multicast

Todays derivatives and their pricing are based on the premise that stock prices can not be predicted and behave like a Brownian motion system. If you take real time data from any stock and calculate in order how many times a stock went up in a row or down in a row you end up almost perfectly with a natural probability distribution. HFT's are involved in market making and arbitrage both of which already involves high speed, the later much more, and earning minuscule profits. There are ghost patterns who can be mined for a certain period of time but they are not solely calculated based on trading time series. They involve complex proprietary calculations, some machine learning and relationships between stocks. There is no pattern in the flow how a particular stock is trading.

Also from a long-term view its very questionable. How should a model be able to predict that in the middle of a high interest environment, a tech bubble burst and a dumping stock market in general, a new platform called Chat-GPT gets launched that basically carries the whole world's stock market to new heights which causes among other things retail investors to liquidate bonds and other high interest environment assets and flood it into the stock market. It is more than completely of the text-book. That can not be predicted. The million dollar spending guy is at the end the same way off as the guy who simply employs a 100 python line trend-following strategy.

Good point, I did not mention that. Non-registered investment advisors are also included but this relates more to banks, bank holdings and broker/dealers (e.g. investment banks) who trade on 'investment discretion'[1]. Thus it means entities that are not registered as an investment advisor but still invest on behalf of outside clients and not their own book. This does clearly not apply to Nvidia. It is highly unlikely and not logical that they would manage money for third parties in the name of the public corporate entity, just for a pure side hustle. As that would not contribute much financially (in terms of fees that are earned from managing money on behalf of others) nor to their core business.

The reason for this 13F filing, as you already guessed to some extent, is that Nvidia is a publicly traded company. As such it is subject to a wide range of SEC filings including those from section 13[2].

Nvidia seems to be a rare case. Acquiring public equity, as a company - especially as a public one, just for the purpose of managing concurrent assets, is very unusual but not out of the question - just away from the textbook. Given the fact that its ARM, whose acquisition failed before Nvidia filed the 13F, it could also serve some other purpose, e.g. showing that interest is still present.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq#:~:text=Bank....

[2] https://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-law/sec-report...

Very interesting project, I like the overview. I also really like that you took the finance industry as a theme for your project.

>> Every company in the United States

Sorry for being so fussy but I highly recommended changing the word 'company' / not using it in the future, as the title is quite misleading. No private company in the US has to register with the SEC or has to file with the SEC. 'Investment advisors', who also go by other aliases like 'asset manager', have to file a 13F filing only if they a) are registered with the SEC due to fund marketing purposes and b) if they have, as you already mentioned, over $100 million dollars under management (not 'in holdings'). This is also why large family offices (.e.g. Bayshore Global Management of Sergey Brin) won't show up in any SEC records as they meet the second but not the first criteria - same goes pretty much for any non asset-management company (e.g. McDonald's) as they do not raise money for fund vehicles. However, you have take this into account on your website, and further below you wrote "money manager" which is correct in finance jargon.

I hope this gives you a better understanding, keep up the great work.

We live in times were non-problems are turned into problems. Simple responses should be generated truthfully. Truth which is present in today's data. Most software engineers and CEOs are white and male, almost all US rappers are black and male, most childminder and nurses are female from all kinds of races. If you want the person to be of another race or sex, add it to the prompt. If you want a software engineer from Africa in rainbow jeans, add it to the prompt. If you want to add any characteristics that apply to a certain country, add it to the prompt. Nobody would neither expect nor want a white person when prompting about people like Martin Luther King or a black person when prompting about a police officer from China.

Even though this is highly impressive, I think it is still important to stay rational and optimistic to see the other side of the coin.

Every industrial revolution and its resulting automation has brought not only more jobs but also created a more diverse set of jobs. Therefore also new industries are created. History rhymes, the ruling fears in such times have always been similar. Claims are being made but without any reasonable theories, expertise or provable facts (e.g. Goldman Sachs unemployment prediction is absolute bs). This is even more true when such related AI matters are thought about in more detail. Furthermore, even though employing tens of millions of people probably, only a few industries like content creation, movie etc. are affected. The affacted workforce of these industries is highly creative, as they are being paid for their job. The set of jobs today is big, they won't become cleaning staff nor homeless.

This technology has also to proof itself (Its technical potential is unlimited but financially limited by the size of funds being invested, and these are limited)

Transition to the use of such tools in corporations could take years, depending on the type and size and other parameters. People underestimate the inefficiencies that a lot of companies embody - and I am only talking about the US and some parts of Europe here. If a company did their job for 2 decades the same way, a sudden switch does not happen overnight. Affected people have ways to transition to other industries, educate themselves further and much more. Especially as someone living in the west, the opportunities are huge. And in addition, the wide array of different variables about the economy and the earth, and everything its differing societies are, comes into play: Some corporations want real videos made by real people; Some companies want to stay the way they are and compete using their traditional methods; Corporations are still going to hire ad agencies - ad agencies whose workflow his now much more efficient and more open to new creative spheres which benefits both customer and themselves. They list could go one endlessly.

