Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheSpiceIsLife | Hacker News Reader

Isn’t the more intense number the 35,000 parameters?

Why pick on the 40 algorithms?

I think the reason why I laughed is that I can't understand what 40 algorithms actually means. It probably takes more than 40 algorithms to accept a request at this url https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21730608 and return the response that you are seeing on your screen. That bullet in the article added no value to me as the reader.

As far as imprecise journalism (let alone blatant inaccuracy goes) this is pretty inoffensive IMHO. It’s not even that far off. Algorithms can be composed. When we publish a paper on a complete ML application, the whole thing is generally referred to as “the algorithm” because it can be documented as precise set of steps from initial raw inputs to some kind of output. Just because there are literally thousands of applications of sorting and searching, matrix multiplies and what have you buried under the process doesn’t make it unclear what is being referred to.

Almost all algorithms are composition of algorithms. Probably a good way to define a singular algorithm is the point a human has to be the source of its input. A self driving car is a composition of thousands of algorithms by definition -- a process that step by step calculates with an input and output which is every single method in all its code. However, for sake of conversation in the number of complete autonomous systems consider the car to be a single algorithm defined by the point a human has to be the originating input at the interface where the key gets turned to turn it on.

I think this definition will be important in law because it is where we will define responsibility for actions of autonomous things.

I'm guessing you are more of an expert on the technology involved than the journalist writing this article, and thus not the target audience. Maybe look for other areas of value in it, and skip that particular bullet point. I imagine mechanical engineers often find laughable lines in Popular Mechanics as well...

> Nasdaq runs algorithms to look for market abuse and manipulation in real time.

That's how you write honestly for the target audience.

> Nasdaq runs more than 40 different algorithms, using about 35,000 parameters, to look for market abuse and manipulation in real time.

That is how you use big words on an audience not capable of seeing through their meaninglessness, and it's the responsibility of people who do see through it to call it out.

I completely agree with your general assessment, but disagree with the point you're trying to make. Do you believe that NASDAQ is trying to is, in fact, ring to look for market abuse and manipulation in real time? Excepting some particular edge cases, I sure do! It is in the best interest of NASDAQ. You state "this is how you use big words on an audience not capable of seeing through their meaninglessnes". Yes, the audience probably doesn't understand the denotation or parlance to point out that it is entirely obvious that NASDAQ uses more than 40 algorithms. Your cellular phone uses more than 40 algorithms per second. The article is written for an audience that doesn't understand that an algorithm is a set of instructions designed to accomplish a goal. So, add this to your array, b-tree, dictionary, or whatever system you use to keep to retain state: algorithm="problem solving implementation to search for abuse or manipulation": parameter="critical input variable used in market analysis". Apply this heuristic generally to your workplace to quickly resolve communication issues with non programmers and avoid looking like a pedasshole (a pedantic asshole who should understand basic communication translation protocols)

Trying* to look

Nasdaq has about 3500 listed companies, so that's only ten parameters per company. Not that many. If you're talking about running the algorithm per market participant then it's an even weirder claim.

So you just assumed that parameters are defined company-wise?

I wouldn't say I assumed anything. I would just say that the statement about number of parameters and algorithms is incoherent, or at least so vastly underspecified as to communicate no meaning.

Nasdaq employees drink 15,000 cups of coffee a day, that's close to 2 parameters per cup

Yes but if Nasdaq's total market cap is $30 trillion, that's about $750 billion per algorithm. Surely we need more algorithms.

No billion left behind

If you try to optimize them and you deal with a black-box, then yes.

Sorry, I meant interesting not intense. Too late to edit now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com