fighterpilot

Gameability is distinct to whether there is an advantage to low latency. A random batch auction will be gameable but not so much via speed. Not sure how a math proof would work for that though.

Correct. I believe you need to randomize the auction time. This massively reduces the speed advantage. Without that speed is as important as ever.

How does a priority queue work?

A HFT that's trading bond futures may only have a handful of trades per day and hold for a long time because it's hard to liquidate effectively. Sometimes they just range all day.

Anyway my point is that it's wrong to think that HFT are going out of business with this change because it's a fundamental misunderstanding of HFT. There's almost always an ML component and always an execution component and these two skills are going to be critical to profiting off the new market structure. Citadel, Jump, Tower, you name it. I promise you they will be all over this new structure.

I don't know why you're bringing this up because it's not relevant, and nor is it accurate. You can have high turnover rates in batch auction strategy as well as a continuous trading strategy, this market structure change won't change that. And you can have a HFT strat with low turnover, e.g in a large tick name that barely moves where you might get five latency sensitive trades per day.

Nonsense. Trade can be positive sum in utility to both parties. One party making profits doesn't imply anything about how utility is changing on the other side of the trade. If you buy an iPhone, Apple have gotten richer but you have also gained something (utility).

Your understanding of HFT is wrong as well. It's not all low latency arbitrage. It's also execution finesse, risk management and ML-heavy. HFT firms will still be extremely active under this new market structure.

What I'd be afraid of is fake review brigading causing lasting damage to brand.

The data I was referring to is already normalized in that way:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

I don't believe an honest person can look at that chart and think nuclear safety is a a real problem, especially since the majority of those nuclear deaths were with old reactor designs. It seems like one of those misplaced, irrational fears like fear of flying.

You say the Chernobyl failure mode is "huge", but I would argue the opposite. If you compare the number of deaths across types of energy, nuclear is only slightly higher than solar/wind (about 2x) but when compared to deaths due to fossil fuel it's effectively zero. The big picture must be kept in mind. The other thing to note is that nuclear reactor design has improved a lot since Chernobyl, so it's not honest to say that the probability of that incident occurring again hasn't declined substantially. You can also build the plant far away from cities and send the power via lines fairly efficiently, if you must reduce an extremely small risk to a zero risk situation.

Backup natural gas plants? Just throwing it out there, don't know if that would actually be sensible.

Thought: They should give some cash and instruct the participants to buy a specific OTC brand that is known to be placebo themselves so they have confidence that it is a placebo.

Most of the pay gap between the top and bottom performers isn't much to do with direct negotiation, it's the cumulative effect of star performers being in high demand and therefore getting faster promotions, more and better offers, etc. If they get screwed on a promotion they can get another ten offers and pick the best one. Iterate over twenty years and you have a gigantic gap in comp between the top and bottom within the same industry.

Sceptical of grains and wine recommendation and sceptical that red meat is discouraged.

Wine/meat results seem likely to be confounder related. Wealthy and educated people self-selecting into red wine because they read somewhere it's ok, and fast-food eaters having lots of beef. Grains seem like an old food pyramid propaganda thing, although I'm open to having my mind changed on that if someone has a study I can read on it.

It's been standard in the last fifty years because of contraceptives and education about how to use contraceptives. But before contraceptives, I don't see why a skew would emerge. I read that in the Jewish community a long time ago it was the rabbis that had the most kids only because they could afford to raise them.

It's a widely held view only on the left. An interesting thing will be the consequences on demographics. Conservatives have lots of kids and if the liberal birth rate keeps dropping, what will things look like in 50 years?

If it's this hard to get political consensus on carbon neutrality, degrowth will be quite the tall order. The reactive pushback against it could do more harm than good. If the political left starts going against the "jobs" narrative and actively pushes against economic growth, there's just no practical way to win an election like that.

Instead of degrowth, what about just taxing high-income conspicuous consumption, for example a tax on luxury cars, boats.

As an Asian minority I am not happy that it is now taboo to protest racial discrimination being perpetrated against me.

.

If someone isn't of MIT-calibre merit (ie competence), then it's no good to them to pop them into an electrical engineering course that they can't handle, and it's especially no good for the ultra smart Asian American who was just racially discriminated against. They'll be better off at an easier institution where they'll have plenty of room to develop, and that unfairly excluded Asian will be better off at MIT.

Vietnamese Americans, the descendants of refugees from a war-torn country, make more than White Americans.

I agree with you if we're talking about analogies, but not if we're talking about actual historical precedent.

.

I regret making such a sweeping statement. I do think there are many decent people that get caught up in the cancel mob who are primarily motivated by genuine egalitarianism, and these people can surely be reasoned with.

However, at the same time I do believe that some (perhaps a small minority) of the agitators are cynically motivated by narcissism and sadism, and there's quite a bit of research which points in this direction. For example, the close connection between virtue signalling and grandiose narcissism. Reasoning with this particular subset (however small they may be) is probably not going to be productive because their actions aren't coming from a place of real egalitarianism.

That could be part of it. According to surveys the administrators are very left-wing, even more than the professors who are already almost completely left-wing themselves.

It's not that simple. We have a collective action problem. The first mover sticks out like a sore thumb (or tall poppy) and takes all the heat from the mob. If everyone simultaneously became sensible and simultaneously refused to bend to the mob, the problem would go away, but it's difficult for heterogeneous agents to coordinate in this way. Being brave and taking the first step entails a lot of private cost and a lot of public benefit, which is why so few choose to do it.

Availability bias. If you actually look at the data on nuclear safety relative to other power sources, you'll see that what you're doing is the same thing as quibbling over the safety differences of AstraZeneca versus Moderna. I am not making a false analogy here. The anti-nuclear perspective really is detached from the reality of how safe it is.

  "they'd just need significantly more innate intelligence, which is a very tall order."

I dispute this. Ramanujan is by all accounts on Von Neumann's level and so his example seems to disprove this statement. Or maybe you think Ramanujan has "significantly more innate intelligence" than Von Neumann? It's possible, but without evidence, and a bit farfetched.

I think wealth helps but through a different mechanism to what you're thinking. Avoiding malnutrition is the big one. A secondary point is avoiding the need to work and being able to focus on intellectual passions, which many average-wealth people can do. Adding more money to the picture doesn't help beyond a baseline. Ramanujan was fairly poor but still had enough family wealth to be able to eat enough food and dedicate a lot of time to his passion.

If you think that a very poor person can rise to a Von Neumann calibre genius, then we have no disagreement. I agree with you that having successful parents can only help the situation.

  "As for your edit, extreme intelligence is not really correlated to income."

Ok, the marginal correlation breaks down at the extremes. But it's still the case that intelligence and income are correlated, so smarter kids are more likely from higher income parents.

This was one of the world's foremost mathematicians, an unprecedented genius who was born into relatively poor circumstances (by Western standards and by modern standards) and who was completely self-made. There's footage of his very modest family home, so if you're going to try to claim he's somehow "privileged" above and beyond an extremely poor person in the US today, that would be laughable. It's true he wasn't a child prodigy, but so what? You're trying to crap on Von Neumann's adult accomplishments, which is what's impressive here (there's loads of child prodigies that flop as adults), by claiming without any basis that they're a product of his parent's success when Ramanujan is conclusive proof that this isn't a necessary condition for a Von Neumann calibre genius to arise. Another thing your analysis ignores is that intelligence is partly genetic, so of course smart kids are going to often have richer parents. If their parents are extremely smart then most likely they've figured out a way to make some money. No surprise there.

  "if Von Neumann were to be born to an average milieu it is impossible he would have been able to reach those milestones."

False. Ramanujan disproves that statement.