skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The market stops rewarding those who do the best research and make the best value judgments about stocks and simply rewards those with the fastest exchange connections and best hardware (who can parasite upon the research and risklessly make money by covertly front running it).

If value investors stop being rewarded for doing good research and correctly assessing the true value of a stock they will usually withdraw from the market (c.f. market for lemons: akerlof).

It should be pretty obvious why a stock market whose values are disconnected from reality is a bad thing, and why having a pool of investors who do good real world research and get rewarded for it is a good thing.
I think waiting for Coursera to resolve the issue isn't too much to ask. They seem cooperative, and it was a holiday weekend.
How much more work can you do on a desktop CPU/GPU in 19ms than on the mobile hardware? If the desktop hardware is 10x faster, wouldn't it still be a win?

Also, consider that you might allow for a small window for when things don't go as planned. So, 15ms to do the computations, for example.
That's precisely why I let it go. Had there been evidence I could have used, I would have later pursued it.
I love how the security researcher, and not the website with the sloppy code, is at fault according to you. You live in a strange world, my friend.

Responsible disclosure doesn't really exist, bugs may be used anywhere, any time, and it's perilous to assume that there is a window of "safety" for fixing security bugs.
HFTs provide far more liquidity than is ever needed during normal periods and during periods of market distress (when liquidity is sorely needed) they suddenly and sharply withdraw that liquidity from the market.
That was my point. A good rule of thumb is that you can pull 3-4% out of a investment each year and you will never run out. Increase that to 4-5% and it should last your entire life.

Don't get me wrong, $250K per year pre-tax is a very comfortable lifestyle. However, it's not so much money that you can spend without thought.
> Isn't the argument from the article that the pilots are just idly chatting all the way down because of excessive automation?

Yeah, but there seems to be an implicit argument appended: "and this causes more accidents than the automation prevents". I'm not sure about this one. Aren't jet planes ever safer to fly in? I was under the impression that the death rates kept going down. So the backfire effect from this automation can't be too bad or else net safety wouldn't increase.

I think you could turn it into a weaker more valid argument: 'and the mind-wandering sets a bound on how safe air travel can ever get with human pilots because automation itself introduce human error'. But when you make it explicit like that, it starts to look like an argument for taking humans out of the loop entirely...
> The team seems focused on people who are using Markdown as a commenting format, more than the authoring format Gruber uses it as.

On the contrary, this effort is led by the person trying help Markdown target real publishing of hard copy outputs, creator of pandoc.

From http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/README.html#pandocs-markdow... :

“Pandoc’s enhanced version of markdown includes syntax for footnotes, tables, flexible ordered lists, definition lists, fenced and highlighted code blocks, superscript, subscript, strikeout, title blocks, automatic tables of contents, embedded LaTeX math, citations, and markdown inside HTML block elements...”

“There is, however, one respect in which pandoc’s aims are different from the original aims of markdown. Whereas markdown was originally designed with HTML generation in mind, pandoc is designed for multiple output formats.”

“Thus, while pandoc allows the embedding of raw HTML, it discourages it, and provides other, non-HTMLish ways of representing important document elements like definition lists, tables, mathematics, and footnotes.”

Publish academic, scientific, and regular books and papers with pandoc markdown, using Latex to generate PDFs.
I love how all blame can be assigned to a single entity, and it's not possible for multiple entities to act irresponsibly. You live in a strange world, my friend.

Edit (since you added more):

> Responsible disclosure doesn't really exist, bugs may be used anywhere, any time, and it's perilous to assume that there is a window of "safety" for fixing security bugs.

It is true that you can't assume that there is a window of "safety" for fixing security bugs, but on the other hand, once an exploit is published widely, you know for certain that it's in the hands of everyone. Prior to that you can only speculate.

Now, I know that there is a dance between "give them time to patch it before you guarantee that everyone has their hands on the exploit" and "giving users full disclosure so that they can take their own steps to protect themselves." I don't really see how that works here though. Thinking about it:

1. Current users are just screwed. They can't protect themselves in any meaningful way. Their information is already in the system. [Note: they are a little less screwed without disclosure because there is at least a possibility that no one else has found the exploit yet]

2. New users know to wait to get on the site until after fixes are announced.

That's about it. This isn't some exploit in (e.g.) GnuPG where notifying users potentially prevents them from sending encrypted messages that (e.g.) the NSA could be reading.

Edit 2:

I missed the CSRF attack. In this case, it makes sense to notify users so that they can protect themselves. But users don't need to know the details of the attack to protect themselves. They just need to know that they shouldn't visit other sites while logged into Coursera. A blog post saying "details to follow..." could post the write-up after waiting a reasonable amount of time for a fix.
Why are you labeling a business not paying taxes an "efficiency"?
This is not an investment, it's redistribution.

