HN user
Sure. All I was saying is that it's theoretically possible for a market order that a customer submits online to be front-run (as opposed to a market order submitted to a single exchange). No clue how often it happens in practice.
What a broker does has nothing to do with how market orders work.
A market order submitted to a single exchange isn't the same as a "market order" submitted to e.g. Fidelity.com. He's talking about the latter.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstand market orders because by definition they are only visible to the market after they have traded, so nobody can get ahead of you or do sonething irrational before your order lands.
Have you read Flash Boys? Dunno if the loop-holes have all been solved, but basically it was possible to front-run orders. There was a regulation requiring brokers to execute an order on the exchange that had the best current price. This rule gave no weight to size. So HFT firms could place a tiny, negative expectancy order on one exchange. Then they could see the result of that trade and cancel/place orders on the next exchange that your broker's matching algorithm was going to hit up before your order got there.
If bitcoin becomes 'the currency of the future' then renting 51% of the capacity at market rates will be prohibitively expensive.
I mean many people start bodegas, restaurants, etc. I imagine that's more akin to 19th century entrepreneurship and still is by far the most prevalent form of entrepreneurship today (only like 1.3% of businesses are created in the Bay area and 1.1% of the population lives there).
The current way of doing things
Is there a realistic alternative? Sure, universal basic income eventually, but that's not practical at the moment.
Middlemen, example Amazon, have never been stronger.
The strength of a middleman can be directly measured by how much they mark up prices. Does amazon really mark up prices more than the brick and mortar retailers it replaced?
Pretty sure they do.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/7jg14f/one_o...
That alternative to putting them in the desert is putting them in some non-desert area or putting them nowhere. If these people are objecting to putting them in a desert, they'll object to putting them in a non-desert area too.
I agree mostly. But there may also be a cyclical effect where women don't go into CS because they don't see women working in tech. In which case Google shouldn't necessarily have a legal obligation to hire more women, but there may be a moral argument or even a long-term self-interest argument (i.e. increase supply of good engineers) for it.
very strict immigration policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
thanks for the recommendation
I'd rather own snapchat personally. Think it has more upside than the rest of those combined. Only one close is twitter. You don't buy a company like snapchat for a 20% return, it's 5-10x return or bust.
The only way I could be <25 would be to exercise 3 hours a day and eat 1200 calories.
You could weigh 184 pounds and have a BMI <25. Even with a sedentary lifestyle you'd still burn 2,199 calories a day. This is patently false.
the first focus should be on trying to retain all full-time employees
Why? The 20% that are fired can get other jobs. The group as a whole ends up getting paid more with lay-offs than with pay cuts.
Yeah, I meant more like a Tesla or Chevy Volt.
How big of a solar panel would you have to stick on top of an electric car to keep it going forever (ignoring the extra weight/wind resistance)?
I think he switched to the Pixel: http://www.zdnet.com/article/chromebooks-biggest-fan-linus-t...
Joining seems to imply they'll be keeping the acquired company's employees.
It says they visited 6,815,255 Google sites and 1,686 contained malware. It only visited 152 DuckDuckGo pages. It would have to visit an order of magnitude more than 152 Google pages in order to expect one of them to contain malware.
Storing a history of all of your messages in the cloud isn't a feature for everyone.
That is not true. What do you think the purpose of fat is? As long as you have fat supplies, your body will use those fat supplies. Example: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.ht...
Lowering your BMI from 31 to 24 by cutting fat makes you healthier and increases your expected lifespan (regardless of whether or not you exercise), chopping off your legs does not.
You don't have to do it forever, you just need to do it until you're happy with your weight. I've personally used this method of weight loss because I find it very difficult to exercise effectively when I'm running on a caloric deficit. I consumed 1,000 - 1,500 calories a day for ~2 months and lost ~20 pounds, then began living life normally again. I found it more sustainable than grinding out weight loss over a much longer period of time by exercising.
If you employ a caloric restriction diet, you must do something to keep your metabolism from down-regulating
No you don't. You will always burn calories by simply existing. You can get no exercise and still lose weight simply by cutting calories. Cutting 100 calories from your daily diet may be matched one-to-one with metabolism decreases, but I guarantee that if you cut 1,000 calories from your daily diet you will lose weight.
There may not be a consistently correct way to optimize health, but there is a consistently correct principle when it comes to weight loss. Consumer fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight (even if those calories come from processed foods: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/).
Agreed. You can't show ads unless you have users. Optimizing advertisements is definitely second fiddle to optimizing the user experience.
4. The NSA is incompetent, and correctly concluded that NK is responsible using erroneous reasoning.
From Wikipedia: "The first futures exchange market was the Dōjima Rice Exchange in Japan in the 1730s, to meet the needs of samurai who—being paid in rice, and after a series of bad harvests—needed a stable conversion to coin." Substitute gold, oil, stock, whatever for rice and the concept still applies.These are all things that need to be converted to coin in order for them to be of any use. Without traders, this would be extremely difficult, costly, and generally inefficient. With algorithmic traders it becomes even easier, cheaper, and generally more efficient.