1,839 karma · joined March 17, 2009
Mobile apps, computer vision, machine learning and Haskell. Our business combines all of these. I also have long experience in financial markets so I like to rant about the real meaning of financial transparency.
Sometimes I can trick ghc into using the wrong type. Like when I use "String" to mean "File". That's when all the bugs show up as run-time errors. But I should know a string is not a file. And hopefully somebody writes a module that knows what a "File" really is and stops me from writing buggy code if I use it.
I can't wait until this business fad is over.
Understanding what modelers do is a good way to understand what AI will be doing.
It seems the company does not believe this to be the case. Possibly they are in a better position too know. Or they are beyond the phase where top talent is required to de-risk the business. Very calculating either way.
In contrast, most regulatory proposals betray a belief in installing a tough cop of some kind to combat 'evildoers'. Guess what, the evildoers are just people doing their jobs. We need to tweak the system to stabilize it, and for a regulated industry like banking the government has all the power it needs to do so.
13 months, 28 days each = 364 days Plus 1 or 2 special days at the beginning of the year. Much easier to figure out the day of the week for your next meeting.
We could name the 13th month Jobsuary, or you pick.
As for the the whole redemption through philanthropy thing, it's fun to watch the wealthy compete in the legacy game. Go Bill!
The hunt for the criminals is a waste of time. People were acting aggressive, not criminal--with notable exceptions that could happen in any era. In fact, finding scapegoats will make the problem worse. It leaves the system intact and fools everybody into believing the problem is fixed.
Credit and risk has always been a problem of information. In this era we have more tools than ever to manage them. However the rules require a major rethink to get the right information circulating.
Now, if you believe it is a systems problem, what's the solution? Here's one: Transparency. Not the SEC's version of quarterly accounting quibbles. Just tell me the the end-of-day positions of every "large" participant. 20 years ago that would be too much information to process. Now it would be no problem. Lots of little agencies could process the information.
The impact would be enormous. The informational advantages of large institutions and so-called speculators would simply disappear. Nobody would be able to grow to be too big to fail, simply because they would have a harder time trading. If you are starting to feel sorry for banks having to supply this type of formerly proprietary information, just remember, they have the corresponding information on you and you don't complain.
I think the OP is a perfect candidate for Arch Linux.
About our Haskell experience: Yes, the learning curve seems steep, but mainly because of the things you have to unlearn (OMG no for-loops!). However, functions are the most modular things ever invented. That translates into an uncanny ability to add features quickly. A sophisticated type system catches many errors at compile time.
I'll give you just one example. Large traders attempt to conceal their identity. This leads to a lot of gamesmanship, as you point out. If this information were released with every order placed then I would argue a lot of volume would dry up and volatility would decrease.
“We are fortunate to have someone of Meg Whitman’s caliber and experience step up to lead HP,” said Lane. “We are at a critical moment and we need renewed leadership to successfully implement our strategy and take advantage of the market opportunities ahead. Meg is a technology visionary with a proven track record of execution. She is a strong communicator who is customer focused with deep leadership capabilities. Furthermore, as a member of HP’s board of directors for the past eight months, Meg has a solid understanding of our products and markets.”
Let me be clear. Anybody that puts an order in not expecting to get executed but to create favorable conditions for their next order is engaging in what I call "high speed rumor mongering". There are lots of variations of this game. Never happens? Always happens? You tell me.
But markets aren't chess. "Rumor-mongering" is a legal term I chose on purpose. It is generally prohibited because it destroys liquidity in markets, which hurts investors and issuers. The term is intentionally objectionable, but not inaccurate. Just don't trouble the regulators to figure it out.