kp98

I suppose the message that is sent here is : 'if you want to recruit you'll have to do it on Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook instead of the one Chinese based app'

Is that not fair?

Well this certainly isn’t the only reason, but a major one is that money is cheap. For example Europe has almost 18 trillion dollars of negative yielding debt. Interest rates in the entire western world except for America and last time I checked? Canada are returning negative yields after inflation. So as wealthy inequality climbs, and wealthy institutions have no where to put their money, it flows into riskier and risked assets chasing yield. I heard a funny quote something like: a decade of 0% real rates made the bond market your savings account, the stock market into the bond market, VCs into the stock market, and crypto ICOs into VC. It’s essentially describing how low interest rates pushed the world into riskier investments because the traditional investment class returns 0-negative in real terms.

The fed purchased long term assets like mortgage backed securities to provide liquidity and relief to corporations that held too much bad debt on their balance sheets. This provided immediate relief for distressed institutions.

The fed also expanded the balance sheet by selling long term bonds, which offered relatively lower rates in comparison to short term notes and bills, this provided the cash infusion needed for QE to stimulate the economy.

The fed’s balance sheet went from roughly 4 t down to I think ? 3.5 T and now it’s ramping up again at the top of cycle + lending hundreds of billions a month to banks in the repo markets. Given the pace we’re going at now I doubt we’ll be able to sustain the pace in a recession

That would be the massive amount of QE & money injected into the system. I doubt next recession it will be so simple to sell the bonds we need to to run a massive QU campaign again

I’m currently working on a new platform in the long form video space, it offers a new take on video other than just what YouTube and Vimeo do. My question is, how willing are people to try something new in this space? Are you?

I’m planning on launching next month and I’m just trying to gauge the market

Hey thanks for answering. Basically, I'm trying to build out the social side more, as YouTube is focused solely on broadcast.

So the functionality of the app is like Reddit in that it's divided into topics/communities, but you can also follow people directly. The app is focused on _response videos_, and commentary. So you can scroll vertically through videos, and then horizontally through their responses. The app features fullscreen video like tik tok, and also instagram style dimensions when you're not in vertical or horizontal fullscreen.

The other main feature is called clipping, which allows you to post two videos, one < 2 minute clip, and then a longer video, which is a response to the clip. The point of clipping is to do commentary yourself; ie. I could take a 2 min clip I found interesting on CNBC and then post my thoughts on it. Clipping can also be used in chains, so if I make a 10 minute video, my friend could clip out a 2 minute chunk he found interesting, and then respond to that in the chain, so the horizontal chain of videos would be : My video | His clip | His response.

Some small things: each video has written comments too for those who don't like video, you can close your video chain to only be visible to friends (kind of like a private subreddit), our focus niche at first is social, political, and economic commentary, the tone we're seeking on the platform is more intellectual/curious like hacker news or more academic content on youtube (at least at first but who knows), and we plan to launch in a month.

I got the idea when my friend and I were going to make an economic commentary type YouTube channel, and we wanted to go back and forth with each other on our ideas / videos, but there's really no great way to do that.

So basically our competitive advantage would not be search engine + large database of videos like YouTube, Vimeo, etc but the social network side.

My current side project relates to this subject, I think I found a way to structure a long form video platform that offers benefits over YouTube. My question is, how many people see YouTube's censorship/restrictive guidelines as a problem? Are you or anyone you know interested in trying an alternative?

always wondered, is it pronounced 'en-gin-ex' or 'N-ginx', there was a debate in my office

While I was working at a crypto fund I did an experiment with the ceo of one of the largest liquidity providers at the time in crypto, we analyzed how many trades were printing compared to the depth of market at this one particular exchange (I forget which now because it was a while ago). We noticed there was significant fake volume on the exchange, for example an order of 50 bitcoin would print at some level, and the depth of market and pricee would not change at all, even at the level of interest. This went on pretty much all day.

That being said I don’t think bitcoin’s trading volume is a majorly faked. I think there are a few bad actors in the exchange industry, especially during the bubble, who were trying to give the illusion of volume and popularity to drive more clients so they could extract their fees + raise money.

