very visible examples of blatant, unethical overreach of prominent companies. This thing absolutely adds up in people's consciousness. Sure, it decays over time, but right now, it adds up faster.
R. Stallman did talk about all of that.
> were there really 100k legitimate Robinhood accounts that were blocked from an HME buy to justify a bad review?

According to Motherboard, the majority of RH accounts hold GME.

There's also over 5 million subscribers to /r/wallstreetbets as we speak (most of them from this week). What percentage of those do you think would be "eligible" (according to your own criteria) to leave a legitimate review?
Legit reviews and bot spam both sound like plausible explanations. I'm sure Google has the server logs to figure that out with reasonable certainty, but unfortunately we don't.
Private speech is necessarily something that the government cannot monitor. When choosing between ubiquitous surveillance and "illegal speech going unpunished," opposing the former is more important than preventing the latter.
Yeah, really. Can anyone point to counter-examples?
A honest review is not spam.
Do we know if the fine that they would get is smaller or larger than the amount they stand to save by lying?
Someone somewhere has to still be able to buy if RH is still allowing people to sell. It's just not the people on RH.
You don’t need a GME position to think less of Robinhood after today
Just like Tether!
If anyone thought that big tech wouldn't do this 10 years ago they were naive.

Big is they key word. Big everything does the same thing. Which is why we need to not let anything get big.
What do you plan to do about the options folks are holding?

When you buy a call option from a market maker, they buy shares to cover the delta. When the delta changes, they need to adjust their shares to avoid exposure. Certainly a large part of the price action here is a gamma squeeze, where WSB folks buy tons of OTM calls, which Citadel buys shares to cover, which pushes the price up, which in turn requires them to buy more.

Should they no longer be able to buy or sell options to ensure the solvency of their sellers?

I mean, it's totally reasonable to tell them they shouldn't have taken on that level of risk haha.
And you'd be right.
"low-delay", "WebRTC" ... choose one.

I really don't get why everything needs to be in a web browser nowadays. WebRTC is simply the wrong choice for low-delay audio streaming. Audinate's DANTE protocol has been around for 14 years, is affordable, hardware-accelerated, and has practically no avoidable latency when sending audio over the network.

Why add 20+ms of latency just to use WebRTC?
Kind of like making products out of crappier constituent parts seems really unimportant compared to the cost savings.

Does it make sense on the short term balance sheet? Of course. But, to quote Christmas vacation:

"Sometimes things look good on paper, but lose their luster when you see how it affects real folks. I guess a healthy bottom line doesn't mean much if to get it, you have to hurt the ones you depend on. It's people that make the difference. Little people like you."
You're being downvoted, but you're not really wrong. It might present differently, but the reality is that the government and large, powerful corporations are separate entities more or less in name only.

If the interests of a large corporation serves the interest of the people in the government, they'll move every lever of government they can to support the corporation, and vice versa. That's basically exactly what the fascism you describe intended and attempted.
M5M? https://m5mfoundation.org/? Do you mean "main stream media"? If so, no, I don't tend to pay attention to QAnon, OAN, InfoWars, or whatever those who use "main stream media" as a slur watch. Prefer the Beeb, actually.

I still can't find any actual evidence of "violent murdering thugs" "looting entire cities".
They don't like their platform being manipulated by organized downvoting. Not rocket science.
This reminds me of the "review bombing" debacles that have plagued Steam over recent years. Valve implemented a system to detect these patterns and discard the ratings. Valve had no particular stake in the games being "bombed", but they do have a stake in the trust people have in their platform. People want to know if a game is truly good or bad and not have to wonder if it was the victim of some kind of vendetta.

At the time no one strongly protested the move by Valve, but in the context of this situation with Google, Robinhood, and WSB it seems to have hit a particular nerve.
You think Google, the 5th largest company in the world (by mkt cap), has no skin in the game when it comes maintaining the finance industry status quo?
Cheers. I started in the baseless conspiracy camp and learned a lot today about how all of this works. I would recommend others do the same.

Spoiler: it’s pretty boring, and there are countless opportunities to misunderstand the relationships between all of the entities involved. What happened today made sense. It sucked, but it made sense.
Dozens of lawsuits filed already against Robinhood

Liability exists if a brokerage allows trades by some clients but not others, especially if the one being denied needs access to the market . .

Smart attorneys will DUMP MASSIVE DISCOVERY on Robinhood . . .
Facebook shuts popular group Robinhood Stock Traders amid GameStop frenzy
Do retail investors really have a choice at this point? When I opened my Schwab account there were fees for each trade, but now it's free like most (all?) others. The only broker I know of that doesn't sell order flow is Interactive Brokers, and they restricted $GSE anyway (to "protect themselves").
Cutting the barriers to entry to starting up a tech business definitely seems like an advantage. Just requiring the cash for a corporate lease probably pushes a lot of startups to VC capitol.
WolframAlpha tends to be pretty good at looking up this kind of stuff.
That's an excellent point
I get RH might be paying money to cleanup play store reviews, but how much is enough to justify the negative PR ?

There is another angle though - may be RH or some higher power is threatening to sue Google if they didn't help cleanup based on their own terms, which might have clause of active sabotage - I am sure they claim this is one such event.
Jan 28 2020 (14:05): 196,808 reviews (2.x star rating)
https://web.archive.org/web/20210128140536/https://play.goog...

Now: 180,500 reviews (4 star rating)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.robinhood....

It seems like they just deleted all of today's ratings.
Especially Google Play ratings - they're not at all meaningful.
The house always wins in the long run.
It's the same if you talk about it today.
I don't think this is about the specific news or Robinhood's specific actions. More likely Google have a policy (or a habit) of removing reviews that don't look "organic", or reviews that seem driven by news or agenda. App developers will more be more likely to publish on your platform if their reviews are less likely to be unfairly mobbed or something.

Just guessing, obviously, and I'm not sure how the contours of such a policy would work. Clearly organic bad reviews will often be correlated with each other, and with negative news.
I wonder which one RH cares more about...

- their legal fiduciary duty

- or shareholder value

My guess is like most US companies, revenue generation and shareholder value is their main concern.

Disagree? There are thousands of similar examples:

- Deustche, Chase, HSBC, etc

- housing / mortgage crisis.

- Enron, VW, Purdue Pharma, Tyco, etc.

- Every annual big pharma qui tam lawsuit.
Google doesn't want fake reviews on the play store. Its as simple as that. Google is removing these probably because they look like fake reviews, and don't care enough to spend time and resources investigating it.
Better for the retail investors? No.

For the retail investors, if a broker didn’t foresee systematic risks and cannot clear, the better thing can happen is the broker own up to mistakes and go bankrupt.

Bankruptcy is legal and investors understand such risks.
> it's deplatforming, using AWS as a weapon against smaller voices. I can't see this ending well.

This, so much - imagine you believe "they" stole the election, "they" got your favorite social media shut down (parler/gab/whatever), "they" blocked the buying of options, "they" then liquidated your position as the price predictably fail and you got margin called, you complained but "they" got your feedback deleted. Ouch.

I can't see this ending well at all. The executive will have to be extremely careful with what they will enact. The climate was already tense, but this is making it explosive.

I'd be extremely careful for all my 2021 forecast.
Well there's the rub, we do need proof and that takes investigation. It's obvious what's going on but we will need to wait for whoever is conning this to leave a trail. It's just a matter of time.
How is that spam? I find the information that the app developer suddenly crippled the service promised during installation to be very useful.
I'll add to this really good post that additionally you may wish to approach this from a 'meta' discussion, less about a particular topic and more about the methods used to evaluate an argument or a presentation of evidence. Perhaps you can agree on methods for assessing evidence as a starting point, and then jointly apply them to a particular issue, once the collaborative atmosphere has been established. FWIW I've had more luck doing this in email rather than in a text client or on twitter. The communication medium has to allow for a longer-form discussion, both to establish common ground, with minimized emotion, and to enable the nuance to be worked through.
The sarcasm is real: the web has gotten out of control by a series of overly bloated framework designs that have resulted in a domino effect that has made the web slower, less user friendly, and buggier.
The wheel on the failed car looks totally different and awful. It’s huge and boxy.

Tesla’s looks more like the steering wheel on a f1 car.

I can’t see why one company designing an awful steering wheel means another can’t design a better one.
Congress calls on DOJ to investigate Robinhood and Citadel
Manipulated?

I just gave a 1-star review on the iOS app store and am currently pulling all my money out of my RH account, because I don't like how RH is behaving.

People all thinking something is shit is not manipulation, its just collective agreement.
The price dropped because there was no buying pressure (speculation of players shorting the stock at the top aside). Disabling the ability to buy in several brokerages removes the price discovery aspect of the system.
But... but... I thought he was a misogynistic pervert who needs to be expunged from the face of the earth.
My android box running pirated streaming and torrent services (or even IPTV occasionally when I want to watch “TV”) seems to work 100x better than your proprietary tech. Plus it runs Prime and Netflix just fine...

My $50 Chromecast is still the best thing around for watching movies or streams off my computer. Kodi works but it takes set up times which I don’t like investing.

Sounds like you either just have low end tech or bad gov run software services.

And I’m not running anything fancy just your typical Android SoC with a decent remote with a keyboard on the back, which I bought for <$100 max off Amazon.
Things are slowly shifting and decentralizing with gab, parler(when they return). Now maybe new startups in the Robinhood space.
Something similar happened after Four Seasons Total Landscaping hosted an impromptu Trump press conference. Within hours there were thousands of 1-star reviews on their Google business page, and then a day or so later all of the recent reviews were gone and they were back to a few dozen old ones.

This case is different since Robinhood did something that materially affects its users. And I guess a lot of these reviews must be legitimate? But I wonder if there's some switch that flips if a huge influx of reviews starts pouring in.
Ha. It'd certainly be amusing to watch someone try though!
Still Lost. Why?
If they are lending you money (which is what margin is), then it's perfectly legal.

