lbarrow

This is exactly right. You have to disclose risks to your business and if a really big part of your growth is coming from a new, volatile customer base, that's a big risk and you should disclose it. It has nothing to do with a specific requirement for GPUs or something; publicly traded companies _in general_ have a responsibility to understand where their revenue comes from and disclose that understanding to the public.

This is very run-of-the-mill stuff for the SEC. I think the only reason it's getting play on HN is that, if you aren't familiar with this sort of thing, it looks like the SEC is picking on Nvidia for doing business with crypto miners. But that isn't what the complaint is actually about.

Kipnis was also subject to several rounds of retaliatory Title IX investigations simply for publicly objecting to Ludlow's treatment, all of which eventually exonerated her. It's hard to think of someone more qualified to critique the issues with Title IX and the culture of campus inquisitions.

Kipnis clearly doesn't think much of the Ewell paper, but I don't think her point centers on its contents; it's more that someone collected and published scholarly responses to the paper, and the social media pushback against these responses led to a grad student narcing on his professor and the professor losing funding, the journal, etc. That, to me, is not a healthy dynamic for a university to run on.

edit: Actually let me go a step further and agree with you a bit - I think Kipnis's point would be more clearly made if she didn't make her own perspective on the merits of the Ewell paper such a big part of that section of the article.

The exchange being able to roll back trades in extraordinary circumstances is also part of the game. The exchange obviously has a strong incentive not to abuse this power or the traders will find another exchange.

That logic runs both ways, you could just as easily say:

Well, the short squeeze traders knew the risks - they knew that LME had the legal authority to cancel trades in extraordinary circumstances, they made the trade anyway and boom that's exactly what happened. They gambled and lost; they have to pay.

I think it's basically just replacing having a circuit-breaker -- if they had a circuit breaker like a lot of other exchanges, the crazy price jump never would have gotten going.

I agree with you on the limitations of the article, and I can see the rise in nickel prices due to the war as "real macroeconomic phenomena", but the short squeezes on nickel produces clearly created a positive feedback loop that pushed the price way higher than the fundamentals justified.

Voiding the transactions here serves the same purpose as a circuit breaker on a stock exchange: to prevent temporary pricing feedback loops from causing chaos. If the LME had a circuit breaker (and I'm sure they'll be getting one soon), this wouldn't have even come up.

The quoted section says that _SoftBank_ will retain the fee, not ARM?

Why did you leave off Netflix?

Yes, lack of housing is a huge part of the problem. The entire article is about how housing has gotten so expensive in these areas that few of the locals can afford to live there anymore, which leads to crippling worker shortages and many other problems.

The "free market" didn't give those activists the right to veto development, the political processes and rules of their communities did. It's silly to treat that veto as a natural result, it's just as contingent as any other political rule.

I think the real "market" solution here would be to remove the ability of both out-of-town owners and locals to block new housing development. The article cites an example of a 200+ unit development in Brush Creek that was effectively vetoed by local NIMBYs; this in an area where only 800 people voted in the main Crested Butte elections.

Her full tweet (https://twitter.com/math_rachel/status/1441569388289609728) says:

  Medicine, like all of science, is political:
  - which questions get asked
  - which projects get funded
  - how debates get framed
  - who the researchers are
  - context of data (what categories, what labels, which biases, what is left out)
  - whose suffering is counted   1/

Seems obviously correct to me. Certainly research allocation decisions at the level of grant funding are political.

Why would they try to hide this? It seems perfectly reasonable to do.

The behavior of the people with multiple bank accounts in the article is both legal and perfectly ethical. Are you saying we have an ethical responsibility to pay as high bank fees as possible?

55% is one of the lowest home ownership rates in the country. If high levels of home ownership drive policies that prohibit new construction and drive up prices, how is it that places like Minnesota, with a home ownership rate in the mid-70s, are so cheap to live in?

Because he was wrong two times? How many times did he make correct predictions?

Remember, though, social media giants are monopolists and it's impossible to compete against them.

I don't think you read the summary. The mechanism is pretty clear:

1. Compared with a flat tax, a progressive tax regime expands the economy because poor people spend more of their money than rich people.

2. This expansionary effect gets multiplied because this spending recirculates around and around (the "standard fiscal multiplier" in the summary).

3. Rich people accrue most of the benefits of the expansionary effect.

4. These benefits are actually larger than the initial increase in tax burden in step 1), so while everyone ends up better off, rich people end up _more_ better off than poor people. Therefore the progressive tax scheme has the net effect of boosting income inequality.

It's not a perpetual motion machine, the gain starts because rich and poor people having different consumption rates. You could only do this until you run out of tax dollars being paid by poor people.

Really, though, what the paper is proposing is saying is that rich people benefit quite a lot from expansionary policies, so much so that they can even afford to pay to get them started. I don't think this is very controversial or even counterintuitive. The thing to realize is that the paper starts with the claim that _progressive taxation makes the economy bigger_. If you accept that, it makes sense that the rich would benefit the most from it.

I meant the cookie law. I'll update my comment to clarify.

Ah, that makes more sense then.

I love how even gdpr.eu has a cookie acceptance banner. Man, they really screwed the cookie law up.

That's fair, in that situation there's probably a valid case for disallowing use of a search engine. Whether or not that's an effective interview is another story :)

I'm referring to a programming interview, where you are writing code with the candidate -- not a brain teaser.

I see posts like this all the time on HN and I really wonder if there's an alternate world of really stupid interview practices out there that I've just been lucky enough to avoid.

In this case: I've never heard of, participated in or administered a programming interview where the candidate couldn't Google things.

I remember when I interviewed at Braintree, I spent a good chunk of the pairing interview searching for Linux command syntax because I was new to using it. I got the job and spent 7 years there.

What is there to be afraid of? I really don't know what you mean.

Yea this Plato thing seems pretty bizarre and I completely agree that it's silly for the mentors to use it. Maybe there's a small value of just meeting people through it, but I think existing meetup groups can solve that problem pretty well.

The quibble I have with the author: if this was a for-profit company that _hadn't_ taken VC funding, would he be more OK with donating his time to them? I think his objection makes sense regardless of company taking funding and I don't think he needs to keep emphasizing them taking funding to get his point across.

The "I hate all men, but..." and "men are trash" jokes only seem jarring because that sort of joke isn't acceptable about other groups (well, other than white people). Rather than ban these jokes as well, I'd rather live in a world where everyone relaxed a bit and was OK with a bit of humor.

If you rewatch a lot of the comedies or stand up routines from the 80s, 90s or even 2000s, it's clear that like 80% of the jokes could never have been made today. Rather than doubling down on this dynamic, maybe we could just chill?

The response makes the researchers seem clueless, arrogant, or both - are they really surprised that kernel maintainers would get pissed off at someone deliberately wasting their time?

From the post:

  * Does this project waste certain efforts of maintainers?
  Unfortunately, yes. We would like to sincerely apologize to the maintainers involved in the corresponding patch review process; this work indeed wasted their precious time. We had carefully considered this issue, but could not figure out a better solution in this study. However, to minimize the wasted time, (1) we made the minor patches as simple as possible (all of the three patches are less than 5 lines of code changes); (2) we tried hard to find three real bugs, and the patches ultimately contributed to fixing them

"Yes, this wastes maintainers time, but we decided we didn't care."

My understanding is that it's pretty common for CS departments to get IRB exemption even when human participants are tangentially involved in studies.