jackbrian

Yeah, that's the right one. He talks about HFT microwave towers and things

This is the best answer if you're looking into the field as a career. Within any subset you would be at a competitive disadvantage trading on your own whether its due to speed (HFT), execution costs (market making), or very expensive/exclusive datasets (machine learning). There's learning benefits to trading on your own, but you will most likely lose money and would have to keep it within certain bounds (i.e. daily position updates). As neuronsguy said, the best strategy is to be demonstrably smart/interested.

As a CS student, I'd really make sure your stats knowledge is solid. Perhaps take a class that covers stochastic finance (Black-Scholes, etc.) if available.

I learned the hard way that it is quite difficult to break into finance as a non-student, so do everything you can now to land that first gig. Good luck!

Some starting resources:

-Ernie Chan's books and blog (https://epchan.blogspot.com/)

-QuantStart has great starter material and a new book, although I haven't read it (https://www.quantstart.com/)

-"Inside the Black Box" (Narang) I've seen referenced a good bit but felt as though it leaned toward order execution and rather boring

-"Dark Pools" (Scott Patterson) a great story about the rise of algorithmic trading

-"Flash Boys' (Michael Lewis) offers a nice follow up (HFT), but considered a bit sensationalist

EDIT: If you're planning on using Python (a solid bet)...

-Python for Data Analysis (Wes McKinney) - Great, quick book for Pandas by former AQR (and now Two Sigma?) guy.

-Yves Hilpisch books: "Python for Finance" is introductory while "Derivative Analytics in Python" is quite math heavy.

I agree. However using the same methods in this election, 'establishment' Hillary would have probably come across as big brother-esque whereas Trump as more of a 'new awareness' message to some targeted users (fitting his rhetoric). Surely not in all cases but perhaps notable enough.

> Councilman William Greenlee, a Democrat, who sponsored the bill, says the measure wouldn’t prevent employers from setting a fair salary, bar salary negotiations with prospective hires, or keep job candidates from voluntarily sharing their pay history. But if passed, violators who quizzed would-be hires about salary could face fines up to $2,000.

Even if passed, the penalty hardly seems disincentivizing.

I feel as though the side with the upper hand in hiring negotiations goes with the tide of the economy/labor market. In my opinion corporations have the advantage in today's market (as indicated by stagnant wages, although this metric may be at a turning point) and it may be suitable to provide protections for job seekers. One could also argue that the opportunity cost of job hunting for an individual is greater than that of a corporation. However, perhaps it is better to ban employers from demanding proof of past salary as opposed to banning employers from asking salary.