HN user

bingojess

49 karma
Posts1
Comments41
View on HN

Unhinged sounds about right, the blog post started out normal but it became increasingly disconnected and unsubstantiated. It read like something someone on adderall would churn out

In my comment, I specifically said trading with cash. Easy to argue it was not arbitrary when there's a whale no one know about and the stock is obscure and the whale pays the brokerage more money that is worth to risk losing a few customers in that obscure stock. That's why these rules exist, even though they are more in-principle than anything

https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/5...

Without such regulation what would stop any bad actor from colluding with brokers to halt trading a moments that benefit themselves? Pretty hard to enforce or prove in practise but the idea that brokerages can prevent groups of users from accessing markets willy nilly is absurd. This is for cash products no any futures/options, even for those once they grant access it should not be taken away

Yes obviously which is why OP is asking the question.

And you aren't right, there are many games where there are objective scores or measures of skill like other have said golf, darts, billiards. What leads to a field being more objective is the presence of scores which can be compared and serve as the goal, and the score outcome is not based on luck or opponent play.

In the article there isn't any discussion of cause and effect, it is a probabilistic model. Eg. being near a virus lab makes it more likely it's a lab escape, being 1000km away from the main zoonotic reservoirs (bat populations) in China make it less likely it's of zoonotic origin. This is not to say it's impossible as researchers do travel 1000km from Wuhan to get samples from bats. I'll not comment on the probabilities they assigned to each hypothesis (they may very well be discounting the likelihood of zoonotic origins too heavily) but that is the approach they took.

You are looking too much into this. The more people act on contrarian business ideas, the more longshot potential unicorns VCs can invest in. The seminal YC example is Airbnb, letting strangers sleep on a mattress at your house. Sam and other VCs no doubt personally know many founders who face skepticism and self-doubt towards their startups, this is aimed at them.

For companies like banks, the transition is the riskiest part. For management, there is no upside in such projects since the system already works, but downsides are project failure and your banking systems ceasing to work. Not to mention cost.

For context, Singapore has a team of 20 that can call contacts of confirmed cases, they are able to make 4000 calls a day. Those in contact with confirmed cases are made to a mandatory home quarantine, i think something like 35k people in Singapore are currently serving home quarantines.

I don't think anyone trusts Google enough. They can help by providing governments with anonymized data they already have. Immediately what comes to mind is identifying to governments public hot spots while lockdowns are supposed to be going on so that they can send people to disperse the gatherings. I'm sure people can come up with better ideas

What's SAP? 6 years ago

Think POs, procurement, payables, receivables, treasury and inventory management etc. Is following what Toyota does strange?

What's SAP? 6 years ago

What else are they gonna choose? Even SAP implementations fail, it's $10-100m project. Execs are not going to go for slightly better software to increase the risk of blowing through millions and wasting 3-4 year to end up with the same system. That's how SAP sells

More on Dota 2 9 years ago

Trivial may not be the best word but what they were trying to get the AI to do was learn dota strategy and tactics. It's like teaching alphaGo to play go with a camera.