The small timescales aren't there to benefit some consumer investor, etc.
It's a direct result of competition between HFT. E.g. market makers each trying to give a better price.
That's what drives the timescales down.
It also guarantees the best prices for other market participants.
By definition, if you submit a market order it trades at the best available price. Since competition between market makers keeps the spreads at 1c (which happens to be the best possible) your guaranteed to be within 1c of the current value.
If you care about losing that fraction of a cent, you can submit a limit order instead.
Nobody forces you to give up 1c.
This is a completely uninformed, but yet common, opinion.
You need to learn how money, value and risk flow from market to market.
Once you see the big picture you can see where HFT fits into it.
Basically, by making the markets generally much more efficient, HFT reduces risk to other participants and in some cases reduces the cost of trading. As such investors need to keep less money in safer instruments, which means overall more money invested, which helps growth and improves things overall.
Without HFT you have wider spreads, more risk, less money invested slower growth, and a slower velocity of cash.
How do you think you personally have been impacted by HFT?
Have you invested in something and had HFT take a piece of it and if so, how much and what were the details?
Basically, I'm calling you out: back up your accusations with evidence.
I completely agree. In scientific computing, although, vector math is ubiquitous. So I'd almost discount current Java implementations from scientific computing. At least for the "hot spots"
I think that magical thinking in all it's forms is bad. But I wouldn't really mind too much if religious people kept their religion to themselves. And most do. But there will always be the extremists.
You get a performance benefit from preallocating in both C++ and Java, so the whole gc being smooth is irrelevant. If you are constantly allocating and deallocating you haven't written optimal code.
Current compilers (applies to jit too) do a terrible job of vectorising for simd instruction sets.
Take Intel avx2. That's 512 bit wide operations... e.g 16 simultaneous floating point multiplies.
Java can't get close to hand optimized vector code in C plus assembly.
Similarly for gpgpu...
Of course, OP wanted to make an improvement without learning something entirely new... but if we're comparing C and Java...
Python is easy to learn, flexible and highly descriptive. It doesn't have undefined behavior like C, and there are libraries to assist with almost anything, especially scientific computing. There is even an MPI implementation for python.
Just avoid tabs.
Personally I use Octave and C depending. But for this purpose, C is too difficult. Not to be insulting - C has all kinds of quirks and is low level. The benefits aren't big enough for many things. Python is much quicker to become productive. Octave is even more descriptive for vectors and matrices, but less in other areas like IO and OO. Either of those would be my advice. Just make sure you vectorise the hell out of it. If you write a for loop you're incurring several orders of magnitude penalty in performance.
This is exactly what we need, both in the US and the UK.
The NSA and GCHQ are skirting laws by getting each other to do their dirty work. It's disgusting.
Destroying files what required to do so under threat of violence is now an admission of guilt??
Cameron, you are a prick. This is the government making an example of a newspaper to scare other newspapers into line.
I've recently subscribed to The Guardian (again - I used to subscribe many years ago when I lived over there). I recommend it.. we can demonstrate the public will with our money.
My use of probabilities is perfectly correct. You're introducing bias by throwing out data based on the result.
When making the decision you only have the prior, so the probability cannot take into account future information.
As to whether that small additional risk should be taken, that's the parents' choice.
You didn't actually counter any of my points.
I never said it didn't change the odds. My point is is doesn't change them by much, except in some cases and most of those are known ahead of time.
Also, no one is forcing these women to stay home... I completely agree with the woman having a choice. If you were to mandate hospital births I would oppose that. All my kids were born in hospitals. Two of them were considered high risk and one had an emergency c section. But I also understand probabilities. Better than most, apparently.
With all your knowledge and experience you didn't notice that many of those things would be diagnosed ahead of delivery?
Also, many of them have vanishingly small probability.
Even if you do have an issue, having a home birth doesn't guarantee permanent damage or death, and a hospital doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome.
And having a baby at a hospital carirs additional risks.. such as MRSA.
I actually had a baby contract a Staph infection at the hospital. Luckily it wasn't resistant, but she went through the works: two spinal taps, an echo cardiogram, a central line for 8 weeks of round the clock antibiotics (two kinds, the first one caused a drop in red blood cells), a bone window.
Such an outcome is LESS likely with a home delivery.
Shit can happen either way. For high risk births, it makes sense to have them at a hospital - even in the E.R. For the vast majority of births, it won't make an iota of difference.
What always got me was merely picturing the liquid squeezing into my veins. If I think about the for too long I get sick... even if there are no needles around.
They can buy when prices are low.
They can lock in their cost early and set their own prices accordingly.
They can plan ahead and ensure they have enough supply for future needs.
These ultimately come down to reducing risk. Generally speaking, reducing risk costs, and taking on risk makes money (at least it has positive expectation).
Such regulations aren't an underlying problem of the futures market itself.
Regulations like that always make markets less efficient.
But those aren't at issue here, since nobody has proposed creating such, nor submitted a bill to that effect - it's pure speculation on your part.
As for your assessment of the likelihood of success of such a venture, who is it that you think will become bankrupt?
The future writer (likely a broker) who charges his client - the suplier?
The exchange, who charge everyone?
The consumer, who could just as easily buy directly?
Again, futures have a benefit to supplier and consumer both.
It's possible that no one will see any reason to use these contracts. But many people think otherwise, and you're hardly an expert, are you?
Nope, the price of a future can drop below the original price the farmer offered it at, prior to expiry.
Demand comes from the actual consumer, e.g. Kraft Foods and the like. Speculators don't increase demand: firstly, because they are as likely to sell as to buy, secondly because if they did increase demand, they would end up having to accept delivery of actual product.
You're simply trying to justify your dislike of speculation.
What you are saying implies that futures prices always rise.
Which isn't true.
In fact, arbitrage prevents your scenario.
Increased demand causes prices to rise, and this causes people to try to increase supply, which reduces prices.
I absolutely *love* this idea.
The basic idea of distibuting your data among many legal entities in itself is brilliant. Especially when combined with the notion of cryptography, meaning multiple entities must be compromised to get at a single piece of data.
You can build on this... n of m blocks needed for decryption for robustness against a failure.
Temporary key pairs for transferring the data so that mitm attacks can't store the cyphertext for later decryption when the keys are found.
Let's do it!
That's not how it works.
Some companies will design futures contracts, and market them.
If buyers see value in them they will buy them, and if they don't they won't.
It doesn't take much imagination to see the value in futures contracts, both to the buyer and seller.
If futures didn't have value, people wouldn't buy them.
How do you think this will work?
A bunch of people come knocking on your door saying buy our futures or else?
Slashdot Mirror
The small timescales aren't there to benefit some consumer investor, etc. It's a direct result of competition between HFT. E.g. market makers each trying to give a better price. That's what drives the timescales down. It also guarantees the best prices for other market participants.
By definition, if you submit a market order it trades at the best available price. Since competition between market makers keeps the spreads at 1c (which happens to be the best possible) your guaranteed to be within 1c of the current value. If you care about losing that fraction of a cent, you can submit a limit order instead. Nobody forces you to give up 1c.
This is a completely uninformed, but yet common, opinion. You need to learn how money, value and risk flow from market to market. Once you see the big picture you can see where HFT fits into it. Basically, by making the markets generally much more efficient, HFT reduces risk to other participants and in some cases reduces the cost of trading. As such investors need to keep less money in safer instruments, which means overall more money invested, which helps growth and improves things overall. Without HFT you have wider spreads, more risk, less money invested slower growth, and a slower velocity of cash. How do you think you personally have been impacted by HFT? Have you invested in something and had HFT take a piece of it and if so, how much and what were the details? Basically, I'm calling you out: back up your accusations with evidence.
I completely agree. In scientific computing, although, vector math is ubiquitous. So I'd almost discount current Java implementations from scientific computing. At least for the "hot spots"
I think it's a pointless distinction.
I think that magical thinking in all it's forms is bad. But I wouldn't really mind too much if religious people kept their religion to themselves. And most do. But there will always be the extremists.
You get a performance benefit from preallocating in both C++ and Java, so the whole gc being smooth is irrelevant. If you are constantly allocating and deallocating you haven't written optimal code. Current compilers (applies to jit too) do a terrible job of vectorising for simd instruction sets. Take Intel avx2. That's 512 bit wide operations... e.g 16 simultaneous floating point multiplies. Java can't get close to hand optimized vector code in C plus assembly. Similarly for gpgpu... Of course, OP wanted to make an improvement without learning something entirely new... but if we're comparing C and Java...
I've written some very dense code quickly in Perl. I can't read it now, of course...
Python is easy to learn, flexible and highly descriptive. It doesn't have undefined behavior like C, and there are libraries to assist with almost anything, especially scientific computing. There is even an MPI implementation for python. Just avoid tabs. Personally I use Octave and C depending. But for this purpose, C is too difficult. Not to be insulting - C has all kinds of quirks and is low level. The benefits aren't big enough for many things. Python is much quicker to become productive. Octave is even more descriptive for vectors and matrices, but less in other areas like IO and OO. Either of those would be my advice. Just make sure you vectorise the hell out of it. If you write a for loop you're incurring several orders of magnitude penalty in performance.
This is exactly what we need, both in the US and the UK. The NSA and GCHQ are skirting laws by getting each other to do their dirty work. It's disgusting.
Destroying files what required to do so under threat of violence is now an admission of guilt?? Cameron, you are a prick. This is the government making an example of a newspaper to scare other newspapers into line. I've recently subscribed to The Guardian (again - I used to subscribe many years ago when I lived over there). I recommend it.. we can demonstrate the public will with our money.
My use of probabilities is perfectly correct. You're introducing bias by throwing out data based on the result. When making the decision you only have the prior, so the probability cannot take into account future information. As to whether that small additional risk should be taken, that's the parents' choice.
You didn't actually counter any of my points. I never said it didn't change the odds. My point is is doesn't change them by much, except in some cases and most of those are known ahead of time. Also, no one is forcing these women to stay home... I completely agree with the woman having a choice. If you were to mandate hospital births I would oppose that. All my kids were born in hospitals. Two of them were considered high risk and one had an emergency c section. But I also understand probabilities. Better than most, apparently.
That 99 is certainly rounded, and I suggest that far fewer than 1% of neonates require resuscitation.
With all your knowledge and experience you didn't notice that many of those things would be diagnosed ahead of delivery? Also, many of them have vanishingly small probability. Even if you do have an issue, having a home birth doesn't guarantee permanent damage or death, and a hospital doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome. And having a baby at a hospital carirs additional risks.. such as MRSA. I actually had a baby contract a Staph infection at the hospital. Luckily it wasn't resistant, but she went through the works: two spinal taps, an echo cardiogram, a central line for 8 weeks of round the clock antibiotics (two kinds, the first one caused a drop in red blood cells), a bone window. Such an outcome is LESS likely with a home delivery. Shit can happen either way. For high risk births, it makes sense to have them at a hospital - even in the E.R. For the vast majority of births, it won't make an iota of difference.
I would agree, except for one detail... the court merely agreed that the father could vaccinate them, even without the mother's consent.
What always got me was merely picturing the liquid squeezing into my veins. If I think about the for too long I get sick... even if there are no needles around.
They can buy when prices are low. They can lock in their cost early and set their own prices accordingly. They can plan ahead and ensure they have enough supply for future needs. These ultimately come down to reducing risk. Generally speaking, reducing risk costs, and taking on risk makes money (at least it has positive expectation).
Such regulations aren't an underlying problem of the futures market itself. Regulations like that always make markets less efficient. But those aren't at issue here, since nobody has proposed creating such, nor submitted a bill to that effect - it's pure speculation on your part. As for your assessment of the likelihood of success of such a venture, who is it that you think will become bankrupt? The future writer (likely a broker) who charges his client - the suplier? The exchange, who charge everyone? The consumer, who could just as easily buy directly? Again, futures have a benefit to supplier and consumer both. It's possible that no one will see any reason to use these contracts. But many people think otherwise, and you're hardly an expert, are you?
Nope, the price of a future can drop below the original price the farmer offered it at, prior to expiry. Demand comes from the actual consumer, e.g. Kraft Foods and the like. Speculators don't increase demand: firstly, because they are as likely to sell as to buy, secondly because if they did increase demand, they would end up having to accept delivery of actual product. You're simply trying to justify your dislike of speculation.
What you are saying implies that futures prices always rise. Which isn't true. In fact, arbitrage prevents your scenario. Increased demand causes prices to rise, and this causes people to try to increase supply, which reduces prices.
I absolutely *love* this idea. The basic idea of distibuting your data among many legal entities in itself is brilliant. Especially when combined with the notion of cryptography, meaning multiple entities must be compromised to get at a single piece of data. You can build on this... n of m blocks needed for decryption for robustness against a failure. Temporary key pairs for transferring the data so that mitm attacks can't store the cyphertext for later decryption when the keys are found. Let's do it!
That's not how it works. Some companies will design futures contracts, and market them. If buyers see value in them they will buy them, and if they don't they won't. It doesn't take much imagination to see the value in futures contracts, both to the buyer and seller.
That's not the only benefit of futures.
If futures didn't have value, people wouldn't buy them. How do you think this will work? A bunch of people come knocking on your door saying buy our futures or else?