I think "Proof (that we) Possibly" kinda sums it up. This is "Proof" that there is a possibility (does not rule it out). He's being down voted because people are splitting hairs about the wording. What he said was generally correct however the word "proof" has a strong pull in one direction.
"Proof we possibly" is an oxymoron, like "60% of the time it works every time." It's not so much splitting hairs as it is attempting vainly to understand phrasing that inherently makes no sense.
I agree it was bad phrasing, that was not my point. I was simply pointing out that even though his wording was bad what he was trying to get across (Proof that is's still a viable hypothesis) was technically correct. Here i'll fix it for you "This is proof that that DNA can survive re-entry from space, due to this finding there is still a possibility that life came from somewhere else"
"The final geocentricism.". Duh. You could be in a mixed state of |life had originated on earth| + |life had originated elsewhere| + |physics doesn't actually exists, and you are just a bitstring|.
edit: downvoter ;) you are an unfriendly and uneducated bitstring ;)
""" Friedman, laureate of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, said: "You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that." Friedman did not believe that the trader should be required to make his trade known to the public, because the buying or selling pressure itself is information for the market.
Now you are just bullshitting. A 130k is a huge loss and a phenomental outlier. You've never had even a 100k loss on your strategies. And by current standards your strategies are not even HFT. I've seen you talking milliseconds. Nowadays people are talking sub-microseconds.
Sub-microsecond transactions seem impossible unless you're physically jacked in to the trading datacenter's network. If you try to transfer a message (like a string buffer) as quickly as possible from program A running on core 0 to program B running on core 5 on your server-grade computer, the best benchmarks I could achieve were "99% of measurements executed in fewer than 150 nanoseconds." And I worked hard on this problem. It seems like maybe you could execute a trade in ~400 nanoseconds at best, if you have a server that's connected with 10GigE directly to a NASDAQ (or whoever) box and you're bypassing how Linux normally does packet handling, but I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead of the other party's server pushes that to at least 1 microsecond in all cases.
But... now that I've examined the facts, I admit what you say may be true. Are HFTs really operating in sub-microsecond time for trades nowadays?
The goal is to be faster than the other guy - HFT is a race, thanks to the subpenny rule. So if network latency is 2ms, you still care about making your trades happen in 2,050us vs 2,100us.
Tl;dr even if trades happen in ms, you still care about us.
Yes, you are correct. On an average Linux box to have a single cache line data transfer between the cores under 150ns 99% of the time is about the best that you can get. Especially if you are running stock kernel that eats this 1% and creates huge outliers ;). There is some talk though, about crazily-expensive switches with integrated FPGAs...
And the crazy expensive switch is guaranteed to be the cheap part. Now add the all the ip required to make that fpga smart enough to place orders, and you're talking huge bills in dev hours and third party licensing.
It's 1ft/ns in a vacuum, but my understanding is that it's closer to 0.5ft/ns in a wire, so what you say is doubly true. But I think HFTs are running on servers close to the NASDAQ datacenter, and that people pay buckets of money for such privileges.
Yes and No. Nearly every electronic exchange now offers co-location services (including NASDAQ).
The "serious dough" part is a little harder to quantify. I've not looked into NASDAQ specifically but server colocation is usually on the order of a couple of thousand dollars a month. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of a professional trading outfit (namely employees and margin/risk costs).
Anecdotally, it's also almost exactly what I paid for a tier 1 co-located server at my first job in a startup during the first dotcom boom.
I worked at a prop shop where my teams worst 2-day losses totaled more than $2MM. The worst period for any team on the firm was a $30MM loss with an additional $60MM of risk over the course of 5 days.
No one was happy about it, but it was part of the job and considered reasonable volatility for a portfolio of our (middle) size. While I wasn't a fan of Consz's tone, his numbers check out from my personal experience at a trading firm. Not HFT, but in the end it's all about return on capital and the P&L's should be similar.
One of the big problems about conversations around "HFT" is that there is no definition of what that actually is. I like to put computerized trading systems on a scale of 3 different things: 1) trade volume 2) latency sensitivity and 3) human interaction.
