rramdin

I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.

Perhaps you're comparing a multithreaded version with a single threaded version, or a single-host build vs distributed build.

When adding new features to a compiler, you might want to verify that the old and new versions have the same output given the same input. If your compilers produced non-deterministic output, this exercise would not be possible.

Like the GP says, I can't imagine that would take more than a few days, even for a very large project with many dependencies.

Doesn't that statistic imply that working more correlates with higher earnings?

Savings like these are generally passed on to stakeholders; existing contracts (e.g. vendors, clients, employees, contractors) are rarely automatically renegotiated to reflect lower cap ex

WeWork isn't a great apples-to-apples comparison with a residence; it's more like a hotel. This lease almost certainly includes insurance, maintenance, cleaning, and maybe even services like a stocked kitchen, receptionist/office manager, security

If they're paying you, isn't it dedicated solely to your economic activity?

The uniformity across all devices is great in Safari too. Synced passwords between my work laptop, home laptop, phone, and iPad is such a convenience. Also great if I'm reading an article at home and then want to bring it up on the phone for my commute and then my work laptop when I arrive--totally seamless.

Is it ethical to genetically engineer animals (e.g. people) to be braindead?

Yes, generally if you work full time, your employer contractually owns any IP you produce unless you disclose that you're involved in outside projects.

This is throwing any efficient-market hypothesis out the window. Msybe this would work for a year, but why would anyone invest in fund B if it is a consistent loser. If you can figure out a way to slowly buy an asset and then quickly buy more of it and make both strategies profitable at all, then you're onto something huge. Almost as huge as Ren Tech

Who is this guy and why is this website spreading his opinions. Nothing he says is based in facts or data. All of his conclusions begin with "I feel" not "The data indicate."

He says, "I’m sure the British Empire in the 1700s and 1800s always thought they would have a toehold in different parts of the world." How is he sure? Is there data to support this claim? He doesn't even cite a primary source. What is "the British Empire" even? The common citizens? The intellectual class? The monarchy? He's just saying things.

"The U.S. has always been, I would say, on the right side of the bell curve when it comes to jingoism — a little bit more patriotic than most countries." Is there data to substantiate this claim?

"I feel like the U.S. peaked in the ’90s." How is this defined? The US economy is bigger; the military is stronger; its foreign interests are more secure. It just happens to be this guy's childhood when America peaked. This is just some guy inventing some narrative rooted in his own nostalgia.

This is just some guy blathering. He should rightfully be afraid to share these beliefs, because they are completely unsubstantiated and not based in reality. It's just what he "feels," which should be uninteresting to anyone else. It is journalistically irresponsible to spread such misinformation without at least some fact-checking.

They would have less of an opportunity to become iconic if the biggest media distributors censored them immediately.

The stock photo of a Klansman really makes me sympathetic to their case

Hopefully your people's people's people don't interpret "setup e-mail for Mrs. Clinton to use on her Blackberry" as "setup an e-mail server on Mrs. Clinton's existing hardware and configure it on her Blackberrry."

"Automatically reject 10% of applicants. We don't hire unlucky people."

Building a sustainable arbitrage business requires scale. Margins are thin and should always be getting thinner, so to remain viable, you have to pursue ever more exotic arbitrage opportunities. Arbitrage opportunities encourage a speed race, and the way to win that race is to use ever-increasing resources to elbow out competition and discourage newcomers.

But how is requiring the programmer to know that he has to check error codes and whatnot any different from requiring the call be place in a try/catch block?

Most cases where exceptions are useful are when the alternative is knowingly causing such a state that will inevitably lead to a seg fault. It's much easier to raise at the point of failure instead of trying to limp until the application eventually crashes or loses you all your money.

lol wat

If you have to ask this question, you're not ready for this kind of risky investing.

HFTs are almost entirely makers; retail and institutional do almost all the taking, so taxing the takers may not have the desired impact on the industry.

Not really missing anything, but if you're willing to accept buying/selling 1% away from the "ideal" price, it's hard to complain about an HFT making a penny because you can't back-off when the market is moving.

Automating the work done by human traders, market makers, and specialists has not only facilitated decimilization resulting in smaller spreads, but also allowed trading fees for the retail investor to reach historic lows (the worst you'll find at a retail brokerage nowadays is about $8/trade, far better than the $35/trade), with many even being free. Wall Street had always been raking in billions in profit from market making activity, if anything that profit margin has been significantly reduced by automating market making.

There are some exchanges that have tried this, but it's hard when the auction price cannot result in a price better than the NBBO (which is just one way the Reg-NMS has stifled innovation). They are having more success with this in Europe: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150906005008/en/BATS...

Michael Lewis and Brad Katsuyama misuse the term "front running," either willfully to stir people up or out out of ignorance. Front-running refers to the practice of a broker holding customer orders, but trading for their own accounts at a better price before executing their client's orders (i.e. using privileged information for their benefit). Katsuyama's uses "front running" to describe a practice where if an HFT sees a price change happening (i.e. trades are being reported or a level is going away), they quickly go and remove liquidity before others have gotten a chance to react to this new information. An HFT with faster technology will beat an institutional trader in this race (even though all market participants must always send bona fide orders that they intend to have filled). IEX solves this problem by slowing down incoming orders to give special orders on the exchange (D-pegs, which automatically change prices as the prevailing market price changes) an opportunity to reprice. The HFT has put millions of dollars into fast technology, whereas the institutional investment firms have presumably put millions of dollars into long term research. IEX allows institutional investors to outsource this technology investment to the exchange, which puts an artificial delay to give its matching engine time to reprice special orders during market moves.

Whenever I see these IEX articles, I think it is useful to point out that they generally describe 3 types of traders: 1) Retail - you and me, who make money through asset appreciation 2) Institutional (IEX's client-base) - big Wall Street firms, big money managers, big pensions, who make money by charging fees 3) HFT - small technology firms, who make money through trading

Sanders lacks fundamental understanding of the stock market, indicated by his unsubstantiated refrain "the business model of Wall Street is fraud." First, there are already per-trade regulatory fees, so this isn't a novel idea. Second, this is necessarily a regressive tax: wider spreads mean worse prices for the ultimate owner of stocks; that tax is applied whether trades are retail (you and me), institutional (big Wall Street firms, i.e. IEX's clients), or HFT (small tech firms).

4) increased volatility 5) less efficient price discovery

The HFT shops put millions of dollars into research to attempt to ascertain correct prices (e.g. ETF pricing, derivatives pricing, etc). If they are disincentivized from trading in the equities markets, they will no longer be a conduit of relevant pricing information from other global markets into the equities markets. That means investors (big Wall Street firms catered to by IEX) and retail (you and me in our individual accounts) are more likely to be trading mis-priced markets.

"I don't avoid local safety and service regulations, so nobody else should."