4 ms·

So it is like the "Efficient Code Hypothesis"? No-one thinks that all code is efficient, but some code can be efficient sometimes.

by foldr 2y ago

chii 2y ago
except in the case of the efficient market, if somebody manages to find some inefficiency, they can stand to profit off it by arbitraging that inefficiency (until it disappears). So it's not quite the same as code inefficiency, unless an engineer could reap the reward for the fixing of said inefficiency.
- foldr 2y ago
  Ah, so it is like the "Bug Free Code Hypothesis". If someone is paid to write code, then theoretically that code should be making money for someone, and it should be making them more money if all the bugs were fixed.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Do you compare all of your economics to bad programming managers?
    - foldr 2y ago
      Not exactly, but I think that analogies with everyday experiences can help to show how silly some of these hypotheses are when considered in more concrete terms. “People have lots of incentives to eliminate Xs, therefore there won’t be any Xs” is an argument schema for which counterexamples abound. To be fair, the "Bug Free Code Hypothesis" is kind of true. Because there are lots of incentives to eliminate bugs, people do put a lot of time and effort into doing so – yielding modern miracles such as OS kernels with 30 million lines of code that almost always work as intended. But while software is bug free to a perhaps surprising extent, it would be foolish to plan a software project on the assumption that there will not be any bugs to fix, or that a small number of bugs cannot have a big impact. Similarly, it seems unwise to assume the efficiency of markets in economic planning (though I don't know to what extent economists actually do this).
      - dmix 2y ago
        I'm wary to using analogies of smaller team dynamics for wider systems. Markets have a disconnected impersonal nature where things have a way of shaking out. Most of those programming management memes come from big companies with giant teams that don't live or die on output, many of them are shielded from that sort of thing because of cash cows like Microsoft/Google or corporate megadeals like IBM/Oracle. So there's never any shake ups until it's long been obvious to the customers.
        foldr 2y ago
        I'm not using an analogy of smaller team dynamics. One can talk about software bugs in general and the general incentives to fix them just as one can talk about the economy in general and the general incentives for people to make money. I'm also not referencing any programming management memes. I think maybe you're seeing a cynicism in my comment that's not there. I don't think that bugs exists because of dumb managers. I think they exist because it's very difficult to write code without any bugs, even when there are very strong incentives to do so. That's partly just because it's inherently difficult, and partly because there are also other incentives pulling in different directions.
- gmd63 2y ago
  This isn't true. If you manufacture inefficiency yourself, and control it, nobody can exploit it. In fact if they try to, you can exacerbate the inefficiency in the other direction. Try arbitraging against the inefficient pricing of GameStop.
  - tasuki 2y ago
    I don't see how you can manufacture and control inefficiencies in the long term so that nobody can exploit them. How can you arbitrarily exacerbate the inefficiencies? More money has been earned by removing the GameStop inefficiencies than by creating them. GameStop shot up in value driven by WallStreetBets, but those people mostly lost money by creating the inefficiencies.
    - gmd63 2y ago
      Introducing them has made people money. Those people will seek to introduce them again under a different ticker. The main inefficiency in GameStop is creating information and will to buy that runs completely orthogonal to the actual valuation of the stock. Like snake charmers, Roaring Kitty etc use memes and bots online to drum "bagholders" into a fervor, thinking they are righteously sticking it to some nebulous man by buying a stock that is worthless.
      - tasuki 2y ago
        They're sticking it to the plebs who follow them. Just like all the other influencers.
  - chii 2y ago
    > If you manufacture inefficiency yourself, and control it that's called a pump and dump, which is already illegal. Because the fraud depends on manufactured (mis)information.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

So it is like the "Efficient Code Hypothesis"? No-one thinks that all code is efficient, but some code can be efficient sometimes.

by foldr 2y ago

So it is like the "Efficient Code Hypothesis"? No-one thinks that all code is efficient, but some code can be efficient sometimes.

chii 2y ago

except in the case of the efficient market, if somebody manages to find some inefficiency, they can stand to profit off it by arbitraging that inefficiency (until it disappears). So it's not quite the same as code inefficiency, unless an engineer could reap the reward for the fixing of said inefficiency.

foldr 2y ago
Ah, so it is like the "Bug Free Code Hypothesis". If someone is paid to write code, then theoretically that code should be making money for someone, and it should be making them more money if all the bugs were fixed.
- dmix 2y ago
  Do you compare all of your economics to bad programming managers?
  - foldr 2y ago
    Not exactly, but I think that analogies with everyday experiences can help to show how silly some of these hypotheses are when considered in more concrete terms. “People have lots of incentives to eliminate Xs, therefore there won’t be any Xs” is an argument schema for which counterexamples abound. To be fair, the "Bug Free Code Hypothesis" is kind of true. Because there are lots of incentives to eliminate bugs, people do put a lot of time and effort into doing so – yielding modern miracles such as OS kernels with 30 million lines of code that almost always work as intended. But while software is bug free to a perhaps surprising extent, it would be foolish to plan a software project on the assumption that there will not be any bugs to fix, or that a small number of bugs cannot have a big impact. Similarly, it seems unwise to assume the efficiency of markets in economic planning (though I don't know to what extent economists actually do this).
    - dmix 2y ago
      I'm wary to using analogies of smaller team dynamics for wider systems. Markets have a disconnected impersonal nature where things have a way of shaking out. Most of those programming management memes come from big companies with giant teams that don't live or die on output, many of them are shielded from that sort of thing because of cash cows like Microsoft/Google or corporate megadeals like IBM/Oracle. So there's never any shake ups until it's long been obvious to the customers.
      - foldr 2y ago
        I'm not using an analogy of smaller team dynamics. One can talk about software bugs in general and the general incentives to fix them just as one can talk about the economy in general and the general incentives for people to make money. I'm also not referencing any programming management memes. I think maybe you're seeing a cynicism in my comment that's not there. I don't think that bugs exists because of dumb managers. I think they exist because it's very difficult to write code without any bugs, even when there are very strong incentives to do so. That's partly just because it's inherently difficult, and partly because there are also other incentives pulling in different directions.
gmd63 2y ago
This isn't true. If you manufacture inefficiency yourself, and control it, nobody can exploit it. In fact if they try to, you can exacerbate the inefficiency in the other direction. Try arbitraging against the inefficient pricing of GameStop.
- tasuki 2y ago
  I don't see how you can manufacture and control inefficiencies in the long term so that nobody can exploit them. How can you arbitrarily exacerbate the inefficiencies? More money has been earned by removing the GameStop inefficiencies than by creating them. GameStop shot up in value driven by WallStreetBets, but those people mostly lost money by creating the inefficiencies.
  - gmd63 2y ago
    Introducing them has made people money. Those people will seek to introduce them again under a different ticker. The main inefficiency in GameStop is creating information and will to buy that runs completely orthogonal to the actual valuation of the stock. Like snake charmers, Roaring Kitty etc use memes and bots online to drum "bagholders" into a fervor, thinking they are righteously sticking it to some nebulous man by buying a stock that is worthless.
    - tasuki 2y ago
      They're sticking it to the plebs who follow them. Just like all the other influencers.
- chii 2y ago
  > If you manufacture inefficiency yourself, and control it that's called a pump and dump, which is already illegal. Because the fraud depends on manufactured (mis)information.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]