Tesla gets $1.25B from Nevada. That means that the taxpayers of Nevada, collectively, have $1.25B less while Tesla has $1.25B more. Now Tesla may spend every dollar of that money in the state of Nevada, hiring people, buying supplies, making investments, etc. But for every dollar being spent by Tesla, that's one fewer dollar being spent by a Nevada taxpayer into the same economy. Those dollars that would have been spent hiring people, buying supplies, making investments, and so on from Nevada taxpayers are now not being spent on those things.

So you can count up all the "stimulus" from the money that goes to Tesla over the next decade, but you're ignoring the money that now isn't getting spent and the jobs that now aren't getting created.

Actually, it's worse than just redistribution, for two reasons:

1) It's likely that a lot of the money will not be spent in Nevada, and I doubt anyone is auditing this deal for the next decade to make sure that it is.

2) Before, those dollars were being spent privately by millions of taxpayers who got to decide if the money they spent for X product or Y employee was worth it, and could take individualized risks with their own dollars. But now that their money has been pooled and dumped into Tesla, those taxpayers of Nevada have taken on a substantial risk with no equivalent reward. If Tesla is explosively successful, they don't see any more money than if Tesla just limps along for a couple decades. But if Tesla fails, they've lost it all with nothing to show for it (save for the few people who got a job out of the deal...but there aren't enough jobs at Tesla to compensate every taxpayer in Nevada for the risk).

In short, it's difficult to see this deal as anything more than a great benefit to a few people (Tesla investors, Tesla employees, Tesla consumers) at the expense of the taxpayers of Nevada.
Not only has he found himself $1M, but he also comes from an environment where asking money from friends and family for your own interests is totally acceptable.

2 generations ago, people in my family were farmers who had to count the potatoes for dinner. They worked hard to give their kids a better standard of life than they could have ever dreamt of (my grandmother started working when she was 13, and she and my grandfather did all they could to send my mom to college).

There is no way I would be okay asking my parents for their hard earned money to fund a venture that could absolutely fail, let alone some silly "social network platform" startup.

I wish I had a good way to end this comment (life is unfair? or maybe it's useless to be upset at this sort of thing, what matters is living a happy honest life?) but I don't.
Fifty Years of Databases (2012)
- Born into immense privilege at 0
Shouldn't citizens also be encouraged to use cameras as much as possible when interaction with police.

Just like with many police car cameras, all of the sudden they "malfunction" when something shady has happened.
At least in LLVM 3.4, this seems to do the trick too:

static void secure_memset(void *, int, size_t) __attribute__((weakref("memset")));
Coffee genome provides insight into caffeine biosynthesis
Amen. PHP had the same problem, and in some cases still does, but thankfully I'm seeing more and more developers (and more and more projects I'm working on here at work) where it's all Plain Old (language) Objects with some nice sprinklings of proper libraries to get stuff done. What's lovely about that is everything ends up being completely unit-testable without much extra effort. It also means I get to use proper OOP architecture yay!
So happy to see Yao using his influence for good. I think Chinese consumption of shark fin and ivory are more habits than desire. Habits can change through education.
They are neither using Gruber's code nor his spec, so his license doesn't matter to them.
What does one have to do with the other? I can't afford practically anything Bill Gates can, but that doesn't mean I should automatically oppose what he wants to do with future government tax revenue.

Many of the 6500 workers at the gigafactory won't be able to afford a Tesla, but at least they'll be able to put food on the table.
I never assigned blame.
Amazon claimed that, yes, but it was also called into question.
HTML has only become well-specified recently in its entire history, and it's still riddled with archaic complexities from its time as something with very little rigid specification. I don't see how you can possibly point at HTML and call it the opposite of Markdown in that regard.

And let me tell you, HTML's early non-specificity did NOT cause people to follow the spirit of the law, nor did it make many people consider it usable and understandable by ordinary humans.
A Search Engine that Thinks, Almost http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/March...
IDS: The first NoSQL data store? In 1962 (sigmod.org)
1 point by yorp 3 minutes ago | flag | cached | share | discuss

NoSQL doesn't appear anywhere on that page. The title should be

Fifty Years of Databases (2012)
"Once they got away they did NOT start whinging that there was not enough liquidity."

Of course they didn't. Professional market participants don't whinge. They go to venues that provide the services they want, namely cheap liquidity. Those venues were ones that allowed HFT market makers.

When you say "they got away", you do know that those market participants moved to open exchanges where HFTs "run rampant" and stopped paying Barclay's for their service.