Lots of people seem to fear or think about the alleged sole power OpenAI COULD achieve. But would that be a problem, would "another Alphabet" be a problem? Hundreds of millions of people benefited and are benefiting today from their products. They have products that are reliable and work (This forum consisting of tech experts is a niche case, nearly all people don't care at all if data on them is being used for commercial purposes). Google had a patent guaranteed monopoly on search. But here we have: an almost non patented or patentable market, an open source community, other companies of all sizes competing, innovation happening and much more. It is true that companies like OpenAI have more funds available to spend than others, but such circumstances have always driven competition and innovation. And at the end of the day, customers are still going to use the best product they have decided to be so.

I know I may be stating the obvious but: The economy and the world is a chaos system with a unpredictable future to come.

Possession of something does not prove nor equal ownership

> In effect, removing the wage floor just makes government bigger and almost everyone poorer.

Nope, this is absolutely false, it is exactly the other way around.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish with your whole comment. It neither makes sense nor is it strictly related to what I just posted. Did you want to debate an argument of mine, just post your personal views about labor in general or simply troll? I am always open for a discussion.

Besides are labor unions (you are referring to the British english version) heavily involved in labor and wage discussions in the USA. The US is literally a labor union hell, so I don't get your point on that matter either.

That's awful. That happens when bureaucrats, who often don't understand the most simple basics of economics, mandate socialist rules to private companies. The companies affected by these policies will now just fire people to keep staff cost on the same level as before, period. Thus less people trying to fulfill the role of the same amount of delivery guys as before. And such more stress to fulfill more orders in the same amount of time. In other words the situation for the delivery staff is worse than before. Doordash will now have a much higher staff turnover rate where drivers quit after a few months due to e.g. burnout and are replaced by new workers who intend to take the high wage but only for a few months. Serious long-term employee positions are now gone. And as always nobody forces anyone in any way to work for doordash - people have their own free will to choose to work for doordash for any dollar amount that is offered to them.

No minimum wage is what creates competition between companies, all industries affected by minimum wages already have and will have shitty wages for ages to come. Switzerland as an example is a country where cleaners (CHF 4K a month on average) without any serious education earn a bit less than a well educated professional mechanic and 2x more than a local branch bank employee in Germany, simply because of no minimum wage restrictions (also after monthly living expenses in Switzerland which are relatively high in certain aspects).

The majority representing non technical population, journalists and 50+ expert dependent bureaucrats (mostly law academics - never worked really) shitting their pants over alleged "ai" dangers indoctrinated by "ai" executives to push ahead regulation to secure their market position, or in the case of google because it makes their now shitty search business model obsolete in the long term, by creating entry barriers thus reducing competition.

Meanwhile a guy somewhere in Africa adjusting an answer probably stating that humans can do photosynthesis: bruh

Yes, almost every country in the world has restrictions on this. For example in the case of employment, with a contract stating that you have to work for life for a company, you can easily challenge it in court since it is more than obvious unconscionability. But the limitations on 'freedom of contract' by the us government never made or make the contracts businesses went into with amazon illegal or contestable.

There is no such thing as 'operate at the expense of others' in this case. Again, nobody forces you to buy at amazon. There is nothing illegal with setting requirements for a seller, e.g. not selling at a discount elsewhere. If you do not wish to sell on amazon you can freely choose to sell at any other store. If one is whining about not having the same reach: Nobody has the right to challenge amazon for just being good and demand anything from them. There is no law that gives you the right to be able to do business 'in the land of amazon' at conditions that please you.

Amazon is a private company. The FTC is treating amazon exactly how many people wrongly see it, as a sort of common good - quote:

'Amazon is a monopolist. It exploits its monopolies in ways that enrich Amazon but harm its customers: both the tens of millions of American households who regularly shop on Amazon's online superstore and the hundreds of thousands of businesses who rely on Amazon to reach them.'

(https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991590/read-the-ftc...)

Bureaucrats.....Good luck proofing 'conspiration to monopolize'???. A thing which is not even possible in a free market society. The practices of amazon are in fact competitive - doing everything to kill the competition - a thing every capitalistic incentivized company who wants to become or stay at the top does. Those practices of the FTC are anti-competitive and a huge intervention, their policies is what hurting customers.

