Destructive Destruction? An Ecological Study of High Frequency Trading | Hacker News Reader

Destructive Destruction? An Ecological Study of High Frequency Trading

metamute.org

18 pointsmgunes8 comments

The essay has quotes like this: "The market thus oscillates asymptotically around the attractor of zero information friction in an incomputably random orbit" which sound so mathematical as to invite a proof...

... and then quotes like this: "Algorithmic hordes of parasitic vampire squids and zombie capitalists compulsively gorge on blood and brains, their exhausted victims lie all around, twitching to the non-periodic outbursts of transient code – the singularity turns out to be just another accelerating extension of exploitation" ... which is so over the top that it works against whatever point the article is trying to make...

... which is completely obscured by pseudo-scientific technobabble. A big WTF here.

I quite enjoyed the parallel made between physics and economics and the subsequent case against such a comparison. There is a strong argument against a traditional notion of efficient markets here.

This paper reads like it was made by the Postmodern Essay Generator...

Yeah, it reads like that kind of prose only a machine would write. Perhaps they were deliberately abstruse. One thing is certain, those guys are in dire need of an editor.

I wonder if anyone in world besides the authors have actually read the whole thing? It would make an interesting mental test to see if it were possible to actually learn/absorb its contents. I imagine memorizing the first 10,000 digits of pi would be easier - while probably providing more useful insight.

I hereby grant everyone here an official waiver which releases its bearer from the intellectual obligation of having read the whole article before commenting.

Terms and conditions: this waiver is not transferable to other submissions.

Disclaimer: this waiver does not provide any protection against downvotes, including those issued for obviously not having read the article.

Barely made it to paragraph 3.

Only a more suitable whipped topping is needed for the cake: how about "destructivist deconstructivism" instead of "destructive destruction".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com