"allow HFT sharks to take advantage of their customers and collect payment for letting them do so."

A) what do you mean when you say HFT shark? You keep using that term, in what I assume is a pejorative but it doesn't mean anything.

B) If the point was extracting more fees why did Barclay's subsidize HFT trading? They charged HFTs an order of magnitude less than their clients, that was a central part of the complain. If it was an example of allowing advantage taking, wouldn't the fee structure be reversed? That is, if I have a chance to fleece someone, wouldn't I pay up for that instead of require payment for it?

"If what you said were true they would have no reason to lie"

Of course they had a reason to lie. They claimed that they could provide a high liquidity environment without letting market makers trade in their dark pool, despite the overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. Admitting that they were wrong brings their whole value proposition to buy side investors into question and delegitimizes their dark pool.
1. It is the compiler that is committing treachery here. This stuff stretches, if not outright breaks, the translation model given in the C standard, where it is clear that a program is separated into translation units, and that linkage resolves external names.

2. You bring this on yourself; it's not enabled by default by ordinary optimization options like -O2 or -O3. You have to ask for it, and so you must know what you're doing.

3. Under gcc, it looks like only those object files compiled with -flto are prepared for this optimization. You can arrange through your makefile or whatever not to apply -flto to sensitive modules that cannot be inlined or optimized away into other translation units. Those object files won't then contain the GIMPLE bytecode and whatnot needed to be able to peer into their internals at link time.

4. I don't think the dynamic linker in libc (ld.so) does this optimization, so putting code into shared libs may be another good way to hide it.

So, basically, the external function approach is still a very good tool for defeating unwanted inlining and dead code elimination, provided you don't stupidly use some advanced features that bend the standard translation model of the C language. In security-critical code, to boot. External functions are expressed using the standard language; the approach will work under pretty much any compiler.
His largest achievements were years ago, though. Doom was one, Quake another, and Quake 3 probably the last big step. Afterwards, he hasn't distinguished himself so much (I don't think Rage was very impressive, for example), so unless you keep pushing the limits every single time, your reputation can fade quickly.
Einstein of bunny rabits
I'm surprised he doesn't talk about Zotero. https://www.zotero.org/
Especially for a grad student, it seems like a better option than any of the other things he's tried/discussed.
> He (Steve)

I figured it out, but I just want to point out that there are three Steves to whom you refer.
> you have a hard time recruiting people to work part time on the side

Students just might be your best bet for this, depending on what you need.
If you're going to account for deadweight loss, a tax break can be profitable while lowering tax revenue. Then it would be a tragedy of the commons from the perspective of those looking to maximize tax revenue, but good policy from the perspective of those looking to have nicer lives.

Ordinarily, the Laffer curve is just talking about tax breaks that raise total tax revenue, not tax breaks that bring a net benefit in reduced deadweight loss.
yes. +1
Tesla does not get $1.25B... they just won't have to pay $1.25B over the next 20 years. The Nevada tax payers have the same amount they would have if Tesla never got the deal and thus never built in Nevada.
Just to be clear, in market circles removing liquidity means a specific thing. It means, crossing a spread to buy or sell existing orders. HFTs do not do this in times of market distress.

You can make an argument that HFT market makers stop providing liquidity during strange market conditions, but they do not "remove" it.
>Found in a 2 minute google search. Your position is false, that no one was against HFT until recently.

My position was that no large banks or hedge funds or other concentrations of political power were against it until relatively recently. Which is completely true.

An individual senator is not capable of making vast changes to the law by themselves. Your belief that this IS possible is completely absurd.

>You have an ax to grind and an incomplete understanding of how the market and HFT work. It makes you look foolish.

Frankly I don't know how you're still defending barclays for selling an service promising freedom from HFT predators and then introducing HFT traders to it so they can collect additional fees.

Your belief that these traders were dumb and did not know what they were buying and therefore deserved to be lied to by Barclays is beyond retarded. They knew exactly what they were doing. You do not.
Assuming YC cares about what investors do outside of YC...
> But to give only this company a singular and specific tax break just seems wrong and anti-free market. It's one step towards a planned economic model.

Why would you describe this as giving only this company a singular and specific tax break? Getting tax breaks like this is routine for all companies above a certain size; just because it's done on a case-by-case basis doesn't make any one case more special than all the others.
In the near/mid-term it would probably be a good course of action to have entirely automated airplanes, and "pilots" (or technicians or whatever you would call them) specialized in handling automation failures. That way, there would be no question about what their role is in the plane.
The fact that these deals happen, and the fact that a small company can't get them, feels like the tax equivalent to the net neutrality debate.

