nv-vn
Joined 11 years ago
Karma
1,960
Submissions
732
Member since
Aug 14
Github: https://github.com/nv-vn
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 1 year ago
Then what are they doing at work all day??? If they spend 20% of their week slacking off then they would get paid more if they just worked the whole time and got more done
Comment · 2 years ago
Tbf, this is page 13 of the list. If you go to the first page, Saudi Aramco made $230B with 73k employees according to their website. This is still ~3x as much profits/employee as VeriSign. FAANGs are pretty comparable as well. It's definitely a very profitable company _per employee_, but I fail to find a metric where Verisign can be described as the most profitable public company
Comment · 2 years ago
>Today, Verisign is the single most profitable company in the stock market, a great example of an economic termite
This is just blatantly false. VeriSign is in fact the 1215th most profitable company in the stock market [1]. By operating margin, it's 155th [2]. I find it hard to give an article much credit when I can't even get past the introduction without having to comb through citationless false/misleading statements.
[1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/most-profitable-companies/pag...
[2] https://companiesmarketcap.com/top-companies-by-operating-ma...
Comment · 5 years ago
Sounds like they're already using Rust where performance matters and are looking to switch
Comment · 5 years ago
This is a terribly misinformed take. If you throw enough resources at Python then sure, you can probably get adequate throughput. The problem is that in finance a lot of problems require you to think about latency, which is a total non-starter for Python
Comment · 5 years ago
Well they only publish trades ~30 days later. There's no real chance of front-running a politician and for all you know they could've closed their position before the 30 day period ended. Plus, if people follow them into the trade (i.e. people buy because Pelosi bought) that only moves the price in the politician's favor. It's not like politicians are running crazy strategies that you can figure out from their trades, so I can't really imagine it creating any incentive to hide trades
Comment · 5 years ago
I think maybe the key idea I was missing here is that the type of a variable is not always the same as the type of the scope it was defined in? If I'm understanding correctly, there's an implicit rule that's missing:
a : la b : lb a := b
--------------------------
a : lb
a := b :>>
doSomething()
Does that sound vaguely correct?
Btw thanks for clarifying
Comment · 5 years ago
I find the explanation for the sequencing rule rather unsatisfying. Why shouldn't the following be true?
b : lb d : ld
-------------------------------
a := b :>> c := d : max lb ld
x = user.firstName;
y = random()
(It's very likely that I'm missing something here)
Comment · 5 years ago
I've interviewed with a reputable company (mentioned on HN frequently) that performs background checks before interviewing you on-site
Comment · 5 years ago
Doesn't Tesla pay more than GM?
Comment · 5 years ago
I think you may be comparing salary to total comp here, though I'll admit I haven't looked for the source for your $105k figure.
Comment · 5 years ago
As an American o had the exact opposite impression -- every European company I've applied to has requested one. Interesting to see that it was just an outlier experience (and I suspect your experience was the same)
Comment · 5 years ago
I suspect that removing that functionality would take more work than can be accomplished in 1 day, which is why they temporarily suspended it and why they're adding "limited buys" tomorrow
Comment · 5 years ago
Either way, it would be illegal to say that they closed their position for the sake of influencing the market. The SEC really doesn't play around with that type of thing in such a high profile case
Comment · 5 years ago
That connection is like 3 degrees of separation at best, though. Robinhood sells order flow to a number of market makers, one of which is Citadel Securities [1]. Citadel Securities is part of the Citadel group, which consists of a hedge fund (Citadel LLC) and a market making firm (Citadel Securities LLC) [2]. While both companies are owned by Ken Griffin and share many resources, they are split by a "Chinese Wall" [3] to prevent any conflict of interest between both sides of the firm. They also have different CEOs, management, employees, infrastructure, etc. as a result of this. Now, Citadel (the hedge fund) has invested $2 billion into Melvin Capital, which is one of the firms central to the whole issue [4]. Yet Melvin Capital has already closed its position in GME [5], which means that they no longer have a vested interest in the performance of GME.
There are several glaring problems with the theory that Citadel is pushing for Robinhood to ban buying GME for financial motives:
1. Robinhood has NO relationship with Citadel LLC
2. Everybody knows about the theoretical conflict of interest between Citadel/Citadel Securities so it is incredibly unlikely that Citadel Securities would risk doing anything to help Citadel in such a high profile scenario (i.e. the SEC/FINRA would be able to find out this kind of thing very quickly and very easily)
3. Citadel has no financial motive to stop trading of GME, because Melvin Capital has no financial motive to stop trading of GME
4. If it was as simple as trying to profit off of GME going down, why would they bother halting trades on other securities (AMC, BB, NOK, BBBY, etc.)?
This article does a really good job at explaining the situation (much better than I can do) [6]
[1] https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20SEC%2...
[2] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170203/NEWS01/1702...
[3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chinesewall.asp
[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-...
[5] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gamestop-melvin-idUSKBN29...
[6] https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...