meltedcapacitor

Cheaper for operators of swarms of mturks to use simpler but less effective machine learning algos, which are good enough for this type of task?

For things like answering surveys of lazy social science researchers, I wouldn't even bother and just use rand(3).

All these categories are like about 5% each, the 80% is normal hard working people who don't like hard working — it is literally hard work! — and to whom crypto gives hope as a magic box in which one throws pennies and dollars come back. It's a bit creepy (the game is in fact zero/negative sum) but then gambling is not generally illegal.

LOL (easy) money is running out. (If it wasn't and they were refocussing, they'd redeploy the roadkill onto early stage.) This is comically bad lying.

The cascade problem is systemic: all algo stable work inevitably in a similar way, so if it starts somewhere all the protocols will reinforce the death loop. At the limit, the whole ecosystem of ether + ether-based algo stablecoins becomes terra/luna.

Crypto has no global risk manager in charge of keeping the total sum of algo stables small enough to be safe.

Don't know what this 1.000 is supposed to mean, but Uniswap is never trading dollars anyway: they do not exist in defi.

One can calculate the implied USDC/USDT rate from that very page by pricing a swap for 1 ETH or BTC for USDT vs same for USDC. The USDT quote is similar to CEXes for dollars, and the USDC is substantially higher, aka value of 1 USDC is well below 1, on Uniswap itself.

Easier said than done: they don't have that many assets that are their own; the market depth at 0.9 is probably not much; and they, like everyone else, would take the risk USDC ultimately gets redeemed at 0.9 or whatever the shortfall ends up being. Plus their compliance dude is going to throw a tantrum.

It may get demonized if it ever gets some users. Quite a Hurd(le)!

In most of Europe there is an "undo" button in online banking next to such debits to get the money back no questions asked (for a few weeks after the transaction), as per regulations. US banking should copy this maybe.

Makes sense: at the high end of the market, patrons need to be able to identify and get the most expensive option to impress their date/mates, and understandably restaurants want to be helpful.

(See "Veblen goods".)

Jobs that require correct answers is a small subset of jobs that require answers.

  awk 'match($0, /foo=([0-9]+)/, g) { print g[1] }'

works in gawk (using extended match syntax allowing captured groups in the 3rd parameter array).

Isn't io_uring that general mechanism?

One could probably implement a Linux-compatible kernel that only implements io_uring (and only whatever sync calls are required to set it up). May not run many precompiled executables at the moment but maybe an interesting research direction.

Can't imagine mom and pop shop on aliexpress is programming APs individually based on the recipient address.

Does it help to put the access point in the basement of a small building so that the AP and radars (or other sources of false positives) don't "see" each other, while still having a short line to client devices?

My intuition so far was always to put the AP as high as practical...

Between dead artists and art-for-art-sake artists we're not gonna run out of stuff to listen to, even if intellectual property was abolished tomorrow morning (as it should be). It only works for the 1 percent at the top anyway (due to power law distribution).

He's just got his devs to debug the new algorithm live. It's hilarious to see 47882394 people get banned or restricted in some way and every one of them thinks Elon hates them personally.

It's a mess but it's the right idea, a social network cannot be run with either hand curation or self curation. If something destroys Twitter it'll be some place with a better algo.

It is hardware poetry.

(What is the benefit of rhymes, meter, etc over using prose?)

Aren't the testimonies for all these products machine generated these days? They just need to remove the --diverse=no option from the build script.

The order book from the API is at the very minimum delayed (by network and protocol latency if nothing else) and aggregated/sampled (full feed is too big), so an insider can have an advantage of more complete and timely data.

That's for honestly run APIs, then an exchange can play some games with that feed if they want to...

No need for a benchmark, wrapped Chromium is not going to beat Chromium. The curious thing is this urge to lie: a focused UI for Chromium is a valid project, why wrap it in deception and dishonesty?

Not an excuse. They had a programme for external liquidators giving some slack for trades taking the other side of liquidating positions, so Alameda should have used that. This looks worse.

In any case it's not needed: liquidators get the 3% initial margin so are usually in profit. For the cases when the market moves faster than that, they should have done what the better-run exchanges do and close the most leveraged positions from the opposite side: if lots of longs get liquidated in aggregate the shorts get their profit trimmed by the losses of the longs beyond maintenance margin, in order of leverage, which is fair enough when duly documented in the terms.

Crypto is flooded with liquidity so market making is like selling ice to an eskimo.

These days a naive market making strategy in crypto just incinerates capital very reliably as the tiny bid ask spread is a small fraction of the adverse selection risk (whole spread moving past). They did probably make money on this in the early days and got smoked when the sophisticated tradfi players joined.

Front running large trades by looking at non public info on the order book is possible but this is also fraud, so not a strategy to avoid legal troubles, and it also only works if the large traders are naive and not adversarial (putting fake large orders to front run you etc).

What SBF could have done is close down Alameda when it was clear they were not competitive, and concentrate on growing the exchange by reinvesting the fees, but that would have clipped the growth and donations/acquisitions lifestyle to something much less flamboyant.

Use them a free CDN? User page from your domain actually downloads content through them but with your ads. (Maybe for the continents which are not your primary market.)

(Less economical if they're not caching anything.)

Yes! Shipping more copies of interpreter runtimes in trivial plugins is exactly what the world needs.

In practice almost every vaguely live protocol has god mode where some "Sam" can upgrade the contract to whatever they want, because bug risk in immutable contracts is too high (VCs who fund the projects don't want to be sued for bugs). So this becomes functionally equivalent to a SQL server just slow and taking 100x the server capacity.

The mint was after withdrawals have stopped, and it does not look like they had run out of unlocked FTT.

In any case there was no buyer in size, so if they had dumped all they could the meagre proceeds would have probably been enough for like an extra half hour worth of withdrawals.

Creating out of thin air is step 1.

Step 2 is for Alameda to deposit on FTX, and then withdraw 95% of its notional value in USD or say BTC/ETH. Then on FTX they have a negative balance on this matched by a positive balance in FTT or other Sam coins. The USD or BTC/ETH withdrawn comes from someone on platform who has clicked "lend" on their positive balance of same in exchange of some yield.

To be fair, any user could do that, deposit shitcoin, withdraw non-shit, up to 100% of the funds where people had clicked "lend" and that without any fraud. If the value of the shitcoin collapsed their account just got zeroed and FTX took the corresponding loss on their books.

The list of shitcoins allowed in this genius scheme is still up:

https://help.ftx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360031149632-Non-USD-...

That argument works better if 1 user = 1 domain rather the mastodon model where users are under a random domain they have no control of.

(In passing, using top level domains as user id may be a good idea in some cases. In tech communities the friction may be bearable.)

You can, but it's impractical (operationally and in tx costs) as it requires a live bot to constantly adjust margin between the exchange and the self-custody wallet, due to the way typical crypto trading products work: at max margin, the chance of liquidation is too high, not so much because of liquidation itself (that can be risk managed and averaged out) but due to the enormous implied fees associated with liquidations. Example pricing: bet 5 at max leverage, lose 2 due to market movements, the account is zeroed aka liquidation fee of 3.

Margin trading is safe for the exchange if it works as usually described in the terms: they just act as a bookmaker reallocating customer funds according to which side wins each peer to peer bet. There's usually rules that describe what happens in gaps, closing the winning side with a win that never exceeds what the losing side put down when opening the bet.

If they steal customer funds, then all is off, but same when there is no margin trading involved.