That's fair. I wasn't close enough to see how "surprising" it was. The point stands that it looks nothing like HFT active trading risk. Knight Capital created such amazing training material for the industry. What went wrong with their software, how many decisions or practices could have prevented or narrowed the risk. What went wrong at trade time, how they had a clear window to pull the plug but died due to indecision and inaction.
The CHF de-peg wasn't really technology risk. Brokers lost money because they undervalued CHF/EUR risk, undervalued liquidity risk (stop orders were executing FAR worse than expected, or simply failing to execute at all), and didn't pay attention to the legal protections afforded to their customers (customer balances went negative but there was no way to recover that money from the customers). These brokers would have had the same problems even if using pen & paper, they failed to plan (or alternatively, made a conscious bet and lost).
A real life application of Odysseus's Oar. I have mentored junior devs who have "heard" of SVN and also think CVS is just a pharmacy. It was a real gut-punch the first time.
Retail consumers aren't exactly disadvantaged by the gradual narrowing of spreads, so what are you trying to fix? The latency arms-race is exclusively professionals fighting each other.
Getting back on topic, being a software developer for an HFT shop can be a lot of fun: serious technical challenges and a rapid feedback loop in a role where you may be the revenue stream rather than just another cost center. But posters highlighting NIH syndrome are spot on: you risk pigeonholing yourself.
It's not about you, though; it's about all of the fathers that will follow you. Does your partner see this dynamic as well? Will she support you by redirecting conversations to force your inclusion? That's where I would start, if you don't want to throw her under the bus with her admin.
I've always seen this solved by sorting (lexicographical order of bytes, originally). First two characters were digits, for all files within a wildcard directory.
Applying a consistent process is what gives the population continuing faith in the system. Laws that are universally supported will sail through the process with ease, so what's the rush? Laws that prove to be more contentious, regardless of reason, will be negotiated and refined across small regions--either indefinitely or until common ground can be found.
The use of "just" here is classic underestimation of complexity or investment required. Technologists everywhere face this negative language from customers and other laypeople, and I expect many readers understand from first hand experience how insulting it feels. Please don't "share" that negativity with other creative arts.
That was my first thought upon reading the title. However, people learn, grow, and change. I believe his argument will carry more weight with the acknowledgment and duscussion of his own prior decision. It's not hypocrisy; it's a lesson learned.
There's a DVD "limited edition" of the trilogy that is 2 discs each, and the "extras" disc has either the original or laserdisc edit. This is good. The downside is that the black levels and audio are obviously dated/untouched. There's just no market for "remastering" without the content changes.
This sounds like pretty bad, or at least risky, advice. Mind you, I think it'll work on average; but it's a dishonest and adversarial way to start a new relationship, for probably not a ton of money.
I can see how an awkwardly-delivered statement could by misconstrued, regardless of the speaker's true intent. However, doesn't this play out pretty poorly for the rank-and-file anyhow? Anyone caught deleting emails would get thrown under the bus by management citing the explicit instruction.
Sure, there will be some high performers that get caught in that 10% net. The F500 shops wants their recruiting teams looking for those candidates, but they need protect themselves from adverse selection. An ex-FAANG developer who thinks they're 10x and is given unconstrained runway to prove (or disprove) it can cause a lot of damage to an unprepared but otherwise functional team of 1xers.
As an adult who probably has some hearing damage, I always watch with closed captions enabled now. There is SO much material that I have lost from mishearing a word here and there. Reading the script along with the audio helps my to follow the storyline, as those "whispered or hushed speech" remain a cognitive problem for me.
There is a segment of the new Dune movie where I feel this happens. I believe it is Paul and Jessica's crossing and their encounter with the worm. The contrast feels so washed out and it distracts me because my eyes start straining for the light... but it seems 100% intentional. It's pre-dawn and the world feels grayscale. I'm complaining about it, but maybe I would miss it if they didn't do that.
Yeah I'm used to in-house, no material contract experience.
> the dysfunction is everyone else's fault, not our own
I specifically said the relationship. It takes two parties for effective communication to occur. An engineer who have given up trying because they assume experienced management will not listen, is just as bad as a manager that steamrolls their experienced engineers.
Why would you change plans and expect the construction crew's prior estimate to remain unchanged? Estimates change if the project changes. A commercial developer's job includes recognizing that and communicating changes upstream. Usually that leads to a negotiation, collectively determining how much to (try to) spend and which boondoggles are trutly important.
If a hired software developer told me up front, "I can't estimate because you will change things and then the old estimate will be wrong," all I can conclude is that this relationship is already dysfunctional.
Isn't HTTP POST content similarly encoded? Likewise with small embedded images in CSS, though I am rusty on that topic. Likewise with binary email attachments in SMTP (though this may be uuencoded, same net effect).
The particular example of a trivial message that is mostly-binary just sounds like a useful test case, more than anything else.
The same... with no public scrutiny, last trade price most likely reflecting a primary sale (i e. the market only contains buyers), and very few sample points overall. That's not the same confidence of price, even if the structure is analagous.
"better" is a projection of various personal features onto a single axis. If you ask those 100 engineers to predict their strengths and weaknesses relative to the room, they'd probably do an OK job of it. Asking who is "better" is asking for that, plus their subjective weights of those skills. You should expect that to be a pointless exercise.
The "colo provider" role is just rent collection from HFT customers. It's 100% derived from their exchange business.
It's an interesting idea, but don't think you can segregate their exchange role from their authorship or standardization of financial instruments. Any exchange is either creating products to trade or licensing them. Any commodity exchange is naturally interested in setting contract standards related to delivery and quality.
They are an exchange, through and through. Everything else is a side project in support of that one role.
> if I were to tell you in September 2021 that Meta was going to trade 70% down within a year, you wouldn't have believed me
I would have probably asked "who is Meta?" at which point you explain you are a time traveler, and Facebook was to change their name in the next few months, too. After my initial laughter, I suppose I'd believe your whole story, because you can't make this stuff up. Next thing you'll tell me, Zuckerberg has legally changed his name to "The Cooler Mark".
Peloton in particular was a beneficiary of the pandemic and lockdowns. With no ill will, I'm content to see their stock price drop if it is correlated with an improvement in the general state of the world.
It's absolutely not informative to compare their returns to various crypto.
Children's interests can be fickle. Learning a skill takes a serious investment of time, and a child left totally to their own devices could end up bailing on a lot of interests prematurely, because they never get over the initial hump. This is a natural part of parenting, to teach your children about investment of effort.
The horror cases like GP's "9 years" are essentially a miscalibration, failing to recognize a suitable stopping point.
"Cheap babysitting" is not it. Lessons are short and more expensive than childcare. Enforcement of practice time is a hassle (and a balancing act!)
A couple of months of weekly piano instruction is simply not enough exposure for most young students to even have "one jazz tune" under their belt.
It's likely that the jam session invitation was predicated upon some minimum skill level with the instrument--something that 6 years of even begrudging practice provided.
> This is what you get when you treat everybody else in the same way, by telling them cosleeping is evil.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I am an American, and my family's pediatrician gave cosleeping advice when asked, despite discouraging it. I'll reiterate GP's point: labeling a cultural difference as a national "obsession" is unwarranted.
Google or any search engine provides links to relevant documents, whereas ChatGPT functions as a pure summary. Neither the search engine nor language model summary should be treated as authoritative, but at least a search engine cites its sources.