on first play throughs (on easy then medium AI), i thought that a lot of concepts transferred over and that i just had to consider that influence increases over time even if nothing else is played there later. the game seemed pretty easy.
then i tried hard and got stuck for a few games. i could be wrong about this, but i think the game might be easier as the second player? ive been able to win as blue on hard, but not green yet. i suspect theres something im not understanding about how the influence works, since this seems counter intuitive to me otherwise.
Huh, actually I was wondering if the AI needed to be improved. I haven't lost a game yet (three on easy, then two on hard, all as green) and I'm a pretty poor Go player.
there is a lot of misinformation out there about what happened today. its starting to to look like this all happened due to default concerns and the resulting changes in necessary collateral.
I have no skin in this game (neither GME or Robinhood), but lets try to stay informed and not grab pitchforks based on non proven allegations.
Robinhood lost trust when they initially lied to their investors about why buying was halted. (Saying they cared about the little guy and these stocks were too volatile for them to handle)
Then they came out and said it was a liquidity issue. If it was simply a liquidity issue, why weren't just margin orders halted? Why did they stop people with cash in their hand from buying stock?
None of Robinhood's statements provide a full explanation.
People are within their right to be absolutely livid at this moment and demand answers.
Some facts:
1) There is a conflict of interest when Robinhood routes the majority of trades through a high frequency trading firm that has an interest in short positions. Citadel bailed out Melvin who [probably] illegally naked shorted 150% of the float.
2) The CNBC interview explaining the liquidity issues that aired today was filmed yesterday.
3) Mainstream media has been feeding lies to the public. Who is buying the stock? (It's foreign entities who hate America and capitalism!)
Will the SEC come after the little guy?! Can they sue these investors?! (Absolutely not. Why the hell are you trying to put fear and doubt in the heads of these people?)
These facts along with Robinhood's BS explanations lead people to believe that the reason that this happened is simply that the WRONG PEOPLE LOST MONEY.
Their initial statement is clearly a lie, full agreement there.
Also there are still outstanding questions regarding liquidity issues: why did they not first disallow margin buying, then possibly with unsettled funds? did these knobs not exist? was there some sort of mismanagement on their side?
I think there is plenty of room for RH to come out of this poorly even if the citadel story ends up being false and it was in fact a liquidity issue.
At Melvin scale it most likely is illegal, if they didn’t have a reasonable chance at getting the shares they needed (which at ~140% of float, they don’t).
Person A has 100 shares. Melvin borrows 40 shares from A, and sells it to Person B.
Person A + Person B now have 140 shares combined (while Melvin has -40 shares). If PersonA + PersonB agree to loan shares to Melvin for another short sell, they've become able to drop to -140 shares, by borrowing 60 of Person A's remaining shares, and then 40 shares from B.
Nothing illegal here, as long as Person A and Person B agree to the terms.
----------
And again: Melvin seemed to hold puts, not shorts. So this entire point is moot anyway. Puts are a bear-bet, but they're kind of unrelated to short-selling.
Your speculation and saying “a lot of misinformation out there” doesn’t help.
Allowing traders to only sell, and blocking buying is wrong. Who is allowed to buy at that point? Very few retail traders, but every major player who has an upside down stake still can. The price was then tamped down during the lock out so hedges and old money are able to minimize their loses. Anyone pretending this didn’t happen is delusional. RH enabled it.
RH lost a lot of their customers. Possibly millions of them by the time this is over.
To be fair though, it wasn’t just RH and GME either though. Multiple brokers locked out multiple symbols.
Off the top of my head I recall etrade, fidelity, schwab, and TD ameritrade allowed people to buy GME. I understand being able to buy on margin has been restricted almost everywhere, though.
From what ive been reading on online go communities, they seem to mostly agree with you.
Lee's issues with the KBA are not a secret and he has discussed possibly retiring for some time now. He has given multiple reasons as to why he was considering retiring and while ai might be one of them, saying that its _the_ reason feels very clickbaity.
> And I won't comment unless I am convinced it is important.
I tend to lean this way as well. Im of the mindset that most things that are "caught" in a code review don't add any real value. Or maybe I just have bad coding standards.
it is, of course, complete BS that this is the norm.
however, be aware that you can negotiate for early exercise or 10 year expiration prior to joining. even if the startup has never done anything like that prior, they will make it happen if they really want to hire you.
I have a deep network of friends in Silicon Valley who jump from startup to startup, and I tried to educate them when it comes to this topic, telling them to absolutely make sure the equity conditions were reasonable. None of them has ever managed to change those on an offer, it always comes back as "It's the standard contract!", and they are in general strong performers.
In my experience, unless you are really an insanely high quality and senior hire, for a standard software engineer they're not going to do anything like that, since they have other candidates at the door who won't mention the equity pieces, you can't fight the system too easily.
I've personally been in an interview feedback loop, back when I was at a startup, where one of the founders (who was an interviewer) said: "This guy is technically really good, but asked too much about the details of the equity compensation, I think he might not be focused enough on our mission, let's pass".
perhaps im extrapolating too much based on my own two data points. im just a normal senior eng, but have been able to get my last two offers modified (once with early exercise, once with 10 year expiration).
The alternative to making sure the equity conditions are reasonable is to value them at $0 when deciding whether the compensation package is good enough to get you to join.
But how does that solve the problem I had, exactly? If you later find out that your equity is on paper worth a lot of money, and you want to pursue other opportunities, do you just leave the potential money behind because of an assumption you made several years before which turned out to be statistically much more unlikely than the current expected outcome?
When your startup is at series E and your options on paper are valued 7 figures and all the investment rounds were raised with clean terms (see linked post), I find it debatable to still hold on to the assumption that they should be valued at $0, like they were at Seed/Series A when you joined, and so be willing to walk away from them rather than dealing with painful vesting/exercising conditions that were initially set in your contact, no?
When you play the lottery, you expect $0 back, but you also expect that in the rare case you win you won't have to pay taxes on your win years before being able to get the prize, otherwise you just wouldn't play at all.
Its not even about hedging but about diversification. If you are in a position where you can't diversify fully, you should require a higher return on investment in order to take on the risk.
For example. If you could bet on a coin flip 100k times at $1 a bet, you might be willing to accept getting paid $1.01 per win. But if you had to bet $100k on a single coin flip, you would likely need the payout to be much greater before you were willing to take the bet.
Both are viable strategies. You diversify when you spend time working for startups across different sectors in the hope that some might succeed in their own area. You hedge when you work for several competitors in the same area in the hope that one of them will win in the end.
on first play throughs (on easy then medium AI), i thought that a lot of concepts transferred over and that i just had to consider that influence increases over time even if nothing else is played there later. the game seemed pretty easy.
then i tried hard and got stuck for a few games. i could be wrong about this, but i think the game might be easier as the second player? ive been able to win as blue on hard, but not green yet. i suspect theres something im not understanding about how the influence works, since this seems counter intuitive to me otherwise.
in any case, cool game :)