TFA is talking about being quadratic in dollar cost as the conversation goes on, not quadratic in time complexity as n gets larger.
Edit to add: I see you are a new account and all your comments thus far are of a similar format, which seems highly suspicious. In the unlikely event you are a human, please read the hacker news guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The broker using your stocks as collateral doesn’t mean they can seize your stocks. It means they can borrow against your stocks to get liquidity and if there was some sort of total meltdown and they went out of business, your stocks might hypothetically be part of the bankruptcy waterfall.
Which isn’t a great position to be in but, it’s worth making a few observations:
1) Even if your stocks went into the bankruptcy waterfall, you would have a very preferential place in that waterfall so you are highly likely to get paid in full. If you’re in the waterfall your claim is settled using all remaining assets of the bank, not just your savings. The people who made loans to them with your savings as collateral would be behind you in the waterfall most importantly, so they wouldn’t get dollar 1 until you were 100% paid in full.
2) To actually be worse off here (even notwithstanding #1) you’re really looking at some hypothetical financial meltdown where the banks go completely out of business and yet somehow your retirement savings are still worth something. It might not be a very reassuring thought but that’s not a very likely scenario is it?
3) When a broker dealer goes bust even if your assets are totally in segregated funds you don’t get paid back for frikkin’ ages. A person I know had Lehman as the prime broker for their hedge fund and they didn’t get access to their assets for I want to say a year or so.
I asked Gemini to verify this statement from the article, ver batim, "However, Article 8 permits secured creditors to seize customer assets pledged as collateral if a firm cannot pay its debts, even if the securities were improperly pledged." to which it replied in part, "That statement is disturbingly accurate in a very narrow, legal sense, but it describes a "worst-case scenario...". That, if accurate, would seem to refute your statement that the stocks can't be seized which supports the intent of the article.
That doesn’t at all refute my statement. That is the scenario I talk about where your assets go into the waterfall. The broker doesn’t get to seize anything - the other creditors are making a claim against your assets and as I said, they very likely rank behind you in the waterfall, and either way there is a lot of messy and expensive legal wrangling before anyone gets anything.
It’s pretty dispiriting that you think that your conversation with gemini is worth posting to this site btw.
It’s not just the UX in wave was poor. They didn’t have one compelling use case that made sense to people and they botched the launch.
1. They did the same “invite” thing they had done with gmail so you couldn’t get an account (even if you had a gmail account). They repeated this mistake with google+ also (a social network for people who work at google).
2. They basically had a working CRDT and said “you can use this for all sorts of things” (which is true) and a thin UX on it that implemented a sort of bizzaro threaded chat with document sharing and said “this will replace email” (which is blatantly untrue) and everyone was just confused.
> Building a chat application should be considered a tar pit problem IMO
Yes. For example Discord originated as a side-project for a team who were supposed to be building an MOBA. That’s why if you try to build a discord chatbot or custom command or whatever, the servers are called “guilds” etc.[1]
Slack was also developed by a team who were supposed to be developing a video game.[2]
It’s fascinating that on the one hand Ars Technica didn’t think the article was worth writing (so got an LLM to do it) but expect us to think it’s worth reading. Then some people don’t think it’s worth reading (so get an LLM to do it) but think somehow we will think it’s not worth reading the article but is worth reading the llm summary. Feel like you can carry on that process ad infinitum always going for a smaller and smaller audience who are somehow willing to spend less and less effort (but not zero).
I don't understand the sarcasm. Driverless trains for mass transit are in operation in lots of places around the world and have been for some time (eg the Docklands light railway in London) https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/dlr/
Driverless personal transportation is the unsolved problem.
Weirdly, DLR trains still have an attendant onboard. A better example of a fully centrally operated train would be something like the SkyTrain lines in Vancouver.
The book The Box discusses similar compromises that were made with the longshoremen unions during the transition from conventional hull-packing to containers. There's a certain fairness to it at least for a time, but the technology existing to make the role truly unnecessary does prime things for the next round of discussions when it can be fully eliminated or moved to an off-board overseer remotely monitoring multiple trains at once.
The point is that we don't have mass transit in most places in the US. Trains and light rail are indisputably better for everyone but we're betting the entire country on yet more cars.
Agree. Also, you have a general intelligence and a pair of eyes, not just a pair of eyes. In the absence of an artificial general intelligence, we need better sensors than a human has if we are to hope to approximate human performance.
It may even be that they have no alternative but to lie in their press release. Like say hypothetically they went to Flock and said “I know we have a contract saying we’re gonna do this partnership but given the optics and the amount of heat we’re getting we have to cancel”.
Flock may well have agreed on a break to the contract but stipulated that Flock had to agree to the wording of the press statement and Amazon was not going to disparage Flock yadda yadda.
Strange as it may seem, there was a time when people asked “how will google be able to compete against the likes of aol, who are able to spend $x per year”
Edit to add: I see you are a new account and all your comments thus far are of a similar format, which seems highly suspicious. In the unlikely event you are a human, please read the hacker news guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
reply