mruts

PyTorch wraps THNN, not Torch. Moreover, even if this was true, it wouldn't matter at all. Practically 0% of the overhead is related to Python in the first place, all of the time is dominated by the underlying C implementation.

I've personally found pytorch easier to use than Keras. It's undoubtably easier to use than Tensorflow, of course.

He’s not talking about on a risk adjusted basis. Moreover, EMH is a framework for understanding, not some magical law. There are funds who’s returns over time are like a 10 sigma event.

The S&P isn’t a reasonable benchmark to PE in the first place. Your argument is like saying: “US Teasuries underperform the S&P by 8% every year, people and countries buying treasuries are stupid and just want to be part of some secret club.”

There’s a couple of things wrong with this argument so let’s go over it:

1) Low or uncorrelated return streams are very valuable due to the central limit theorem. As you add these return streams together, they form an increasingly tighter normal distribution. This gives us two advantages: we can convert non-normal distributions into normal ones, and we reduce our standard deviation with every stream we add as long as the correlation is less than one.

2) Returns aren’t the defining factor of whether a strategy is worth it. Instead institutional investors measure investments by their Sharpe ratio: the slope of the line between return and risk (the axis is the risk-free rate). The reason for this is that since these kinds of investors can not just lend, but borrow at the risk-free rate, they can lever up their returns to anything they want. This is called risk-adjusted returns.

4) The biggest risk in investing is exposure to Beta, “the market,” which in the US is usually measured by the S&P 500. Reducing exposure to Beta is often goal #1 of institutional investors. Maybe not a 100%, you should definately not be exposed to a 1.0 Beta coefficient. This is especially important for endowments, pensions, and other funds that have monthly or yearly pay-outs. The auto-workers would be super pissed if the economy tanked and they no longer got their retirement pensions. After all, that’s one of the things that pensions are supposed to hedge against.

Before I started working in finance, I definately had the same questions and theories as you. After all, the field is very baroque and complicated and the explanation of the industry being stupid is very simple and straightforward. Chesterson’s Fence is a good way to view a lot of things. Understanding is always a prerquisite for change.

Did you read it? From your language I really doubt it.

No one cares. Just give it up.

I would personally (and have) put my monry on Trump winning against Warren or Sanders (Though he’s probably gonna drop out). Against Biden maybe 60/40 against Trump.

Is this argument for government regulation or against? I see ss an argument against, but I’m sure most people disagree.

Yes, fine. I agree. But if Amazon did the security screens off their property, should they be comped?

Moreover, why not just make the workers salaried so they can’t complain?

I wouldn’t call CS a hard science, it should be grouped with liberal arts like math.

Why’s that? I would consider economics a hard science.

All he’s saying that the further mean and median are from each, the more importsnt it is that we think about what an average implies about the sample.

So it would be all good if Amazon did security checks at home?

If I would get fired for not wearing clothes, should I get compensated for the time it takes me to get dressed?

Also we could also talk about: dry clean suits, taking showers, cutting hair, shaving, putting on make-up, etc.

What value does this provide, exactly?

Have you ever used Linux? What kind of features do some distros have that others don’t? You can run anything you want to.

“ Yes, there are multiple harassers which then could slow my connection. Within minutes after shortening my wifi range, there were verbal complaints like - "I hate you". Bluetooth may well be the way for the talking, but of course my computer shows no blue tooth connection. I did run network software and got their computer IP addresses (I think that's the correct term). That's how I kicked them off the router, individually, after shortening the wifi range. But, one keeps changing the address, that's why I started this thread inquiry. Thought if I did the same, it would be harder to get on mine”

Oh man. What is this person talking about?

That’s not exactly how it works. New CPUs and GPUs support new features that you could never test on old hardware: AVX, real-time raytracing, etc.

I dunno, DragonflyBSD?

Sounds fine too me. I’m not saying there should be no wheelchair accessible stations, but seeing that they are a miniscule minority, I don’t think that my tax dollars be paying to make everything accessible to them. It’s not possible, anyways, without incurring massive costs. Imagine what would happen to rents if the government mandated that all apartments and houses to be wheelchair accessible. It would be a total disaster.

What’s wrong with NJ Transit? Besides everything of course, but at least most of NJ is connected to NYC through Secaucus. I can’t even imagine what people did before that station.

I used to pay $200 for my car per month at a garage. Not bad considering that a NJ monthly pass for me would have been over $400.

If something is hard, it means it’s gonna make you better than something that is easy. A lot of classes in college were in compsci (I dropped out before I finished though), and in retrospect, it was a mistake. I was too interested and too good, and had already learned all the stuff on my own. Better to major in something that is hard and only mildly interesting. If it’s too boring, you’ll just flunk out, so mildly interesting is a good compromise.

I used to think that statistics was “dirty” math in college, but now it’s my favorite. It’s so easy to ask interesting off the cuff questions. And when you actually have the tools to begin to work on these questions, it becomes exhilirating!

Math + Philosophy I think is a great combo. My study of philosophy in college opened my eyes like nothing else I’ve ever learned since besides Daoism (though that might count as philosophy as well, I guess).

Why would IBM set a hard limit on that, though? Assuming defects are normally distributed, it would make more sense to say: mean of X per N defective parts, with a variance of Y with a P-value of Z.

Though who am I kidding, no one probably evaluates production like that. Though I imagine chip makers are pretty serious about that kind of stuff.

I would expect poorer people to do more physical work. I live in a 3rd world country and let me tell you, the people who get the most exercise aren’t doing it in their free time.

1) Buy-side and sell-side are completely different beasts.

2) Even today, bonds are traded OTC and mostly by people. In the 1990's, 100% of bonds were traded by people. Bond market cap dwarfs equity market cap.

3) Exotic OTC options were a big thing in the 80s and 90s. While that's not true today, when they existed, all of those were traded by people as well.

4) Most hedge funds today manage their positions with excel and trade based on analyst recommendations. They might have some fancy factor ops engine or something, but it's basically an after thought.

5) Around the dotcom boom, Goldman's equity desk had over 500 traders.

Fundamentally we are talking about a lot of different things. Different asset classes, buy-side vs sell-side, NYSE systems vs pit traders, etc etc. We can slice and dice these numbers in many different ways: total number of discretionary firms vs quant, trade volume vs assets, buy-side vs sell-side, etc etc. There's many ways to look at it that result in different conclusions. All I'm saying is that computerized trading is probably not yet the dominant paradigm and it certainly wasn't the dominant paradigm in 2007, much less 1990.

If that was the case, why isn’t he playing with the big boys? If he was this good, he should be making millions and millions a year. Even if he doesn’t have the money, someone should be willing to sponsor him for millions or even tens of millions.

While no concrete evidence has been provided, there is a lot of statistical evidence (he’s on a practically impossible part of the bell curve), Occam’s Razor implies that he’s cheating. Moreover he only plays when twitch is rolling. The most likely explanation is that he’s giving a percentage of his winnings to some tech guy processing the feed, probably more than 50%.

Total US equity market cap is around 30 trillion. Total money in ETFs is 4.5 trillion. So at the very least machines are investing over 10% of capital. Probably more like 20-30%

Of course this only US and only equities, but it's still well above 1%.