This is a discussion about deaf culture. Pretty much by definition, it's a monolithic entity. You can, and should, when discussing a culture, talk about the incentives and attitudes it puts upon its members. Actually, going beyond that, you can and should critique those.
You're right that shouldn't go over into "deaf people all are evil/all think this". But the specific culture apparently does.
You seem to be laboring over a lot of misconceptions.
The point of overtime is not for the employee's benefit. It is for the employer's. It's cheaper to pay the additional per-hour overtime premium, then the fixed costs of having an entire additional staffer.
A second job is completely different from working overtime. It doesn't raise expectations for your coworkers, means that certain overhead is paid twice, and the list keeps going.
Eliminate the consultant and end the relationship with Pepsi then find a different sponsor. So clearly there's more to it collapsing than just the Pepsi guy.
They did get rid of him. The problem is a Game Jam is operating under a time constraint. And so much time and energy got sucked up by this dick that they didn't even see a point in trying to make the deadline. Which makes all the rented materials, salaries, etc. a lost cause, etc.
how dare you make a personal choice about something that does not align to the interests of the people who are paying you to do something totally unrelated to this personal choice.
Actually, yes.
I wouldn't expect a director making a horror movie to hire someone who disdained horror movies. Sure, maybe the camera work would be exactly the same, but you want people excited to be working on a project.
If you work at Pepsi, and you're really bought into the brand, then you care about it. And you think it's a core part of business. So someone drinking Coke would be a pariah.
Sorry, stupidly explained. Object to a GPS device being attached to everyone's car. Same end result for one person, but totally different in aggregate.
So it's simply the efficiency of scale that you object to?
Well, it changes the entire situation. It's similar to how many people are okay with an officer tailing a suspect, but object to a dragnet search.
I do object to it on a small scale. But not enough to really care about.
Even knowing that before HFT, the market makers used to collude to keep the spreads at a quarter, and now (since HFTs compete) spreads are mostly a cent?
Mere correlation. HFT occurred at the same time (and as a result of) other efficiencies in the market. I have yet to find any evidence that HFT lowers costs to the retail investor.
Also, I find the spread to be a fairly meaningless comparison. HFT increases the number of trades. So, the spread isn't as unabigous a marker as it seems.
Although, I may be wrong. Please let me know if I seem off.
you still haven't mentioned any harm.
HFT's are making money, making billions. That money isn't from any value created. So it must be coming from somewhere else. That makes them a deadweight loss - siphoning cash from the market.
The issue isn't a HFT company making a fraction of a cent on a trade. It's a HFT making a fraction of a cent on every trade.
In your example, a better infrastructure allowed companies to make a profit proportional to the number (and, to some degree, skill) of their employees. In the current state, it depends solely on the infrastructure present.
Or, to put it a different way, the combination of a winner-take-all system with a solved-problem combined with a hardware-race yields an undesirable result; at least to me.
400 wpm is not high. Last speedreading test I took I hit 6-something. And I'm not that fast a reader.
But yes, that's English text, conveying possibly new ideas and/or facts. When I read a math text I don't achieve that speed.
I do wonder whether it's new paradigms that build on one another or the equations that make a difference. I have a few old Calc books around, maybe I should try speedreading them.
But in general, you can retain what is written if it's the kind of writing in a newspaper.
I can rip through a John Grisham novel in no time, but I'm currently reading "The Count of Monte Cristo". That is taking some time.
We just finally got pretty much everyone who matters to use a USB connector, now you want to go back to the Walled Garden of proprietary connectors, or even worse, try to get everyone to agree on a new standard?
Hell yes. I've wanted a standard for power for years. USB is pretty stupid way to standardize, because it's 5V @ 0.5A. But that's an issue because to charge you need 5V @ 1A (then 5V @2A) so instead of coming up with a new connector, now they negotiate rates, and suddenly you have to ask if it's a USB connection that supports 2A, etc, etc. etc. and you cannot tell by looking at it.
Also, USB has USB micro and USB mini and just regular USB A, so don't pretend it's totally unambigous. And only one of those is at all resilient to being flipped upside down when being inserted upside-down. Which is find if you need four pins, but we don't for power.
So, we should have a standard, which can propagate the same way USB did (the EU makes a law). Universal barrel plugs, if it fits, it works. (That is, each combination of inner/outer diameters is ties Also, step up the voltage/amperage into standard steps, so there's a finite number of possibilities. Maybe a couple of standard sizes for each combination.
But yes, I've often used proprietary power plugs as the example for where a stupid government regulation can make for great efficiencies.
that there are problems that would have to be worked out before it'd be practical for a phone battery.
Or we could separate power from data and do away with "all approx. 5V connections must use a USB adapter." Bonus, it solves the charging station hacks.
You seem to be the first person who is actually trying to explain something instead of just opaquely insisting "HFT adds liquidity'. So, since I don't understand that position at all, allow me to ask a series of questions that hopefully help me out.
You're saying when there are 500k being offered at 35.2 (split into 100k across 5 exchanges), in reality there is only 100k being offered on any of 5 exchanges, because as soon as 100k are snapped up, they'll withdraw their offer on the other 4 exchanges an up them to 35.4. And that this is expected and ethical, because otherwise they would have started at 35.4?
But even HFT seek to make money, so why wouldn't they start at 35.4 if they thought they could get it?
Do we have any evidence that this actually lowers the spreads? I mean, I understand there is a correlation, but electronic trading in general lowers the spread, plus it seems timed to the switch to decimal. Has anyone controlled for those factors?
You mention market making. But isn't that factor only for thinly traded stocks? Wouldn't widely traded stocks already have a market.
How does this "extra liquidity" occur? I thought HFT was arbitrage. Arbitrage, pretty much by definition, can only occur when you already have both parties lined up for you to transact with.
Why do you say that he's the only one at that price. Presentably, there could be infinite people offering at that price, all of whom withdraw their offer and up it. I mean, that may be a different example, but it seems like otherwise you're picking on a poorly constructed example instead of a proper point.
What information is major enough to allow immediate sales of stock, and who gets to choose?
Well, on one side we have information about disasters involving the company (factories exploding, recalls, CEO death). That clearly is major enough.
On the other side we have information about how the rest of the market values that company, taken to its extreme with HFT. That clearly is not major enough and what is trying to be blocked.
I think we can all agree that there is a lot of grey in between the two extremes. But the difficulty of arriving at a solid point does not abrogate the concept, any more than sorites paradox prevents a heap of sand from existing.
But, I put forth, that although this is a way of reviving the GP's point, it is not the only solution.
We could easily, and perhaps profitably, allow no information to reset the counter. What would the advantage be?
You see, I'm not a dumbass. I don't work for free. Artificial scarcity is stupid.... I ask for the money to do my work or research or create things UP FRONT, and I ask for enough to cover the work and the profit I need for it, then I "give it away for free" since the work has been paid for.
You didn't come up with some brilliant system. You just shifted the onus on participating in a system you dislike to your employer.
Statistically, HFT lowers spreads and thus the long term investor pays less when he buys and gives up less when he sells. This actually improves (very marginally) the return for the long term investor.
Any evidence? I mean, logically, the spreads probably decrease, but since there are 2x as many of them, the total spread probably increases (Non-HFT->HFT->Non-HFT).
Or if you mean HFT happened to start around when the market switched from fractions to decimal, I think you're overreading into a correlation.
There seemed to be a lot of silly things you said. I just want to focus on:
You want your 401K to execute as accurately-priced trades as possible.
Except, I really don't. For one thing, I'm selfish and want to buy things for the lowest price and sell them for the highest. For another, I dispute the very concept of an "accurately-priced trade". Or rather, that you can define a trade as being precise down to a cent. I mean, I know that we pragmatically have to define a price-point, but it doesn't seem to be some holy thing that must be discovered. It seems to be a compromise, and both parties often would have executed the trade at 1 cent higher or lower.
how exactly is this rigged for the longer term investor?
Well, it leads to greater price variability, meaning that margin calls are more likely to occur, if you trade on margin. And harder to have pre-programmed sell orders at certain thresholds.
But at a more macro level, the total profit from the trades remain the same. The HFTs are making more money. Therefore, the long-term trader is making less.
No taxpayer-funded bailouts for that kind of informed, free, but stupid choice.
