Re: Bravo madam!
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
Irony fail. Orwell wrote 1984 about a LABOUR government.
1863 posts • joined 30 Jun 2014
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
Irony fail. Orwell wrote 1984 about a LABOUR government.
brew your own. Incredibly satisfying. And fizzing.
"Incredibly saitsfying" is a phrase that has been used to describe my home brew as often as the phrase "maginificent and large beyond comprehension" has been used to describe my manhood. So, not very often, or never, if you prefer precision.
A shandy drinkers idea of what a northern beer should taste like.
They don't call it shandy down here - they insist it's lager top. They think shandy is a half and half, thus proving beyond question that southerners know fuck all about beer.
Government departments can be (and are) competent and efficient
Ok, name one?
In 40+ years I've never dealt with a Government department that was the least little bit competent.
IMHO this is a topic that mot enough people are aware of what is going on behind their backs.
Its not really behind their backs, the only reason the algorithms are secret is that if you knew how our model responded to given market conditions you'd be able to trade against it and eat its lunch.
I'd love to do a Reg article on this, but I already post way more details about my specialist bit of the bank (tax arbitrage) - any more detail might give away the bank, my identity, and I could quite conceivably get fired for it.
And when algos crash, where go the losses ..... other than into private pockets/shady and shadowed numbered accounts?
That depends. One of my banks algos could be trading in the opposite direction to 'mine', thus my desk loses and theirs wins - they get a bigger bonus at my expense.
If the net direction of our algos suffer a trading loss then someone somewhere wins - FX is a zero sum game - my loss is your win and vice versa. It really is that simple.
Don't confuse algorithmic trading with tax avoidance and don't confuse that with tax evasion - they're three very different things.
If you're serious about reducing IT outages, then I have a very simple step by step plan that will see off most of them:
1) Stop outsourcing.
2) Stop offshoring - those guys are cheap because they are low skilled and inexperienced, not because they're feeling charitable.
3) Ensure a proper representation of developers and networks staff at senior level - If the CTO hasn't coded in 10 years then he doesn't know what's going on. Sorry, he just doesn't.
4) Root out bad management by having mandatory 360 reviews, and if the whole team are having issues with the manager, get shot of the bad manager.
Keep it simple and you'll get results.
Does anyone know the extent such "algos" lurk in financial trading apps?
Ken, I can answer this, but please forgive my crude attempt to squeeze what would need to be a small book or long article into a blog post.
I'm afraid the answer is no. Nobody knows the extent of alogrithmic trading because it is extremely secretive even within an organisation. The department I write algo trading apps for does not share knowledge of them outside the business unit. If your desk knew what my desks algos did, you could write an algo to eat our lunch - make the money in our place. Desks within a bank are in competition with each other to produce revenue and obtain funding from their treasury and var from their RO's.
Each algo operates in isolation of each other, even within our desk (business unit). I actually do understand the complexity involved in the algorithms my code implements - I won't pretend it's easy, but then we're pretty well compensated for the fact that there's very few people can do what we do.
I suspect many developers are not themselves aware because of complexity (how do you test every input/output?)
The testing itself is actually remarkably simple compared to what you'd imagine. Algos ultimately produce a signal which tells the OMS what to do trading wise. The data they take in to generate that isn't a wide data set, but it is fast flowing. You're usually looking at correlated pairs - so if Shell & Tesla move in opposite directions within a short space of time, the behaviour of one factors into your trading in the other - but by far and away most algos trade FX. You're swapping from USD to GBP and back, for example. There's a list of about 10 to 15 common pairs that have a large and fluid market that we use.
When trading FX you're selling the currency you hold to buy the one you don't. My dollars for your pounds for instance. The data used for that varies but typically will be the tick data for this session and possibly a couple previous, from a number of hotspots (data sources - LSE, NYSE, Simex for example). A tick is one millisecond, so we might have say 10 data items per millisecond to process, but they're all just decimals.
