qf303rjr3

This is from March 2017.

> Clearly there’s no price that bitcoin holders will sell at so they’re clearly exiting the USD ecosystem.

I reckon there would be a lot of sellers if the price went to $1000.

If you're going to quote an article, you shouldn't leave out context that changes the meaning of the sentence you're quoting -

  "The 75th anniversary commemorations of the dastardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
   seem to be a great gift to the Alt-Right’s xenophobic nationalists."

It's the 75th anniversary commemorations that seem to be a gift - not the attack itself (obviously).

If you own $1 billion of equities on swap, you can guarantee that your broker has actually bought the equities (or something close to them) as a hedge. There is no way that your broker has an unhedged $1 billion equity swap with you. They collect a spread on the swap transaction of a few basis points, which is hopefully less than the cost to hedge the swap. They don't want to take the risk of the position moving against them by more than a few basis points (typically the equity market moves hundreds of basis points per day) so they almost always hedge.

The Japanese FX broker, on the other hand, has the odds so firmly stacked in their favour that they have no need to actually do any FX trading (though I expect that they do some). If the margin is high enough, the statistical fluctuations don't matter that much. That's the difference between a brokerage and a bucket shop.

Who's to say that it isn't a pattern from Game of Life? You can set up the initial configuration however you like.

No they can't - or at least, this paper doesn't provide any compelling evidence that they can.

I read this paper when it first came out a few years ago, and produced an implementation of the signal. They have heavily overfitted to historical data - many plausible alternative assumptions for which keywords are predictive are not profitable in backtest at all, let alone useful as a basis for future trading.

This is an unfortunate example of non-finance domain experts, who I'm sure are more than capable in their respective fields, making egregious errors when they try to apply their knowledge in finance.

https://xkcd.com/1570/

Marketplace for craft beers, direct from the brewery -

https://www.eebria.com/

They also have a trade site -

https://www.eebriatrade.com/

Does the author define what they mean for a stereotype to be "accurate"?

For example, it is a stereotype that in the US, white people vote Republican. Is this an accurate stereotype?

On one level, it is - in recent elections around 55-60% of white voters voted Republican, so it is certainly true to say that most white people vote Republican.

On another level, given a random white voter from the US, there is only a 55-60% chance that they voted Republican, which is not much better than guessing. So it's not particularly accurate to say that white people vote Republican.

I expect that most stereotypes fall into this class - they are accurate in aggregate, but not particularly informative when dealing with individuals. And surely this is the problem with stereotypes? We take a characteristic which is true in aggregate for a group (white people vote Republican, black people listen to hip hop, old people are less open to new experiences) and assume that those characteristics are true of individual members of that group.

Much of the initial reporting was by John Careyrou, writing for the Wall Street Journal. This article is representative: http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-bloo...

No - you have the following identity because 0 = -0

  0^0 = 0^(-0)

and by the definition of negative exponents,

  0^(-0) = 1/(0^0)

So whatever number 0^0 is, it is equal to its own reciprocal.

I work for a quantitative hedge fund. I program computers to trade securities for a living. On any given day, code that I have written trades hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock, futures and options.

I feel very confident in saying that for 99.9% of people, using this service will be a terrible, terrible idea that will only cost them money in the long run.

If you want to get into the stock market, buy a low-cost index fund and hold it for the next twenty years. That's the best advice I can give you.