rokobobo

I don’t think Nasdaq is free float based.

Also, I would be a lot more pessimistic of the index tracking fund managers’ ability or willingness to find extra shares: their goal is to match the index, not beat it. If the index includes the new firm at a blown-up price because everyone sent their buy orders at the same closing auction, then all the index-tracking funds still track their underlying index. They do not care that after that closing auction, the price of the new firm—and likely the index itself—is going to drop.

Do you have an example of an algorithm that learns, rather than is trained/trains itself? I don’t really see the boundary between the two concepts.

I think people were asking you to explain what kind of strategies people run at sharpe 4

One thing is fiduciary duty to the shareholders, another is “pleasing the shareholders” as you describe it. Pleasing the shareholders is necessary only when displeasing them means they will sell the stock when there is no buyer. If there is a buyer, the current shareholders are less relevant — as long as management cannot be accused of not fulfilling their fiduciary duty to them.

If a friend doesn’t give you 4% of their net worth, how can you be certain you are one of their 25 closest friends?

I believe theirs was to deliver internet

I may be wrong, but I believe spending time in a deeper gravitational well means you observe everything outside of the well to be happening much faster; at the singularity, the entire future of the parent universe will appear to you as happening all at once. There is no notion of “matter that falls in later” — once you reach the singularity, you travel to the end of time in the parent universe. And the passage of time in our universe isn’t a continuation of time in the parent universe; it’s not even the same dimension, the latter is collapsed.

Right--in log scale, the gap has stayed roughly the same until around 1980.

How much do we know about military AI’s capabilities? As in, is there any evidence that the government/military was ahead of big tech on the AI research front?

Presumably, the energy output from a fusion plant (if we ever get there) should be self-sustaining. For starting up, I’m guessing the plant can draw power from the grid itself, no?

To divert an asteroid, you’d attempt to ablate a part of it, rather than just rely on its reflectivity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_laser_ablation

I imagine that tracking an asteroid and continuously pointing the laser array at a specific portion of it, will be harder than tracking a shiny light sail that’s continuously illuminated by the laser array—but as a whole, I think shooting a laser at an asteroid is one of our best bets, so having that array would be a good tool of planetary defense

So his one eye goes through his face and you see it from both sides. Wonderful

And just a clarification that some (many) ETFs also distribute dividends on a quarterly basis as they accrue them from their holdings, so technically you want to be looking at the total return indices.

Being willing to use them is not the same as being willing to use them first.

I don’t even think this is satire. This feels like the kind of made up stories that children come up with (and place themselves at the center of).

I think you’re looking at a geekbench 4 score, vs v5 in the post. It seems that this machine performs significantly better than an XPS 15.

Edit (sorry, I don't think I can edit my own comment at this point): I think I was missing the point. Storing user data for 3 years after verification seems unnecessary for the user. So yes, it does sound like some data-mongering f*ckery is going to happen/is happening.

I never wanted Equifax to have any of my data, and yet here we are. After the breach, I wouldn’t ever be a paying customer to them if I had a choice. (Indirectly, I am still a “customer” in the sense that they probably still have my data and get new data about me—but apart from canceling all my cards, not sure what choice I have). In comparison, Stripe seems to charge for each product it offers. I think that’s a more fair and transparent model.

This is cool, in a somewhat masochistic sense. Some of us do this kind of mental math all day long. But here’s a proposal on how to extend this.

Background/motivation: Many people think about that one btc purchase they almost made, but never did, and they do the math of what would happen if they just held until present day. But in reality, most of these people would have had “paper hands” and generally reduced their positions along the way.

So with some modifications, your code could answer the question of “what if I allocated X% of my portfolio to BTC and rebalanced to target that allocation every Y months?” Which, I think, would be a more reasonable approximation of people’s wealth trajectory, if they had bought in a certain point in time. (If you want to make this even fancier, you can account for the fact that after the first 1-10M, you can start swinging for the fences and leave higher allocation to crypto)

Every night at midnight, I have a script that sends me a blank email with a smiley face as subject. It’s a nice way to very quickly distinguish emails from today, yesterday etc. and also to stunt my prior that every email I get is going to be stressful.