Yeah, there are two independent issues. To use flood insurance as an example. One example is vacation/luxury homes in Florida. I am sick of subsidizing those homes. The other is in flood-prone areas like New Orleans. For some reason, low-lying areas that are more likely to flood are cheaper to live in and filled with poorer people. So, we end up in this area where what is essentially supposed to be support for the poor (can live in a more dangerous area, and save money, without as much of the risk) turning into a giant give away to well off individuals.
What if a prisoner wants to program in a VC-funded tech startup?
Look, I don't like the idea of removing their books, but being in prison does prevent you from doing other things. And non-prison jobs are usually one thing it prevents.
So, your proposal is that they reduce the Education budget by 95% or so?
A quick Google shows that the UK Education budget is ~88 billion Pounds, their Prison budget is ~4 billion Pounds.
It only works because most everyone is ignorant, and most everyone likes to exaggerate for effect, and it gets old real fast once you start googling the numbers....
You are either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreting the point you are refuting. There is an (ofttimes implicit) assumption that the budget is per capita. Since there are 120 students per prisoner in the UK (122 if we count University students), the amount spent per prisoner is drastically more than the amount spent per student.
As a "young programmer,"...[y]ou know how long it took me to start being productive in VB.net? 30 seconds, maybe less.
Yeah, you really weren't productive after 30 seconds. As you said, you can declare a variable, whoopdie-fucking-doo. I fully believe that you could figure out how to write functions that did math functions in 30 seconds. Being productive requires more than that. It only took you 30 seconds to, I dunno, use VB.net to use a COM process to read cells from an excel document?
Which isn't to say you cannot get anything done. But your "general programming knowledge" with a barebones syntax knowledge is not as valuable as you think. If a page of your code can be replaced by a callt o an existant function, you're not being productive.
And I say this as someone who has written professional code in... I lost count somewhere around 15 languages and cannot be bothered to go back and start again. Sometimes I was very productive. In some languages I was not. And in the case of small modifications or small projects, it was okay to be fairly unproductive (I'm using the term how I think you understand it, which means I was fairly inefficent in the use of my time, and the solution, while working, was probably suboptimal). But, the fact that me being unproductive lead to a good solution doesn't mean it wouldn't have taken 1/3 of the time with someone who actually knew the language.
I do see the similarity to Fluke meters with the grey face plate and yellow sides, but on their site they say the shade is more of a macaroni and cheese color. Can fluke own every shade of yellow?
That's the actual issue. You can use yellow. You can use dark gray. You can even use a yellow face and a dark gray side. But you cannot use a dark gray face and a yellow side.
Can fluke own every shade of yellow?
Fluke's trademark covers every kind of yellow side with every kind of dark gray face.
. In fact I have just checked on Home Depot and see several brands of multimeters that have the grey face plate with yellow boarders
I see a lot of dark gray faceplate and orange borders. And I see a lot of black faceplate with yellow borders. Not finding any knockoffs with dark gray faceplate and yellow borders though.
"trademark" on a common electronic gadget being yellow is overly-broad and never should have been issued. I
Also, not something that exists or is what we are talkiing about. Read the trademark. We're talking about a yellow edging and dark gray face, combined.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted - but immaterial in this instance.
This is a discussion about deaf culture. Pretty much by definition, it's a monolithic entity. You can, and should, when discussing a culture, talk about the incentives and attitudes it puts upon its members. Actually, going beyond that, you can and should critique those.
You're right that shouldn't go over into "deaf people all are evil/all think this". But the specific culture apparently does.
You seem to be laboring over a lot of misconceptions.
The point of overtime is not for the employee's benefit. It is for the employer's. It's cheaper to pay the additional per-hour overtime premium, then the fixed costs of having an entire additional staffer.
A second job is completely different from working overtime. It doesn't raise expectations for your coworkers, means that certain overhead is paid twice, and the list keeps going.
They did get rid of him. The problem is a Game Jam is operating under a time constraint. And so much time and energy got sucked up by this dick that they didn't even see a point in trying to make the deadline. Which makes all the rented materials, salaries, etc. a lost cause, etc.
Actually, yes.
I wouldn't expect a director making a horror movie to hire someone who disdained horror movies. Sure, maybe the camera work would be exactly the same, but you want people excited to be working on a project.
If you work at Pepsi, and you're really bought into the brand, then you care about it. And you think it's a core part of business. So someone drinking Coke would be a pariah.
