james412

This is one of those replies that rekindles my faith in the always double-edged HN spirit for another few months :) "Dalit and proud" could literally be the baseball cap powered cultural revolution India needs to be swept up by, assuming it didn't lead to more civil unrest along the lines of cow vigilantism

> They just took what Wirecard gave them to confirm what Wirecard told them for something as important as accounts that were supposed to hold almost all the cash the company had

The same thing killed Barings Bank in the 90s, only on that occasion it was an internal audit

It's not Chinese text, it's an arithmetic-coded stream of bits mapped so the bits fall within the range of some codepoints. It's basically a variant of base64 except for Unicode.

(Side note: aren't these codepoints very expensive to encode in UTF-8? It seems there must be a lower-valued range more suited to it)

The reference to dependence on system integrators tells you all you need to know.. they will never have some 5-click signup process. Probably each new customer presently involves a fuckton of multi-vendor custom engineering over stupid timescales.

I've never heard of financial software that didn't suffer from this, so it will be interesting to see if they manage to eventually streamline it.

This is possibly the most fabulously pompous faulty comparison I've ever read. To think that somewhere, someone might place the work of the common developer alongside that of a mathematician is hilarious. Sure, it's possible to say development has a mathematical basis, much as you could say operating a speedboat or a kite has. Our trade has about as much in common with mathematics as a convent has to a brothel

The race car in this instance would be the paper, it is well presented and assuming it survives scrutiny, eternal. One particular manifestation of it for one contemporary system might better be thought of as the garnish on the free salad bowl placed next to the car

There must be some name for the effect seen here so regularly, which might best be described as the contrast in magnitudes of something being posted to the comments made about it.

In this case we have a fundamental contribution to mathematics that is succinctly captured in 252 words, producing a 209 word complaint essentially about whitespace.

Flash take: huh cute, these students wrote a paper formalizing something so simple I can have opinions about it

After browsing paper: holy cow that's awesome, where do these rocket scientists get their crazy ideas and when can we have it in Postgres

tl;dr: its basically a compression algorithm that produces a compressed stream whose sort order matches the sort order of the original uncompressed data

Minor complaint about the paper itself: all the datasets they picked can be expected to have very high redundancy. Would be nice to have included one approaching-random collection

NT had it first, but NT didn't really get much of any consumer exposure. Windows 95 was much closer to the Windows 3.1 everything-shared memory model: 16-bit apps (which were still in widespread use) continued being able to access hardware and each others' memory, and memory belonging to the most recently executed 32-bit app. NTVDM in Windows 2000 also supported 16-bit apps, but they were strictly isolated from each other, the hardware, and any 32-bit app.

The upshot was a 16-bit utility that would crash or corrupt an unrelated app (or the entire machine) in 3.1 or 95 would only crash itself in 2000. The driver model was also completely redesigned, but I don't know much about that.

Any time you hear the old meme about Linux being more stable than Windows, it's important to realize it dates back 20 years when Linux had per-process virtual memory and Windows did not.

Aside from the deep consistency of 2000's UI (after all it more or less progressively improved on the 3.x traditional widget set with in some cases little more than a recompile required to get the new theme), 2000 was the first consumer experience of a PC OS featuring real per-process virtual memory, and this is probably a big reason why everyone (including myself) remembers it so fondly.

Robin Hood has various tricks allowing your buying power to be inflated artificially, there have been a bunch of reports about it.

It also appears RH users get margin accounts by default, at least from everything I've read. If that's true, it's probably the real problem.

In the EU retail traders are permitted access to margin, but brokers are required to eat any loss exceeding the value of the account. It's not enough, because it still means new "traders" are exposed to amplified volatility, thus ensuring their accounts will blow out much faster than they may have otherwise, and positions that might have recovered in a cash account get margin called and closed out at the worst possible moment.

Leverage/margin access should require similar levels of study as a private pilot's license

This makes it sound like following the work of IETF is an idle task, and all required is to subscribe to a mailing list, but neglects to mention this inevitably means following endless overlapping and often redundant discussions on multiple mailing lists, that routinely span bi-annual periods. Nobody has time for that unless their job gives them a direct stake in protocol and architecture work. This describes probably much less than 1% of the people found on HN.

Meanwhile there are few mechanisms to popularize the results of standards groups aside from occasional sexed up vendor blog posts (for example, CloudFlare are great at these). I see no problem with this extra visibility, and find it quite perplexing that someone would have reason to complain about it.

That's the attitude of just about every successful company in history. Once large enough, some of them (e.g. YouTube) even force industrial changes to accommodate all the theft that made them successful.

Meanwhile on the topic of attitudes, referring to a startup as 'pond scum' simply because they scrape an extremely expensive data set, especially regarding an industry with a long and controversial history of strategies designed to avoid price transparency.. hmm.