It seems that the commenters in this thread have at least two views on what you call “changing the rules.” The fact of the matter is, no one guarantees you 100% uptime access to the markets. I think this episode should be a lesson for everyone, RH sympathizers and haters alike, that it probably makes a lot of sense to have well-funded accounts at at least 2 brokerages, if you plan to be an active trader.

Do you have evidence that Citadel is RH’s prime brokerage? Being an executing broker or a trading counterparty or paying for order flow has nothing to do with being a prime brokerage or clearing RH’s trades.

I’m not a fan of Robinhood, but everything that vkou has been saying is true.

My understanding is that Robinhood is self-clearing, not that Citadel is its prime brokerage.

The clearing margin requirement came from NSCC. Clearing margins CANNOT be satisfied using client funds. So it’s Robinhood’s own capital—and whatever credit lines they’ve negotiated—that would need to meet those requirements.

If I deposit 100k into Robinhood and keep it there as cash for 2 years, then one day I plunk all of it into GME, then until all my trades settle two days later, Robinhood will have increased clearing margin requirements based on the VaR of my unsettled trades. (Unless, my trade offsets someone else’s from within Robinhood, in which case I believe RH’s margin would reduce—but I’m not sure about this part.)

And if one day after my trades, GME’s stock goes up 10x, the VaR goes up roughly 10x as well. Even though I would have a claim to a lot higher value in my account once everything is settled, until the trades are settled, it’s a major cash crunch for RH.

The fact of the matter is that RH was not under-capitalized or have disproportionately small credit lines as a portion of their AUM, as compared to other brokerages. It’s just that their users were the ones that acted in a most coordinated way on a stock whose VaR was going through the roof.

At 1:51 of this video, you can see them fitting it to what looks like a giant heatsink, to be plugged into some very large pipes: https://youtu.be/qSqAxEXtZY0?t=111

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of an actual company that's bought and uses one of these chips (say, the CS-1)? What's the use case?

They mention "low latency datacenter inference." Surely, the Facebooks and Amazons in the world could do better by using localized, smaller-scale machines for inference, since their use cases are distributed geographically. The one use case that I can think of, is high-frequency trading. But I can tell you that 20PB/s memory bandwidth is an overkill, and also, you're going to have a bad time trying to cool this thing down in a colocation center that doesn't belong to you.

It all depends on the contract and the jurisdiction you’re in. Definitely get a lawyer that specializes in employee compensation (in the US, those would generally be in the field of what is called “labor law”), ideally get the opinion of lawyers from 2-3 different firms.

Depending on the language the company included in whatever letter/contract/agreement you signed when you received your equity awards, the firm can do a number of things to screw you over as they please, as long as you had signed a contract agreeing to it: buy back your shares at $0.01, dilute them, simply cancel them, restrict them for an indefinite period, etc.

At this point, it’s not about what is unhappy/unreasonable. It’s about what’s legally enforceable. If they decide to be assholes, they can just cancel your equity and wait for you to sue them, at which point they might out-lawyer you. The steps you take from now on will improve or reduce your chances of winning a potential lawsuit, so lawyer up ASAP.

Friends from Palantir have seen the data that Plaid downright steals and sells for money. Except they don’t “steal” it, they just use the login credentials and pillage anything that’s available online. It’s disgusting. I wish consumers knew better. I wish more banks cared.

I would encourage you to be a bit more open-minded when judging people with technical issues. Debugging WiFi or microphone might seem intuitive to you, but there’s a good amount of people out there that are experts at coding or data science, who haven’t had to deal with any of the scrappiness. Of course, if you’re hiring for a startup and that level of scrappiness is part of the job, by all means, continue to extract signal.

I strongly disagree. Did Usain Bolt’s performance make his races less exciting to watch? Did Michael Schumacher make Formula 1 less exciting to watch? Michael Phelps? If anything, these superstars, along with the proper recognition, is what brings new people to get excited about their sport, both as spectators and competitors.

When I am on the iMessage dialogue screen with a contact, I can usually click on their name, then Info, and it displays all the video/photo attachments sent in that chat. I believe I can then delete them from there. Is that useful? I guess if there's a number of photos you'd like to keep, but not the large videos, it's a more complicated issue.