This is getting silly on the same level like the EU demanding Netflix to pay a certain percentage to local movie funds or enforcing certain rules to platforms owned by Meta to protect "user interests" about which no user really cares about. Amazon is not a self-evident service run submissive on behalf of the citizens. It's a private company. Nobody forces to do business with amazon nor is one forced to buy anything from it. There is something called freedom of contract. Amazon could demand a 90% fee, if that's a fair price to do business / to pay is up to the business / the customer. As money, markets are amoral. Consumers choose what they choose. There is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market system. At anytime anyone can compete with Amazon or Google, the 'gatekeeper' argument does not hold at all. Nobody forces you to use android where googles product can't be removed and nobody forces you to use amazon for being just amazon, the number 1. Free will and free markets is all what matters, adults are mature, nobody needs a gov organization like the FTC wanting to split up businesses. People want to use amazon, period. At the same time amazon has 0 obligations to them.

"Real" wealth management has a lot more legal work behind it since a non trivial portion of wealth management are topics like inheritance and planing for the next generation. Also wealth management is more focused on wealth preservation than generating high returns, that is more the focus of asset management (e.g. hedge funds, private equity etc.). But since this piece of software is focused on the individual the term seems applicable even though something like personal finance would be more suitable. For "real" wealth management you hire usually professionals. It has a lot of good and bad sides that a majority of people think that when it comes to finance they can compete on an equal level with experts who do this every day. But if your skilled you surely save a ton of fees.

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. I thought it is just the other way around.

Good point but there is still half of the worlds population missing which is due to missing auto configuration / proper support by the ISP. And I would guess that these numbers represent connections from home networks and not from people on the go using mobile data.

I did not realize at first sight that this is an old article. It was standardized in the 90s and supported by most interfaces since the early 2000s but does not seem to be working properly as of today in terms of adoption. A big problem today regarding Ipv6 is the still missing auto configuration on most devices and router sided problems like don't sending out router advertisements with the prefix. Then there are other problems like no default gateway set. Technical skilled people are able to get Ipv6 running on their pc, but not the average guy.

Problems get much bigger on mobile which represents most of the worlds population digital presence. If everything properly configured Ipv6 works over ones own network normally as on a pc. But good luck with mobile data. Changing APN settings on android to Ipv6 does often not work / not supported by the ISP.

> Please tell me what and where his added value is. And please no fear mongering about the rich getting poorer.

Daraprim is a very old drug used by about 2k people in the US! So the narratives by the media that gives one the feeling he kills millions is wrong.

97% in the US have health insurance + you get depending on the state your living in an extra charge by the IRS if you don't have one. Martin Shkreli gave the drug away for free if a person could proof that they could not afford it.

People are still dying because of daraprim every few years. But as I said it is a very old drug and has not improved since its inception in the 50s.

The price hike had not the goal that he and his investors could get rich quick (which would be there right as free human beings). The research of a drug and especially the clinical trails can cost several hundred millions of dollars, thus a price hike was necessary to discover a new and better form of daraprim.

There is a reason that rare disease drug sometimes cost a few 100k when only a handful of people need it.

Pharma is a long term game. He can sell daraprim for much more in the future than the $750 of the current version. In the long run he and his investors profit enormously but also the patients that need it since it is more safe.

When you develop a live saving drug, that only 2k people use, you have the right to charge whatever price you desire. People need to see that pharma is a business like any else and is not excluded from free-market and capitalistic principles.

Ìn addition, once you had your daraprim course you are fully healed - you "loose" the customer. Therefore a high price is needed even more to offset the cost and to profit.

Pharma companies put private resources into effort (capital, infrastructure, expertise etc.) for developing a rare disease drugs. Nobody has the right to demand anything from them nor condemn them.

When an entity buys a business (majority ownership) it can do whatever it pleases to do. Outcries and discussions about fees they charge and other things they allegedly do is completely illogical. This article is unbelievable hopeless.

People have to understand that a 'PE' fund and also other alternatives like a 'hedge fund' is simply a private partnership / specific legal vehicle. The term 'Private Equity' and 'Hedge fund' does not even exist in legal terms, it is market jargon. Not only will there never be any regulation but there can't be any. You can't just regulate a certain field of activity that operates solely in the legal world. The private partnership has an agreement to acquire companies, but it could also be about anything else! Giving the fund enough freedom to buy companies, buy land, buy art etc.

A PE fund and a hedge fund are NOT REGULATED by the SEC, they are REGISTERED with the SEC. Their filings are also never checked for correctness, thus only accredited investors (wealthy - e.g. income above 200K) are allowed under law to invest in such private entities if the fund markets itself!

You can not regulate a private investment vehicle in a country takes certain economic and free-market principles and incentives halfway serious. And if the public goes on the nerve of these management companies they just rebrand 'Private equity' to something else.

And don't forget, they OWN the portfolio company. There is no serious argument for regulation that prohibits a legit owner of a company to do a certain activity.

