40 karma · joined December 14, 2013
Was expecting a fine tuned version of ChatGPT that specializes in sounding like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
I guess not many people do as I do. But promoting one’s stupid tweets is a pretty good indication of someone I do not and will never have any interest in hearing from… I suppose I might make an exception for a sufficiently funny/edgy promoted tweet, but I also suspect that twitter enforces stricter content rules on promoted tweets?
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how systematic trading strategies differ from some other ML problems. It's an adversarial, nonstationary environment. The same strategies don't just keep working indefinitely. (Not to mention the fact that maintaining any complex production software system requires an enormous amount of work, even completely ignoring the need to keep developing new alpha. For instance, consider the case when certain oil prices went briefly negative in 2020 -- even if your software was so perfect that it was unaffected by that event [hah!] remember that many of the counterparties you actually trade with may not have been as clever. This is just one small example. as markets evolve, they will find ways to turn up new bugs in your code.)
Seems to me that everything good about the product was present pre-IPO and it has only gotten worse over the years. I still use it but I find the interface/functionality strictly less pleasant with each design change.
This seems entirely within the scope of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause, and need not be tied up with other more controversial aspects of intellectual property law. There was a time when one could have made a case that permitting copyrights on scientific publications would "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (e.g. because only journal publishers were in a position to efficiently provide copy editing, nice formatting, and distribution). None of that has been relevant for decades, so it seems to me that one could even make a case that the status quo violates the Copyright Clause, since enforcing journal copyrights pretty clearly diminishes rather than promotes the progress of science.
[0] https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vu5l/red_alert...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Huygens-Barrow-Newton-Hooke-quasicrys...
The proper way to make these sorts of decisions is by passing laws that make the transfer payments explicit, not disguising them in byzantine insurance regulations.
The return route is often done over the Pacific (because of prevailing wind patterns), so there would not necessarily be a need to sonic boom over southeast China.
The whole idea should be scrapped.