If people are truly worried about this issue then just trade on a regulated exchange like CME.

I think one thing needs to be stated; I do not have concrete numbers, but it seems as if algorithmic trading technology has actually levelled the playing field and created more jobs.

I am a series 3 (commodities) and quant. Take this example, at one point in time people were literally trading seats on the exchange, and a seat on the NYSE was as high as 3 million !!! While there may have been more people with those jobs than today, you had virtually no choice to be in a large institution.

Today, almost anyone can raise some money, use the simple Interactive Brokers API which sits on top of FIX protocol, and build a trading strategy. The main reason I think you don't see more competition from small new firms - even though there is a lot - is that the regulation is fierce and most funds already offer nice compensation.

Within those firms, yes there may be some decline in those jobs like a floor trader, but someone has to program and manage those algorithms.

It's also important to keep in mind that many firms are only replacing execution traders while directing traders through fundamental analysis, and if all firms ever go completely algorithmic you'll find firms trying to exploit these algos in ways unique to humans.

I think the best way for America to deal with Tik Tok is to ban the app from the American App Store. This will allow current users to continue to use it + have their data collected while stymieing the growth of the app/cancer. India already restricted it due to child abuse, and Tik Tok leaders failed to show up at congressional hearings.

Yes, the CCP hit the nail on the head by putting over a million muslims in concentration camps. Oh and Falun Gong practitioners + Tibetan monks were simply sleeper agents.

I can't imagine that bodes well for Tik Tok in terms of long term consequences. Perhaps Tik Tok has been shown that this issue is out of its control - either by the CCP or US actions. At any rate, I think congress will take action against the company.

That's a good point, I've always seen Uighur but who knows. The Chinese story has not gained a network effect yet, not enough people know about it to make it a profitable target for media companies. Occasionally you'll see a story on it, but until more people understand china headlines won't drive clicks.

But the CEO said that even if he wanted to he couldn't abide by the CCP's demands? /s

Yeah so my point had nothing to do with the value of the cargo and everything to do with the utility of the pilot. He serves other roles like checking system functionality, managing autonomous capabilities, taking control of the flight, communicating with ground control, and interacting with guests.

Trucker drivers don't do these things and the payloads are not equivalent. However, truck drivers will still need to oversee the successful docking and unloading of goods, the refilling of gas, mechanical checks, special goods like diary product or gas, and the recipient of the goods.

My point was not simply that pilots are there as added security, but also that they serve secondary functions that provide utility from start to finish. In this sense, yes they are similar.

Faceless lives can be easy to judge, after all six people is less than 200, and given a median gdp per capita, 350k is less than 12mm. However, the moral hazard I am talking about is that you remove the responsibility from the individual to a faceless corporation. Btw you're not comparing apples to apples anyways, sure a truck may only kill 6 people, but if 100 trucks per day are doing that then that would be worse.

Thats a good point, you're right Google does have at least some version of autonomous

In 2013 Google said it would have autonomous cars by 2018

In 2017 Google said the cars would be available in months according to the article.

Last year Elon Musk said there would be 1mm robo taxis by the end of 2020.

These corporations leverage the public's lack of understanding to spin a tale to investors and the market. Then, this tale got co-opted by politicians like Andrew Yang who say 4 million truckers will be out of work in 5-10 years, so we need to vote for him + UBI to protect us from the threat of AI in the future.

The view I take is that planes have pilots for a variety of reasons, many of which are not related directly to controlling a plane's path. We have 30 years of data on flight and flights have fewer inputs to analyze, yet we still keep pilots around because of the added sense of security and the utility pilots serve on edge cases.

I think self driving cars will be very similar and the future where no one drives probably will not exist for a long time.