The need to adapt it for the average user is mentioned. The average person uses a pc (if ever - good luck with this on mobile) mostly for work (ms office + some ERP) and in some cases for private uses (e.g. news, e-banking, mails, important administrative work). If you go a bit deeper maybe reddit and video games. An average user would never want to link around stuff on the web with a hundred arrows and multiple colors. He simply does not care.

The author and the old guy in the video he linked to behave almost cult-like, especially the old guy: He literally claims that this IS the best method for working with documents ever, the www is a fork of his idea based on a "dumbed-down in the 70s at brown university", he does not understand why it has not already taken off and he thinks its the most important feature for the human race. Really?

If people really see potential in this and work in spaces like journalism and academic research there would be already big programs out there.

Yes it is good to have passion about something and yes it is good if someone has a real need for this and his delivered with a solution, but this will never go mainstream. And in my opinion not even in the segment of technical skilled people like engineers.

This is the typical invention that fits the "I know it is the best thing, I love it and almost pressure people to use it, but it has not taken off the lightest for decades" case.

It really depends on the type of financial institution that has given the loan. A bank for this type of transaction is very unlikely nowadays, so I guess it is a private credit fund. Given that they have probably applied some sort of traditional Loan-to-value ratio, it's very likely that the $2.3 billion is only a portion of the total value. Meaning the cloud provider has received e.g. 50 or 80% of the total value of the H100's as a loan. It surely is not very much since electronics have a high depreciation rate from an accounting perspective (3-5 years max).

You have just highlighted the main fact about the www that so many technical skilled people are missing to see. Most consumers have little to no knowledge about anything technical, which is not bad at all since there is no reason why they should care. Now imagine telling those people that everyone should have their own website instead of a social media account. What a horrible and illogical thought in my opinion. Digital consumers only change behavior if something is 10x better. So from a consumer perspective, who cares about things like decentralized networks? Or Duckduckgo.com for example is probably for 99% of the www users some chinese russian inbreed virus. People started using ChatGPT besides google because it is simply 10x better for many cases.

Absolutely, a very good point indeed. But I meant more specific applications like end-to-end messaging. Surely 'obsolete' is a bit of an overstatement. At the end it depends how one looks at and want things to be done.

The sad part about all this is that Ipv6 was already standardized in the 90s and supported by most network interfaces in the early 2000s.

It's unnecessary indeed to not use Ipv6 addresses, 2^128 addresses and the many many features it offers like unicast etc. Ipv6 makes a server as a middlemen for some applications (Ipv4 only) completely obsolete.

But a big problem is that there is still no Ipv6 auto configuration at all on a lot of devices (e.g. no default gateway or no global address configured). Especially android devices and from experience also on Windows. Linux depends on the distro. Changing routing settings on android devices from Ipv4 to Ipv6 does often not work or is not offered by the ISP strangely.

And there are other problems like routers having enabled incoming and outgoing Ipv6 connections by default, which is good, but having router advertisements blocked by default, which is bad. Since there is no way for the OS to get the prefix to construct global addresses automatically. Most users today have little to no knowledge about networking and computers in general. So auto configuration is a must.

That leads to Ipv6 only servers being not reachable and thus the buying of Ipv4 addresses makes a lot of sense at this point.

Good point. Haven't thought about that.

Interesting explanation, I totally agree on the click-per-pay part. But how would you track the benefit of ads with paying-per-impression? I know its less expensive, but according to the article paying per view seems to be a quite big part of the ad business.

But isn't this a win situation for Google to a certain extent? Since it uses up the budget of the advertiser much faster. And the accuracy of filtering new revenue coming from ads as a company is already fairly limited in general. But maybe there are multiple reasons that Google really only wants to serve real humans to the ads of its clients.

How can a bot create fake impressions? When a bot (or just a simple program) makes a http request he fetches the raw html code only. AFAIK if you don't actually render the html code in a browser or requesting all the contents afterwards again with http requests (like GET ad.jpg, GET logo.png etc.), no google ad server should be hit. Now you could argue that bots could inflate the popularity of a website and therefore the cost to run ads on it. But I guess websites that show ads have most likely google analytics running, one of the only ways Google can actually calculate the popularity (besides Google Search and maybe Chrome history). So it should be no problem for Google to exclude bots from the popularity calculation by analyzing traffic. Maybe I am just missing something, I am also no ad expert at all.

I'm curious. Could you please elaborate further

That's why most quant hedge funds only have limited amount of aum. Most their strategies consist of a large amount of low volume trades. Low volume to prevent the ghost pattern being visible to others. This is especially true for non hft firms that hold positions in a much longer interval (minutes - hours - days). But this is untrue of course for lets say a big macro hedge fund that throws a hundred million dollars into a currency trade.

I totally agree on all three points and I even think that a certain amount of capital, opportunity related (not fees etc.), is not even needed to mine a pattern. Because according to the ones statistics and research the actually existing pattern should appear anyway.