Also, "tons" is amazingly overstated. Very few of those 16 year olds are producing "good" music that appeals beyond their immediate demographic, and that's to say nothing of how low of standards many youth demographics have.
> Instead you go to an anonymous arb firm, for $1m in bonds, and you say, "okay we're going to sell you the bond that is actually ours, you will sell it back to us, here is your fee, now we can sell this bond back to the client and wash the fact that it is ours."
If this was actually how the world's biggest hedge funds work, somebody would have written a whistleblower article by now.
Somebody did write a whistleblower article about D.E. Shaw, it was just about other aspects of their business/affairs [0]
> As soon as most applicants arrived at their first interview, they signed nondisclosure agreements. If hired, they signed more, which may be why former employees spoke with us anonymously
From a skim, that article doesn't seem to suggest that DE Shaw has done anything illegal. In fact, the paragraph after the one you quoted from makes it look like they work hard to stay within the bounds of the law:
> This secrecy and vigilance extended to the company’s extreme caution on legal and compliance issues. One of Shaw’s common sayings, repeated at an annual training session by a compliance officer, was that it was important to avoid risks and legal trouble because Shaw wanted to make sure that his kids could go to college.
You are right, the article didn't suggest anything illegal. It suggested instead a strong culture of NDAs. But again, I think something as illegal as the OP post in this thread suggested would have gotten some folks to whistleblow nonetheless.
How is it bad or unfair? Everybody wins: you get a better price, the market maker does a trade they're happy with, and your broker gets a little bit of money.
Well “the price” might be totally different if there were no off-exchange orders. But I’m sort of being a devil’s advocate... I agree with your argument in practice since I don’t expect to see such open exchanges anytime soon
You won’t get a worse price than what the exchange says is the price, but that price Is a moving target; if all competitors could see all orders, the price would move. Idk if it makes a difference on average but it is a difference
Domain is a unit of parallelism in Multicore OCaml - it's effectively a heavyweight thread. The intention is that you tend to have as many Domains as you have cores you want to use in the computation.
Deferred relates to concurrency rather than parallelism, that you can have multiple overlapping computations. You can have concurrency without parallelism. OCaml has ways you can have parallel computations going on that don't hold the interpreter lock and I think some of the concurrent libraries can utilise this.
Multicore OCaml splits parallelism and concurrency, the former is via Domains and the latter is with Fibers. The paper I linked in my other comment on this thread touches on this a little but kc also has a short write-up of how you can use effects to write a scheduler for multicore's fibers: https://kcsrk.info/ocaml/multicore/2015/05/20/effects-multic...
This article doesn’t provide a baseline to compare the latest survey against? What percent of tech workers were already on the fence with regards to moving out before the pandemic hit?
If you physically work in California yes. I don't know what happens if you work for a company whose HQ is in California but you're physically in a different state.
Facebook and Google, among others, have offices outside of CA. Employees of those offices do not pay CA income tax. (They do however, for their respective states)
Several of my coworkers who moved from the Bay Area still pay CA taxes for stocks that were granted before they moved, which means potentially 4 years of paying taxes for two separate states.
On the plus side, their CA tax bracket is much lower, since they don't have salary / bonus / new stock grants.
I work remotely for a company based in California. I pay no California taxes. We also have offices in other cites around the US and the world and have had remote people as a permanent feature for a while.
> Adapt solutions to your particular use case. There's no one-size-fits-all solution for everything. Compare different approaches, analyze them. Tutorials or articles show an idea, but may not present production-ready code. Always analyze it before you decide to use it.
This advice seems weird to me. I've been a professional software developer for a decade, and probably 95% of the time it doesn't matter if you're doing things in the most ideal way. The important thing is that it works, is reasonably performant, and is reasonably maintainable. If you can get that in 20 minutes from stealing somebody else's solution, it's probably better in the long run than spending 4 hours figuring out a slightly better solution. Maybe the hard part is identifying the 5% of the time when it does matter that you do something the most ideal way?
The dissonance should be cause for reflection and growth. Why does the gendered version sound harmonious? What does that answer say about the society that evolved our language?
> and takes another syllable.
That's just silly. If typing three additional characters causes you pain, you shouldn't be writing comments on the internet in the first place.
Dev-hours, suggested below, also sounds harmonious. Employee hours sounds okay; it's cumbersome but it seems to project the concept of hourly pay directly into my mind. Hu-years and hu-hours are physically uncomfortable. Is there anything to learn about our society from that?
I think language is something we don't really understand. Maybe you have a more refined model, but any reflection upon this for me will be complete conjecture. Language is this ancient thing that evolved in concert with our minds, optimizing for some vast array of factors. Human intervention into that process seems to always go wrong, down to US attempts to fix the spelling.
It bothers me that speaking my dialect with common definitions is not good enough. Can we not just be charitable in our interpretations of others' speech? Why do I have to dedicate cognitive load to verifying that every possible interpretation of every word is acceptable with no expectation of others meeting me in the middle, even just as far as the dictionary definition? If people's feelings matter, why don't mine?
Of course your feelings matter. I'm sure there are plenty of situations where your feelings are the most important factor to consider. But this is not one of those situations. Your feelings of minor inconvenience from being asked to use different words are less relevant than others' feelings of oppression from decades/centuries of societal biases.
This is long, and I apologize for that. I think I've said some important things though, and I'll ask you to do me the kindness of reading it. Thanks.
There's a notion in improv that when you respond only to the last thing that someone said, it's because you are in your own head and you're not listening. Additionally, it feels like you're talking down to me and others in this thread. Are those feelings invalid? It just seems like showing some respect to others should be a precursor to caring about whether a word could be misinterpreted as exclusionary, if the goal really is to make people feel less bad.
I personally devote a huge amount of time and energy to the feelings of others. I need to be doing it less, it degrades me. If I were to start caring about this on top of everything else, I would be completely dysfunctional. You call it a minor inconvenience, but if I were to accept that this is worth doing, I'd implicitly be agreeing to a thousand minor inconveniences, overthinking everything I say even more than I already do (this is a fifth draft, and look how long it has been made so I can feel I'm communicating effectively), and inevitably retreating altogether from social interactions that already give me anxiety.
Back to the subject at hand. What the word 'man' as in 'mankind', 'manpower', or 'man-hours' means to me is a dehumanized, de-individualised, notion of genetic humans working towards some end. This is a _very_ useful construct for me. A person is something else, a human individual. It is impossible for me to consider a single person, let alone thousands. People have 86 billion neurons of uncompressable complexity, and I've only got 86 billion of my own to try and grok that. This is also an incredibly useful construct for me. I can't just swap one for the other, it would be a significant long term effort to rewire all of the associations.
A better solution would be a new word to take the place of 'man' there. 'Man' already does the job, but I'm sure there are other prefixes in english that also mean human. I don't think it's a material issue, so I'm not going to devote energy to solving it. But if someone is going to tell me how to talk, they can afford to make the damn effort to find a suitable alternative instead of forcing me to adapt to the first thing that comes to mind. And when it is pointed out that it doesn't work, and it doesn't sound right, they could maybe try to figure out what is wrong with their solution, rather than assuming I'm a closed-minded closeted sexist. I don't know.