Another thing I find interesting, the retort most bring to driverless cars is that they will prevent needless deaths, but say for example America has 40,000 deaths due to car crashes per year, and 20,000 are preventable, but autonomous vehicles malfunctioning causes 10,000 deaths. So a net result of 30,000 deaths with autonomous cars. In terms of death the result is positive, but now you are relinquishing control over your experience. Someone with excellent driving skills, who never drinks and drives, and who follows the speed limit, faces a way lower risk of death driving. However, self driving cars introduce new risks to that individual, and for that reason I do not I believe the optimal combination for drivers will be the same as for pilots: machinery + individual control.

I think the most interesting event during all of the Hong Kong conflict was actually when the US congress first announced this bill. Within a day China responded with one of its casual opaque threats along the lines of "if congress passes this bill there will be consequences," which sounds a lot like when the CCP told Sweden there would be "consequences" for giving an award to a reporter against the state.

So yeah, I agree with you the pressure on free speech that China has imposed on governments - not only corporations - but the united states government tells a story about Chinese aggression.

Ultimately, China is far more vulnerable in this trade war than the US, so I expect more belligerence from China in the same way I would expect belligerence from a 7 year old boy when his toy is taken away.

Seems no one has mentioned it, but I wonder how easy it would be to prescribe this as a solution to those with mental illness. For example, when I smoked weed for the first and only time I had the worst panic attack of my life that made it 5 hours of hell, so I promised myself I'd never do it again. I didn't suffer from mental illness previously, except for some basic anxiety, but these drugs can trigger major panic attacks and even psychosis. The risk of triggering an episode goes up the more severe your illness; ie. I remember reading that someone who previously suffered panic disorder has a 500% higher chance than the average person of a panic attack when smoking weed and if you are depressed or schizophrenic the numbers get worse.

Combine that with the fact that guys like Joe rogan tell those with mental illness not to try hallucinogens, and it makes me wonder how will these solutions affect the brain chemistry of the mentally ill in the long run? What are the potential side effects and how does a pre-existing condition outside of depression change your risk factors?

Seems all is going to plan for Beijing, slowly encroaching on more human rights of the people of Hong Kong. I read an ominous quote from Global Times that said, when talking about the US Hong Kong bill:

"If we take this US bill seriously and shrink from tackling riots, Hong Kong will suffer from an accelerated collapse of the rule of law and be erased from the modern world. [...] If riots continue, Hong Kong is doomed." [1]

I suppose replacing the chain of command in terms of Hong Kong will help circumvent the CCP and secure more 'peace and prosperity' for China.

[1]: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1170691.shtml

1) In supply limited markets like housing, especially low income housing, there's definitely competition for that limited supply. Then there is inflation in general, which will become a factor to some extent. Bertrand's trap comes into play on highly substitutable goods like apples, so there wouldn't be much competition there, but where there is inelasticity of demand you get inflation. For poor people, this manifests in decreased quality of healthcare and less housing optionality. Healthcare example going back to my mom: she needs to get an in home nurse in the next year or two, or to be put in a home, she has $1200 a month to pay for this. With Yang's plan she would be competing against people who potentially have enough saved to pay on their own, but also have a bonus $1000 a month. This ultimately shifts purchasing power away from people like my mom. Example in housing is the same, but replace a nursing home for an actual home.

2) Yang has actually been around the map on this, the first few months he was against it, lately it has been for and against? He seems uncertain, but either way I don't really appreciate the uncertainty. I do think they should be broken up, and I think Yang should be knowledgable enough of the cause effect relationship to make a decision. Another way to look at this is that the guy who is saying that AI is going to replace all our jobs doesn't seem to have a grasp on the idea of antitrust in technology. It is also a strawman representation of antitrust, no one said it will solve all our problems; antitrust is a nuanced issue that has extreme relevance today, and it takes someone who is preceptive to understand it. Yang presents himself as this preceptive person, and foretells our ruinous future with AI, yet he doesn't understand the issue.

I feel like there are so many holes in the UBI that Yang has offered, some extremely obvious. Reminds me of Josepf Goerbells "Big Lie," which could be summed up as

simplicity x scale of a lie == popularity + efficacy.

