Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
Thank you!
Comment · 1 year ago
> Third, notice that the only remaining multiplication is a multiplication by 4. Because 15 is one less than a power of 2, multiplying by 2 modulo 15 can be implemented using a circular shift. A multiplication by 4 is just two multiplications by 2, so it can also be implemented by a circular shift. This is a very rare property for a modular multiplication to have, and here it reduces what should be an expensive operation into a pair of conditional swaps.

> Aside: multiplication by 16 mod 21 is the inverse of multiplying by 4 mod 21, and the circuits are reversible, so multiplying by 16 uses the same number of Toffolis as multiplying by 4.

I couldn't really find anything explaining the significance of this. The only info I found said that "4 mod 21 = 4" (but I don't know if it was AI slop or not).

Is "multiplying by 4 mod 21" something distinct to quantum computing?

Comment · 1 year ago
I'm so glad someone else has noticed this as well. They get a healthy eye roll every time. "Brought to you by...C3 dot AI"
Comment · 1 year ago
Always a good sign when they start putting together "lists". Worked out well in Germany.
Comment · 1 year ago
well, because then open AI needs to pay out even more money than they're already losing...
Comment · 1 year ago
What's with the random musky quote shoved in there...
Comment · 1 year ago
> Access denied due to bad server certificate

> You tried to visit:https://adam.math.hhu.de/

Bummer. Worked fine on my phone but not on a computer with ZScaler running.

Comment · 1 year ago
Surely that image is a computer rendering and not an actual photo though! I want to see an _actual_ photo. Like on a counter. How big is it? Wires? Power brick? Cool concept, but hard to make a decision with so little information.
Comment · 1 year ago
Assuming that they have a proper firewall between the two and there are no conflicts of interest..
Comment · 1 year ago
This is the way.
Comment · 1 year ago
What led to the 95% decrease in fixed fees?
Comment · 1 year ago
Schwab has a pretty good explainer: https://www.schwabassetmanagement.com/content/understanding-...

Ultimately the AP (authorized participant) is incentivized to make ETFs available because they get to use supply/demand imbalances as an arbitrage opportunity.

> The creation and redemption mechanisms help ETF shares to trade at a price close to the market value of their underlying assets. When ETF shares begin to trade at a price that is higher than the market value of their underlying assets (at a “premium”), APs may find it profitable to create ETF shares by buying the underlying securities and exchanging them for ETF shares, and then sell those shares into the market. Similarly, when ETF shares begin to trade at a price lower than the market value of their underlying assets (at a “discount”), APs may find it profitable to buy ETF shares in the secondary market and redeem them to the ETF in exchange for the underlying securities. These actions by APs, commonly described as “arbitrage opportunities,” help to keep the market-determined price of an ETF’s shares close to the market value of their underlying assets.

http://www.understandetfs.org/creation_redemption.html

My understanding is that volatility is good for ETF APs because there are more arbitrage opportunities.

Comment · 1 year ago
Well we all know financial institutions never do anything illegal.

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-192 https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017-11

> But there would be so many other parties discovering it way before their annual financials are published.

Looking at Bernie Madoff I'm not sure this is really the case...

Comment · 1 year ago
Great question! Keep in mind that ETFs in general are designed to NOT give you the rights to the underlying shares, or to vote as a shareholder. An ETF is a derivative, not an asset unto itself. It sounds like this product is mainly to allow people to invest in ETFs not into single tickers?
Comment · 1 year ago
The alternative is to not fall for the "its basically free!" schtick.

If its free, then you're the product.

If its $1/month, then you're still probably the product. In the case of my investments, I do not want the firm that I invest with -- to whom I trust my assets -- to turn around and lend out my assets to other organizations that have no obligation to me to act in my best interest. Share lending is almost always to lend to short-sellers that are trying to decrease the price of the asset being borrowed.

> Even the bank and pensions gamble with your money, its how they move

I guess its not worth having an opinion that this is not a good thing then? Bring back Glass-Steagall to separate out banks and gamblers.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton