HN user
This tracks with what I’ve heard around as well. What changed in the financial instruments?
My understanding is a lot of the loans have gone PIK or otherwise essentially aren’t serviceable at current prices. Do you think that’s resolvable somehow or just lagging implosion?
Some potentially related stuff on the topic:
Anisotropy in word embeddings dates back to at least 2017 with word2vec - where there were zero layers.
The cone-shaped anisotropy in transformers is known since at least Gao et al. 2019. That lineage explained it fairly intuitively as an artifact of word frequency and softmax geometry (so a training dynamic).
A variety of papers followed up by adding post-hoc ‘whitening’ steps (from classical statistics/NLP), then adding regularizers to the loss to penalize the anisotropy, eventually penalizing the covariance matrix (a la VICReg), and then the SIGReg method as a computationally much cheaper way to approximate the full covariance.
As another commenter pointed out it’s also similar to the InfoNCE/contrastive learning objectives. Where terms to increase uniformity (spread out evenly) on the hyper sphere were added. Like the SimCSE (Gao 2021) paper or the excellent alignment/uniformity breakdown from Wang & Isola 2020.
This proposed dispersion loss seems to be similar in that it pushes things apart by penalizing cosine similarity. Although this one works on the tokens within one sequence. Usually contrastive methods mean pool the sequences and then contrast against the other pooled sequences in the batch.
Greenbacks … a form of fiat money
Ah, I hadn’t thought about the generational aspect that’s interesting. The aesthetic totally makes sense to me when the music is intended for it / designed with it in mind, which I guess quite a lot of music is.
I particularly dislike when old intentionally-dynamic music is remastered to be “modernized” into a brick, which is sort of the opposite direction.
Cinema mixes
I didn’t know about these, that’s neat! Makes sense that the levels can’t really be the same in my living room as a theater. Is it really a whole separate mix or just some compression in mastering?
I really hope that’s not another masterings collection rabbit hole I’m about to fall down haha. I’ll look out for some Dolby certified venues in my area too
1 … they will often chose the more compressed/louder one
I’ve always been curious - but presumably that’s true even after volume matching?
3 Compressed sound works better in noisy environments and as background music
I’ve heard this is also why film and video game soundtracks are often very compressed, even when orchestral, because they have to fit in the background with dialog/sfx
ReplayGain is nice - but note it doesn’t ’fix the compression’. Compression and dynamic range is about loud/quiet _within_ the track. ReplayGain just turns the volume up and down for the entire track, the point being so all your tracks play back at about the same level. It saves a preset on the volume knob for you essentially.
If you remember making a playlist where one song is suddenly much louder than the last, and you’re riding the volume knob on every other song, you’ll see why this is nice!
It really does on some records, if you’re interested check out some comparisons on YouTube. Many times it’s subtle eq tweaks, granted, and that won’t much matter. But a lot of older rock and pop records for example go from being super dynamic and well produced to completely crushed with boosted bass and treble to ‘modernize’ the sound.
You can see some examples of how dynamic range (they don’t track ‘mastering’ overall) varies across releases on this site: https://dr.loudness-war.info/
It’s completely true, when the vinyl has a different mastering. It can be a completely different version. It’s not because it’s vinyl
Short answer, no not really. It won’t ever be as good as a proper uncompressed mastering
And also all the days you don’t, so, by itself not very meaningful. Especially since you can’t tell which one is right in advance. In some sense, so does a calendar
I’m running MultiScrobbler to scrobble from multiple sources (Spotify/PlexAmp) to multiple sinks (Last.fm/ListenBrainz/Maloja). Looks like they already support writing to Rocksky!
They are, but SpaceX is trying to get rules changed. They want the index to buy at a multiple of the float, so they release say 5% but get bought as if they had released 15% float. They also normally wouldn't be eligible for index inclusion for ~1 year, after showing multiple quarters of good stewardship, etc. They're trying to bypass all that
It has plenty of useful control plane features out of the box. Nothing much you _couldn’t_ do yourself but you don’t have to. Or with Headscale as the self-hosted open-source version
Great system! I wonder what the overall usage distribution is like - presumably some kind of power law shape.
Yeah, that’s the idea. The loans get bundled up and resold to insurance companies, pension funds, and retail bond investors.
Funds are plenty willing to lend other peoples money to get guaranteed dividends and fee payments and not be left holding the risk. Retirement funds are the bag holder - but they won’t realize till later.
There’s structural pressure to buy from PE because insurance/pension is designed as fixed payout requiring say 7% yield forever. In a world where investment-grade bonds pay 4% and demographics are shifting from net-inflow to net-outflow, liquidity is _tight_. Meanwhile PE was promising 10% a year or whatever (someone call Madoff…) so that was preferable to the hard conversations of the funds failing. At the cost of kicking the can down to the road and making it worse in the future.
If this sounds like 2008 that’s because it is. But bigger and worse, and happening in wayyy more than just mortgages this time.
Ah, I re-read my original comment with that in mind, and I see how it can go a few directions depending on the context - thanks!
QQQ is not in isolation. It’s just a bundle of stocks. Rebalancing that will affect the prices of its constituent stocks, which include some of the highest market cap stocks. Those same stocks are also in many of those other popular market-cap weighted indexes (VTI, VOO, SPY, etc). Price action originating from Nasdaq 100 rebalancing would affect everywhere else those stocks are held. Which is a lot of places.
Except those other indexes won’t have SpaceX. Suggesting any index price moves would be … asymmetric at best.