So for instance, I've worked on systems that were "fairly" latency sensitive (~tens of micro seconds in latency budget), not very high volume (100s of trades a day) and had virtually no human interaction. I've also worked on systems that were "not very" latency sensitive (co-lo'd but never actually measured tick to trade times, which were assumedly in the tens of milliseconds), high volume (10s of thousands of trades a day) and had a team of clerks looking over it.
I would call both of those systems HFT systems, but some people wouldn't consider either of them HFT.
In both of those cases a 130k loss would be an outlier, but not a phenomenal one. I've worked with people who have lost millions of dollars in seconds and it blew up the group. I've met others that million dollar swings on a given strategy was par for the course (and there hedge funds doing manual trades that won't notice that trade in a graph).
That is, the world of computerized trading is pretty varied. If you are going to say someone is or is not HFT, let them know what your definition is first, as that is the only way the discussion can move forward.
People are downvoting you, but as someone who only worked on a FIX application in a tiny finance shop, microsecond was barely acceptable. The comment rings false with me as well.
What do you mean that 'microsecond as barely acceptable'? That was too long for what?
I'm skeptical that there are really that many players out there who are in a position where a single microsecond would really make a difference. There are definitely companies out there in this situation, but not many.
I was talking about 130k in any one strategy. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.
A single strategy is easily capable of losing that much. Any bond futures or cash bond strategy post-FOMC. Any equity index futures strategy during Twitter "flash crash". Any strategy taking large size in a big future during early-mid October this year. Any strategy taking large size in a big future during August 2011. Any Nikkei futures strategy right after the recent QE announcement from Japan.
All of those are easily capable of dropping 130k in a day.
""" More to the point, if you're buying drugs online you're not supporting local drug dealers and the crime and violence that typically accompany open air drug markets, particularly in inner cities. By cutting those sellers out of the equation, you're seeing a net reduction in violence overall.
> How do you actually get your drugs if you buy them on Silk Road? Do you have UPS bring the MDMA to your door?
Yes. Typically it comes in "stealth" packaging to prevent it being detected en route. If it wasn't for tor being so slow it would be basically the same flow as ordering something off amazon
True. But gravity is a conservative field (again, neglecting radiation), meaning that the energy that goes into raising something against gravity, you can get back by lowering it to the original position again.
> And gravity is not a force. Gravity is the curvature of space-time.
If we're not in "overly pedantic argumentation" mode, then I'd say, go climb some stairs. Feel that? That's a force. But if we are in "overly pedantic argumentation" mode, then yes, gravity is the curvature of space-time in General Relativity. That may not be the final word, though. What is gravity in Loop Quantum Gravity?
Let me give you a clue. Are you in the gravitational field of the Sun? How does it compare with the gravitational field of the Earth? Is it stronger or weaker? Do you feel it? What's the trajectory of the earth in the curved space-time around the sun?
When you'd say "go climb some stairs" what you feel are the stairs. And you should also feel like a bit of an idiot, in my humble opinion.
Well, its semantics right? Gravity causes acceleration, so its a force? It can be treated mathematically as a curvature. It behaves differently in different frames, but so do electromagnetic forces.
If someone applies a force to you, you can feel it. If you're in free-fall, you can't feel anything. According to general relativity, there's no way to tell if you're stopped, moving in a straight line with constant velocity, or in free-fall in a gravitational field. They're all the same.
Actually, you only feel it if the force is applied differentially (which most forces we experience are). If your body had a volumetrically uniform electrostatic charge, which was not high enough to have charge screening, and you were acted upon by an electrostatic force, you wouldn't feel anything either. It is just that 'mass charge' is always distributed evenly along with mass, while with electrostatic forces this is a special case.
Forces can indeed be modeled as a curvature in space-time. However, there is a bit more to GR than just that, which is why it took Einstein years to go from SR to GR.
There is a distinction. A gravitational field has a center, so if you are in free-falling towards it you can determine that you are in it.
Take two objects and place them apart to float stationary( the line they make should be orthogonal to the center of the field ). Even though they started completely stationary, they will slowly start to move towards each other, as an unknown force is acting upon them. In reality they are falling towards a common center.
I guess this doesn't work on dimensionless points, so the your comment is correct as far as mathematics are concerned.
At least in C your initialization functions are first class citizens. Not like in that messed-up language, in which a constructor just should not fail...