Big guys can afford the transaction costs of preferential treatment, small guys have to get by like everyone else. In both cases the provider is a government-backed monopoly. You can port the net neutrality arguments to this issue with a simple term substitution. All I am saying that if someone is 'for' net neutrality, it's hard to be 'against' tax neutrality.

Having said that, in a world where these deals happen, Tesla is right to extract the best deal they can, regardless of what would be the global optimum.
HealthCare.gov server hacked. But HHS says no consumer information taken
As others pointed violent pushback might not work. It won't work unless it is total and simultaneous pushback. As in at the end of the pushback all the LEOs will be removed and replaced with supposedly better LEOs. I don't see this mythical "revolution" ever taking place.

Now what might work is a slow burn PR effort that will take years. This mean footage of police abuses being pushed to the front. Sharing footage of police killing pets (dogs) without reason. Sharing them abusing their power. Upvoting stories about police violence.

Most importantly, these stories have to involve middle class and higher non-minorities. Those voters, still, as a majority hold the opinion that "police is here to protect us". They have to be exposed to the other side of that message for a while to change their opinion. They can only hold up so long but after seeing innocent children burned by flashbang grenades in no-knock raids. Peaceful family dogs shot in their own yard in front of the children by cop who mistakenly went to the wrong house and so on.
Or maybe people don't want to wear the same thing for more than five years and like to change their style up from time to time without giving an arm and a leg. You're lamenting the wonders of economic efficiency and industrialization, not a "more-is-better" culture. And you may not be trying to sound elitist, you are elitist. Please go to your local old navy give the same speech you wrote here to the single mother trying her best to buy her kids some decent looking, fashionable clothes while also putting food on the table and try to tell them you're not trying to be elitist.
> I reported the issue to Coursera on Sunday, and I have not yet received a response. Possible remediation steps include rate limiting (again), referrer checking, and configuring APIs to always return the same HTTP status.

Wouldn't the 2nd issue (the cross-origin data leak) be better off solved by having a CSRF token instead?
Have you read Gruber's tweets on the matter? He's handling this situation like a baby.

His powers of getting people to read his one-line blog and other worthless content continue to amaze me.
You assigned blame to the website.
Hey, SendGrid got 65k from the city of Boulder.
> is at fault

According to Wikipedia:

Blame is the act of censuring, holding responsible,
making negative statements about an individual or
group that their action or actions are socially
or morally irresponsible, the opposite of praise.

I would say that claiming (via sarcasm) that the company that did the "sloppy coding" is "at fault" qualifies as blaming them. You're defacto blaming them by deflecting "fault" away from the security researcher to them.
Angel list is the equivalent of self publishing. YC is like going to a publisher who separates the wheat from the chaff. You also really open the kimono to a bunch of unknowns on AngelList.
Nevada isn't going to receive any revenue, in the short or long term. Rather, Nevada is going to be paying a great deal to fund Tesla's operations, build roads for them, run electricity to their factory, and Nevada is going to get absolutely nothing for it, since Nevada has given Tesla a total and permanent tax exemption.

That was sort of the point of the article, which you may have missed.

> (rails, roadways, power, etc.)

You know those are expenses to Nevada, right? Which Nevadans will be paying for, to benefit Tesla?
True. That said, I have no idea who many of these guys are.
The Hidden Pitfall of Being Awesome
http://www.demos.org/publication/cracks-pipeline-part-two-hi...

>A classic aggressive strategy involves hunting and trapping “whales.” It is a good example of aggressive HFT strategy.

I apologize for not explaining terminology used by the financial community in laymans' terms.
Agree technology is insufficient alone to cause change, but I'm pretty sure that the police killing Eric Gargner wouldn't even be a story without the video. The cops would write the report as resisting arrest and that would be it. Some people would be pissed, but not on the level that happened after the video was widely available.

Wouldn't the Michael Brown situation be far clearer if there was a video of the actual shooting? How far away was he? Was he backing up? How did a shot get fired in the police car? Side h actually touch the officer? Etc etc etc. If the facts were indisputable it would be a different conversation.
160TB/month data for $5 USD is pretty cheap bandwidth. (Unlimited 500 mbs per process for production applications).
This will never stop because it's profitable for SOHOs to build on the developer APIs. I remember the days of making 5K a day on Facebook API before they shut it all down.

Your best bet when you do implement to a dev API is to assume this is exactly what will happen and plan to pivot once you've established some mindshare.
links or it didn't happen. ;)
Same for me on my 1080p external display on a Mac.

To clarify, the part that is cut off is the code inside the black rectangle, not the black rectangle itself. The problem is only on slides where the output is the 20-row board matrix. Since I can’t scroll the code, I could only fix it by zooming out (text-only zoom).