Now it’s being reported that they’re angling to get SpaceX in the S&P 500 index as well [1]. Maybe if all the indexes get it then it balances out everywhere, who knows. This whole event would be in beyond unprecedented territory.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/p-weighs-rule-changes-speed-1...
I don’t see that in the article. The only thing I see is about S&P is where they mention that the S&P 500’s rules would prevent this manipulation if SpaceX were added to that index. But that’s not being proposed.
What?! This absolutely affects more than Nasdaq 100 / QQQ.
The index is just a function of the stocks. It only moves if the underlying stocks move. Rebalancing Nasdaq will cause selling in the 100 companies that aren’t SpaceX. And those stocks are held elsewhere too…
The Nasdaq 100 shares 79/100 stocks with the S&P. So if those stocks move (probably down because they’re being sold so SpaceX can get bought) pretty sure that's gonna affect anyone exposed to those companies. Whether that’s directly or through other index ETFs. Many of which have a huge concentration in Mag7 right now, for example.
It's worse than that, because S&P500 and Nasdaq100 share stocks. Like all of the MAG7 stocks. So if mag7 stocks dip because they're being structurally sold to buy SpaceX, then the S&P500 goes down too.
Arguably even worse because at least Nasdaq100 would have SpaceX in it that's getting bid up to offset the losses in other stocks. S&P won't have SpaceX right away. So it just goes down.
And the more those stocks go down, the lower their market cap - which means next rebalancing date they potentially get re-weighted again causing a bit more selling, etc. Presumably the companies that can will counter this with more buy-backs to keep their share price propped at an acceptable level (?).
Yeah, but the S&P500 is hugely concentrated in MAG7, which are all Nasdaq listed. So when they all get sold to buy SpaceX, you can bet your butt something's gonna happen to a S&P500 ETF.
There's trillions of dollars sitting in indexes that are quite literally 'passively' invested. Virtually everything holds this bundle in one way or another. Passive indexing has both outperformed and overtaken active investing - leading a lot of money into VOO/VTI/QQQ/etc that track the S&P500 or some other index ("the market"). For retirement funds like 401ks, retail contributes money every paycheck that gets routed into these indexes. There may not even be much of a choice - your 'plan' may only let you pick some kind of "Target Date Fund" and then the institution picks what it goes into, usually indexes.
If you fully actively managed your own money and picked mostly individual stocks (not broad indexes) then yeah you could change your allocations. But there's a lot of money already in.
Most indexes will be affected. Two of the most common indices - the S&P500 and DJIA - are cross-exchange and include Nasdaq stocks. The biggest market cap companies on the market (MAG7) are all on the Nasdaq exchange and comprise about 35% of the S&P.
Index funds divvy up money into stocks, in this case weighted by market cap. More market cap = bigger slice of the pie.
SpaceX wants to instantly jump near the top of the pie - capturing tons of the money in index funds for itself, and also therefore taking it away from other companies stocks.
SpaceX (and others like OpenAI, Anthropic)'s private market cap valuation is so high that if they IPO they would instantly jump to the top of the entire stock market. This has never really happened before. By the rules, funds would have to suddenly start buying a huge weight of SpaceX stock - and sell NVDA/AAPL/GOOGL/everything else - to achieve the new balance.
Normally there are rules on how fast a new company can get included in the index. You usually have to be on the market for some time, demonstrate consistently high valuation, etc etc. SpaceX wants to skirt this and jump straight onto the index (near the top).
Further, the rules also usually weight you according to how much of your stock is actually on the market. If you only sell 5% of your company, you only get weighted at 5% of your market cap. SpaceX wants a bonus multiplier so even though they'll only make 5% of their stock available for sale, they want to be weighted in the index as if it was say 15% available. Aka over-bought / boosted price.
This creates both mechanical forced buying and artificially constrained supply. Likely sending the price to the moon, not based on fundamentals but based on gaming the index rules.
Then, once insider lock-up periods are over in a few months, SpaceX can choose to release even more shares - say jumping the available shares from 5% to 100% - which will unleash their full market cap (now even further inflated) and thus capturing even more of the money in index funds.
Index funds being 'passive' guarantees there will be buyers for SpaceX employees and executives to sell their shares to, likely at exorbitantly over-valued prices. At which point they wash their hands of the valuation and your retirement account becomes the new bag holder who has to worry about whether SpaceX is actually worth what you just paid for it.
I think the point was that directionally, on average, we might need to swing the pendulum the other way.
Incidentally, this reply.
Ironically, no
I recall an article on personalized pricing that had it reversed - the poor pricing is actually higher, bc it's harder to buy more at bulk rate / shop around / just not buy it (discretionary).
I'm inclined to agree. While not always appropriate or popular, it makes some sense to me to have the visual weight/area of the code being ~proportional to it's significance. Communicates the ideas more clearly. Instead of spending the majority of space telling me what _isn't_ going to happen, and hiding what is.
I often find myself wishing this was more ergonomic in languages.
That doesn’t look super awful to me? Hardly extreme code golfing.
The far more interesting part is the order of magnitude. If they can pull off a 20k LOC with zero dependencies (implying a pretty concise project size) and it still works well on meaningful applications, that’s pretty neat. A 1000x reduction in code size and matching/exceeding in perf is worth looking at. Probably also implying a better architecture as code golf isn’t gonna get you 1000x less code. Again - their claims not mine, so we’ll see.
But at that point they can triple the LOC to 60k with nothing but white space, new lines, and comments, for all I care. It won’t even add a zero.
Amazing! I wonder if the Every Noise At Once[1] site could be updated with the metadata from this?