You don't have a right to be lent money by anyone.
I'm not an expert, but based on this link[0] from another comment section, a similar firm's CEO is saying the their clearing firm stopped the trades due to the costs

> Our clearing firm gave us a call and said we're going to have to stop allowing new opening positions...
> there is a two-day settlement between if you buy the stock today, those brokerage firms that you bought that stock on have to fund that trade with the clearing central house called DTC for two whole days...
> our clearing firm simply cannot afford the cost to settle those trades. We cannot use customer funds to front that cost due to regulation.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
I think you're right but I also think the recent Parler/Q stuff is relatively small fry. It was bad already, twitter finally getting the bottle to ban someone who'd been clearly violating their rules for half a decade is pretty minor.
Just imagine the labor pool if hiring from your country by a US corporation was trivial.

I guess the existing rent-seekers wouldn't like it however.
>I mean, just think: were there really 100k legitimate Robinhood accounts that were blocked from an HME buy to justify a bad review?

With out a doubt. Robinhood has 13 million users according to their own filing with the SEC. WallStreetBets has 5 million subscribers. An overlap of 100k between those two groups sure seems likely to me.
Unsure.

What I do know is that Google doesn't remove reviews for just anyone. They don't remove Play Store reviews and they do not remove Google Local reviews. Even if an app or a company is birdgaded due to bad news that is someone's opinion.

Hopefully, Google can 1) Send out something explaining their action and 2) Provide regular folks the ability to have reviews removed.
What if we stopped building things out of infinite chains of middlemen?
Your #1: Your trust is irrelevant when discussing whether mnw21cam's list is complete, as your trust was not part of the criteria.

(That said, on trust "If I trusted them they would have been party to it in the first place!" doesn't make sense. There's a huge difference between wanting to share all your content with a group of people all the time, versus trusting those people to make a collective decision to release your documents, for example when they agree that you have died. People are seriously examining this sort of mechanism now because it's relevant to modern life. For example releasing your password and accounts store to family or trusted friends upon your death or incapacitation, using some kind of distributed dead man's switch that needs human judgement to confirm.)

The fact is, mnw21cam's statement that there are only two possible branches because of maths, depends on the assumption that keys "will be leaked" being inevitable.

A sibling commenter believes it is inevitable they will be leaked no matter how sophisticated an aggregation mechanism is used. That is a reasonable argument, though one I disagree with.

If you have a threat model strong enough to break the distributed consensus mechanism of things like Ethereum, then you have a threat model that invalidates branch 1 in mnw21cam's list as well as branch 2, so you cannot win: Under that model, you cannot have "secure legal communication that no-one can break" because your own device is vulnerable to compromise as well. You should find a way to talk without a recording device.

Your #2: What I've said is a real logical possibility, and in fact is what we might actually end up with in a number of areas of life. It is not as 'clever dick nonsense' as you think. It might be an undesirable idea, but it is a technically possible one.

Your #3: Yes blockchains store and publicise. They also implement strong distributed consensus, and on top of those other things are layered, such as Ethereum-style smart contracts, and zero-knowledge calculations. If you think those cannot be used to control the release of fragmented or encrypted secrets driven by measurements of human decisions, you haven't understood them yet. I really recommend you look at ZKProof.org, and have a think about how privacy-maintaining blockchain coins like Zcash and Monero are able to use a public blockchain to exchange secret transactions.

Note: I have no stake in this, I'm not a cryptocurrency or blockchain fan particularly. But I do understand how they work, and I'm not fooled by the buzzwords (at all, I'm quite skeptical).
Where did you live 10 years ago that wasn't run by corporate greed and corruption, or were you just too young to remember it?

If anything, things are better now than they were 10 years ago, and things were even worse 10 years before that. One reason that things are getting better is that more people are paying attention, which makes that fun paradox where a bunch of people who are new to this whole thing perceive the world as getting worse.
That only applies to IPOs. In a direct listing the shares start trading at the published reference price. There is no underwriting or other ceremony around it.
It's still sitting at 4.7 stars on the iOS app store as well, with few 1 star reviews visible. I wonder if they have a queue that reviews have to sit in before they start showing up publicly.
If 100,000 people are each leaving one review about their experience, presumably related to Robinhood's change earlier today to limit certain actions, how does that qualify as spam? Is it because it happened within a short timeframe? I'm sincerely interested in what qualifies as spam in this case given that these are organic, possibly non-automated reviews that map 1-to-1 to a specific user who has installed (and presumably used) the app.
When it comes to demand for the shares: doesn't matter. IPO price discovery is done by institutional investors, not retail.

Impact on the fundamentals is a bigger risk to them, as RH's target market is retail/individuals. People have short memories though, and they aren't the only ones restricting their users from trading (despite getting the most flak for it).
The framing is wrong - thinking of these as problems of design. As though the practitioners just need to do a better job, or do better at petitioning their bosses to let them make things nicer. If making things nicer for people gets in the way of dollars, guess what will win 95 times out of a hundred. There's something you can safely put your faith in.

This is about incentives and business. You cannot design your way out of that.