8 ms·
[stub for offtopicness]
by dang 8mo ago
[stub for offtopicness]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- davedx 8mo ago[flagged]
- kobieps 8mo agoYeah I saw something fly by on my feed that they were responsible for big btc dumps https://x.com/1914ad/status/2026757796390449382 https://x.com/1914ad/status/2026757796390449382 Haven't read it yet but seems spicey
- davedx 8mo agoMultiple cases of market manipulation. It's a super shady operation
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- tasuki 8mo agoIt seems like a bunch of nonsense to me: > Bitcoin should be at least $150,000 right now and everyone knows it. Based on what? I'm a fan of Bitcoin, but "should be" is utter nonsense. As is "everyone knows it". HN doesn't, for one. > Every trading day at 10am Eastern, coinciding with the U.S. stock market open, Bitcoin experienced sudden and sharp sell-offs. The drops were precise, algorithmic, and wildly disproportionate to broader market conditions. They wiped out leveraged long positions, triggered cascading liquidations, and then reversed within hours. > [...] This happened every day, day after day. If these swings are so predictable, why isn't everyone else getting wildly rich off them at the expense of Jane Street? > Selling into thin order books at the open would depress the price, trigger liquidation cascades among leveraged traders, and create buying opportunities at lower levels. The firm could then re-enter at the bottom of a move it had manufactured. Yea well don't be overlevered on Bitcoin I guess? > Simultaneously, the firm boosted its holdings of MicroStrategy stock by 473%, accumulating 951,187 shares worth roughly $121 million > Basically, Jane Street has direct access to the pipe that connects the Bitcoin ETF to actual Bitcoin, and almost nobody else does. You too can buy and sell MSTR and BTC. > In either scenario, the firm has every incentive to use its privileged position as authorized participant to suppress the spot price, trigger liquidations, and harvest the spread. Yea well don't be overlevered on Bitcoin I guess? > In other words, the 21M cap only works if the market sitting on top of it is honest. No. Hell no. > It has been accused of running algorithmic sell programs that suppressed Bitcoin's price for months. Cheap Bitcoin sponsored by Jane Street. Cry me a river.
- JasonADrury 8mo agoPretty sure I just suffered permanent brain damage thanks to your link.
- dang 8mo ago"Don't be snarky." "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wittyusername 8mo agoAll I think when I see this is "this intelligence wasted on finance and ads." Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc? Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?
- 0x3f 8mo agoWe don't have any reliable and scalable way of doing this allocation, though, so it's a bit like saying that all the resources are wasted being locked up in asteroids.
- dgacmu 8mo agoWe do have a lot of policy levers that are tilted in favor of making money in finance, though, and we could change those levers. - The carried interest loophole - We could add small transaction taxes - We could raise capital gains taxes - We could be a little more focused on enforcing antitrust - We could raise higher end marginal tax rates to reduce the relative attractiveness of off-scale payrate jobs - We could provide better universal services to do the same All of these things could shift people's interest in and ability to do work in areas of greater long-term societal importance without bringing in any form of centralized resource allocation.
- logicchains 8mo ago>long-term societal importance without bringing in any form of centralized resource allocation. The onus is on the biomedicine industry to demonstrate it's capable of producing anything of societal importance because so far it's largely failed to deliver. There's nothing noble or scientific about throwing good money after bad into an industry that's continuously failed to deliver.
- wat10000 8mo agoAntibiotics? Vaccines?
- hal9000xbot 8mo ago[flagged]
- abound 8mo agoLooking at the comment history (and the username), it's pretty clear this is an LLM. No idea what would possess someone to do this, unless there's a market for "baked-in" HN accounts.
- clouedoc 8mo agoMaybe selling upvotes? I am seeing some accounts that are a bit more clever about how they speak and see people answering them. That's sad. Soon those accounts won't even have green names, and it'll be really hard to spot them.
- energy123 8mo agoFuture product advertising, scams, or intelligence agency influence operations.
- gormen 8mo agoI approached the puzzle using an A11‑style reasoning architecture, which focuses on compressing the hypothesis space rather than decoding every neuron. Instead of “understanding the network”, the task reduces through successive narrowing: model → program → round‑based function → MD5 → dictionary search for the target hash. The key steps were: Input → the integer weights and repeated ReLU blocks indicate a hand‑designed deterministic program rather than a trained model. Weighting → the only meaningful output is the 16‑byte vector right before the final equality check. Anchor → the layer‑width pattern shows a strict 32‑round repetition, a strong structural invariant. Balancing → 32 identical rounds + a 128‑bit output narrow the function family to MD5‑style hashing. Rollback → alternative explanations break more assumptions than they preserve. Verification → feeding inputs and comparing the penultimate activations confirms they match MD5 exactly. Compression → once the network becomes “MD5(input) == target_hash”, the remaining task is a constrained dictionary search (two lowercase English words). The puzzle becomes solvable not by interpreting 2500 layers, but by repeatedly shrinking the search space until only one viable function family remains. In this sense, the architecture effectively closes the interpretability problem: instead of trying to understand 2500 layers, it collapses the entire network to a single possible function, removing the need for mechanistic analysis altogether.
- user3939382 8mo agoJane Street skims money from our retirement accounts by building expensive clocks that the rest of us don’t have access to and adversarial queue modeling. We get WWVB and NIST NTP. They say they “add liquidity” as if subsecond trades are some fundamental need in the market. Normal legitimate business settles daily. The contemporary concept of time in banking is inhumane in the strictest sense. These firms are a blight on society. I have strong math for the question they’re asking but f them.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- tourist2d 8mo ago[dead]
- sealeck 8mo ago> Jane Street skims money from our retirement accounts by building expensive clocks that the rest of us don’t have access to and adversarial queue modeling How does Jane Street skim money from those who hold passive index funds?
- morpheuskafka 8mo agoHow is trading a stock "skimming money from your retirement account." You choose to put your retirement money in the market, that doesn't imply others shouldn't be able to trade in that market for other reasons. Not sure what you mean by "legitimate business settles daily" -- are you suggesting stocks should trade only once a day? (They already do settle as opposed to trade daily, not instantly, but I know that's not what you meant.) If you want a lower liquidity asset that's not volume traded for whatever reason, you're welcome to buy bonds, preferred, etc.
- alfiedotwtf 8mo ago[flagged]
- lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago> Next time someone says “what a waste of a brain”, respond with “how much money are you willing to contribute monthly to distribute to “top talent” so that they can “work on more important things”? Answer seems to be "approximately zero". One of those people has already suggested in another comment thread that the way to incentivize brilliant minds to work on “greater good” projects is to... raise their taxes so they wouldn't be able to properly monetize their skills anywhere. How dare they want financial security instead of toiling for big pharma for cheap?!
- alfiedotwtf 8mo agoYikes, lol wtf :headdead:
- raphaelmolly8 8mo ago[dead]
- huflungdung 8mo ago[dead]