I do not believe the narrative Yang has spun about AI taking half of our jobs in 5 to 10 years, and I think that even minute inspection of his policies turns up a lot to be answered. Just two easy ones off the top of my head:

1) giving the freedom dividend to everyone effectively dilutes other programs. For example, my mother is on long term disability, and she receives $1200 a month. Under Yang's plan she would be competing against everyone else who just gained $1000 a month because the benefit does not stack. The same argument can be made about other single mothers who do not receive disability but other benefits.

2) He says stuff like he does not want to break up big tech because "nobody wants to use the fourth best search engine." To me this means he's not as informed as appears. The reason we would break up Google has nothing to do with Bing or DuckDuckGo and everything to do with information autocracy, influence, and monopolistic practices towards new businesses.

Anyways, I could list about 100 things wrong with his plan, and I am going to make a YouTube series on it because YouTube is obsessed with UBI; meanwhile, I do not believe his theory on AI or that we can afford his plan without increasing government debt.

I think part of this is linked to not being at market equilibrium in low skill jobs. For example there are over 6 million jobs not filled in America most of which are low skill, some of which are due to structural unemployment like server staff turnover after the busy season.

The minimum wage right now is lower than it needs to be, which artificially create more businesses on the low end of the spectrum. If the minimum wage went up I think you’d see fewer small businesses with fewer openings, but the remaining workers would get a pay raise and the market could handle it.

For example perhaps instead of 6.5mm open jobs and $10 min wage on average and 3% unemployment you’d see 2mm open jobs and $15 min wage with marginal change in unemployment.

Just an illustration to explain my thought

I think you could consider WeWork worse than Thernanos in many ways. Far more people understood what was going on at the highest level, and when all was said and done Elizabeth Holmes walked away with nothing but criminal prosecution. Both screwed their investors, arguably Thernanos did worse, but investors prepare for potentially big losses.

The employees on the other hand are all screwed: at Thernanos Holmes was the most screwed given the potential jail time, but at WeWork Neumann is walking away with over a billion, which is sort of like spitting on your employees.

WeWork (Neumann) preached about the 'We Generation' and 'elevating the world to a new consciousness,' but really his actions were traitorous against the people who made him. Thernanos never claimed the moral high ground, nor did the leader get off like a bandit.

I have two main questions about Tik Tok that I figure the Hacker news audience will have insight on.

How is Tik Tok comparable financially to Facebook Instagram Snapchat or Youtube when "29% of monthly users open TikTok every day." compared to > 90% for each of the former apps. Moreover, "TikTok’s user base is largely based in India at 43% of all users," which is a low ROI zone as it is. Evan Speigel of Snapchat once said that "Snapchat was only for rich countries" when referencing India because the bandwidth verse revenue per user did not check out.

Tik Tok's bandwidth ought to be higher than Snapchat's no? Does Tik Tok just have excellent compression software or some unique value proposition on the technical side?

If not, what is the long term plan for Tik Tok? Given retention rates in Western nations it makes me wonder what a video platform can or will do

I think it is not about not trading persay - it's about not supporting a totalitarian mercantilist. While we both benefit on paper, the fact that so much of this wealth is concentrated at the top in America slows the velocity of money, and the fact that the Chinese are using it to fuel totalitarian measures compounds the trade deficit to the point where it is no longer simply about money and jobs.

Maybe having a gigantic trade deficit is natural and okay, but when it is being used to fund the CCP it is problematic. America may have to take a short term hit, but if it moves its factories out to India, Thailand, Taiwan, Mexico, even back to America the marginal loss in wealth due to trade will be outranked by the substantial benefit to society we will get from not fuelling a nation that seeks supremacy at the cost of humanity.

I heard the economic side of the argument before; I do not believe it entitles China to break the deal it made - the date set was 2047 not 2019

Sorry you are right, I refer to the 50 cent army as Chinese nationalists in general. Given that there is no way to literally verify, to me it’s all the same. My definition would be closer to “those who go out of the way to champion the ccp party line.” For example, going on a multi paragraph rant about the glories of the chinese communist party, or complete non sequiters.

So yes by absurd infiltration I’m talking about Chinese nationalists in general. Why not give a clear example? Because there is no verification of identity on YouTube or any social media