Sorry, stupidly explained. Object to a GPS device being attached to everyone's car. Same end result for one person, but totally different in aggregate.
Well, it changes the entire situation. It's similar to how many people are okay with an officer tailing a suspect, but object to a dragnet search.
I do object to it on a small scale. But not enough to really care about.
Mere correlation. HFT occurred at the same time (and as a result of) other efficiencies in the market. I have yet to find any evidence that HFT lowers costs to the retail investor.
Also, I find the spread to be a fairly meaningless comparison. HFT increases the number of trades. So, the spread isn't as unabigous a marker as it seems.
Although, I may be wrong. Please let me know if I seem off.
HFT's are making money, making billions. That money isn't from any value created. So it must be coming from somewhere else. That makes them a deadweight loss - siphoning cash from the market.
The issue isn't a HFT company making a fraction of a cent on a trade. It's a HFT making a fraction of a cent on every trade.
In your example, a better infrastructure allowed companies to make a profit proportional to the number (and, to some degree, skill) of their employees. In the current state, it depends solely on the infrastructure present.
Or, to put it a different way, the combination of a winner-take-all system with a solved-problem combined with a hardware-race yields an undesirable result; at least to me.
400 wpm is not high. Last speedreading test I took I hit 6-something. And I'm not that fast a reader.
But yes, that's English text, conveying possibly new ideas and/or facts. When I read a math text I don't achieve that speed.
I do wonder whether it's new paradigms that build on one another or the equations that make a difference. I have a few old Calc books around, maybe I should try speedreading them.
But in general, you can retain what is written if it's the kind of writing in a newspaper.
I can rip through a John Grisham novel in no time, but I'm currently reading "The Count of Monte Cristo". That is taking some time.
Hell yes. I've wanted a standard for power for years. USB is pretty stupid way to standardize, because it's 5V @ 0.5A. But that's an issue because to charge you need 5V @ 1A (then 5V @2A) so instead of coming up with a new connector, now they negotiate rates, and suddenly you have to ask if it's a USB connection that supports 2A, etc, etc. etc. and you cannot tell by looking at it.
Also, USB has USB micro and USB mini and just regular USB A, so don't pretend it's totally unambigous. And only one of those is at all resilient to being flipped upside down when being inserted upside-down. Which is find if you need four pins, but we don't for power.
So, we should have a standard, which can propagate the same way USB did (the EU makes a law). Universal barrel plugs, if it fits, it works. (That is, each combination of inner/outer diameters is ties Also, step up the voltage/amperage into standard steps, so there's a finite number of possibilities. Maybe a couple of standard sizes for each combination.
But yes, I've often used proprietary power plugs as the example for where a stupid government regulation can make for great efficiencies.
Or we could separate power from data and do away with "all approx. 5V connections must use a USB adapter." Bonus, it solves the charging station hacks.
You seem to be the first person who is actually trying to explain something instead of just opaquely insisting "HFT adds liquidity'. So, since I don't understand that position at all, allow me to ask a series of questions that hopefully help me out.
You're saying when there are 500k being offered at 35.2 (split into 100k across 5 exchanges), in reality there is only 100k being offered on any of 5 exchanges, because as soon as 100k are snapped up, they'll withdraw their offer on the other 4 exchanges an up them to 35.4. And that this is expected and ethical, because otherwise they would have started at 35.4?
But even HFT seek to make money, so why wouldn't they start at 35.4 if they thought they could get it?
Do we have any evidence that this actually lowers the spreads? I mean, I understand there is a correlation, but electronic trading in general lowers the spread, plus it seems timed to the switch to decimal. Has anyone controlled for those factors?
You mention market making. But isn't that factor only for thinly traded stocks? Wouldn't widely traded stocks already have a market.
How does this "extra liquidity" occur? I thought HFT was arbitrage. Arbitrage, pretty much by definition, can only occur when you already have both parties lined up for you to transact with.
Why do you say that he's the only one at that price. Presentably, there could be infinite people offering at that price, all of whom withdraw their offer and up it. I mean, that may be a different example, but it seems like otherwise you're picking on a poorly constructed example instead of a proper point.
To defend the GP's point:
Well, on one side we have information about disasters involving the company (factories exploding, recalls, CEO death). That clearly is major enough.
On the other side we have information about how the rest of the market values that company, taken to its extreme with HFT. That clearly is not major enough and what is trying to be blocked.
I think we can all agree that there is a lot of grey in between the two extremes. But the difficulty of arriving at a solid point does not abrogate the concept, any more than sorites paradox prevents a heap of sand from existing.
But, I put forth, that although this is a way of reviving the GP's point, it is not the only solution.
We could easily, and perhaps profitably, allow no information to reset the counter. What would the advantage be?
You didn't come up with some brilliant system. You just shifted the onus on participating in a system you dislike to your employer.
Sweet! Sounds like a great deal
I get the convenience of the transactions being helpfully reported to the government making my taxes easier
I get the joy of paying middlemen.
I get the reliability and stability of bitcoin.
Any evidence? I mean, logically, the spreads probably decrease, but since there are 2x as many of them, the total spread probably increases (Non-HFT->HFT->Non-HFT).
Or if you mean HFT happened to start around when the market switched from fractions to decimal, I think you're overreading into a correlation.
There seemed to be a lot of silly things you said. I just want to focus on:
Except, I really don't. For one thing, I'm selfish and want to buy things for the lowest price and sell them for the highest. For another, I dispute the very concept of an "accurately-priced trade". Or rather, that you can define a trade as being precise down to a cent. I mean, I know that we pragmatically have to define a price-point, but it doesn't seem to be some holy thing that must be discovered. It seems to be a compromise, and both parties often would have executed the trade at 1 cent higher or lower.
Well, it leads to greater price variability, meaning that margin calls are more likely to occur, if you trade on margin. And harder to have pre-programmed sell orders at certain thresholds.
But at a more macro level, the total profit from the trades remain the same. The HFTs are making more money. Therefore, the long-term trader is making less.
Yeah, there are two independent issues. To use flood insurance as an example. One example is vacation/luxury homes in Florida. I am sick of subsidizing those homes. The other is in flood-prone areas like New Orleans. For some reason, low-lying areas that are more likely to flood are cheaper to live in and filled with poorer people. So, we end up in this area where what is essentially supposed to be support for the poor (can live in a more dangerous area, and save money, without as much of the risk) turning into a giant give away to well off individuals.
What if a prisoner wants to program in a VC-funded tech startup?
Look, I don't like the idea of removing their books, but being in prison does prevent you from doing other things. And non-prison jobs are usually one thing it prevents.
Also, access to a computer.
You are either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreting the point you are refuting. There is an (ofttimes implicit) assumption that the budget is per capita. Since there are 120 students per prisoner in the UK (122 if we count University students), the amount spent per prisoner is drastically more than the amount spent per student.
Of course he's not. He's probably locked in for 3 years as a term of the sale.
If you mean John Deere colored green, it's not. They actually lost a suit that it was functional.
Yeah, you really weren't productive after 30 seconds. As you said, you can declare a variable, whoopdie-fucking-doo. I fully believe that you could figure out how to write functions that did math functions in 30 seconds. Being productive requires more than that. It only took you 30 seconds to, I dunno, use VB.net to use a COM process to read cells from an excel document?
Which isn't to say you cannot get anything done. But your "general programming knowledge" with a barebones syntax knowledge is not as valuable as you think. If a page of your code can be replaced by a callt o an existant function, you're not being productive.
And I say this as someone who has written professional code in... I lost count somewhere around 15 languages and cannot be bothered to go back and start again. Sometimes I was very productive. In some languages I was not. And in the case of small modifications or small projects, it was okay to be fairly unproductive (I'm using the term how I think you understand it, which means I was fairly inefficent in the use of my time, and the solution, while working, was probably suboptimal). But, the fact that me being unproductive lead to a good solution doesn't mean it wouldn't have taken 1/3 of the time with someone who actually knew the language.
That's the actual issue. You can use yellow. You can use dark gray. You can even use a yellow face and a dark gray side. But you cannot use a dark gray face and a yellow side.
Fluke's trademark covers every kind of yellow side with every kind of dark gray face.
I see a lot of dark gray faceplate and orange borders. And I see a lot of black faceplate with yellow borders. Not finding any knockoffs with dark gray faceplate and yellow borders though.
Also, not something that exists or is what we are talkiing about. Read the trademark. We're talking about a yellow edging and dark gray face, combined.