The current decimal is compared to the others for the tick in question and that is fed into the algo model which decides to either do nothing, or to change the balance we hold in the currency pair - reduce dollars and increase pounds, or increase dollars and reduce pounds.
The second class of data is the hotspot order book - what orders exist in the market, and where they are positioned in the spread. There are three prices involved - the bid, offer, and mid price. The mid price is halfway between the bid and the offer. Bid is the price you buy at, offer is the lower price you sell at. The difference between them is the spread, which is where market makers profit.
FX is literally a zero sum game - all that changes is the balance of currencies you hold - for me to hold more dollars, someone has to hold fewer.
I'm massively simplifying this and trying to use terms at least passingly familiar to most people. Hopefully you can see that the inputs are readily knowable and easy to test in terms of bounds etc. I'm not suggesting mistakes don't happen (google knight capital for a great example), simply offering that the difficulty in testing is lower than that of say a 777 software system, or lane guidance system on a car.
Your argument about tax is bizarre but suggests your win condition is that someone else loses, possibly all of us.
Only if you don't understand tax.
My win condition is that I don't pay an ever greater percentage just because of some arbitrary and utterly meaningless threshold has been crossed. If we had a flat tax I'd go earn more, but we don't, so I prioritise other uses for my time.
Your win condition, in expecting me to overlook an effective tax rate of 65% due to tax free earnings allowance withdrawl, is that I lose. Now, that might seem like a good idea to you, but it wouldn't if you were going to pay it.
Your idea about the next generation is plain wrong.
Actually its bang ont he money. The USA has grown a real terms 24% more than the EU over the past decade, China by manifestly more than that. Europe is increasingly economically irrelevant, and certainly isn't going to grow while the rEU are hamstrung by German fears of inflation from 70 odd years ago. The rest of the world is.
And as for making our ow trade deals, we can see how well this is going: we may be able to sign 1 new deal every 5 years, with countries that represent a fraction of our trade with EU
Clearly you don't understand trade agreements. We don;t have one with the USA and yet I can buy coke, levis, and harleys. Trade with the rEU doesn't stop because we don't agree a trade deal.
I expect we'll sign something like 20 to 30 trade deals the minute we stop negotiating with the rEU, because we'll novate the existing agreements with all their trade partners to stand alone agreements and tinker with each in turn. Meanwhile, we'll have a deal with the USA and probably China a lot faster than the rEU get there.
Voting for leave means you are more interested in your personal goals that many other peoples goals.
No it doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact. No change is primarily to my own benefit - I earn as much as I'm willing to under the current tax system and have resorted to reducing my hours to keep my tax payments at least in the neighbourhood of reality. I'll be fine if we remain - I don't need us to sign new trade deals with the rest of the world. I could even vote labour, because when they (again) go broke and get turfed out, I'll still be fine.
I voted leave to benefit the next generation, to provide them with access to the global market rather than the increasingly economically irrelevant rEU.
some of the most compelling reasons to vote for brexit were xenophobic
Such as? Frankly I found the debate around immigration to be the usual fact free nonsense. Where will the skills and experience come from if we don't import it?
I genuinely couldn't find a good argument offered by eithe rcamp in relation to immigration and there are good arguments that could and should have been made. My vote came down to trade to benefit the next generations - I rather like working with my non-British colleagues, and hope & expect they'll stick around next year post Brexit.
we are not in a good place to negotiate
I disagree - we're in a better place than most of the world.
The CBI thinks
The extremely pro-EU hard remain CBI? One can only marvel at why they might not have a positive view of Brexit. They're frightened that some Brexiteers might have voted due to concerns over immigration, and their cheap staff tap could get turned off, nothing more.
As it happens, I really can't see Brexit reducing immigration - we're still going to need as many skilled workers as we do now and we still don't have a plan to force Brits to upskill.
where, lets be honest, most of the xenophobes who voted Leave have the problem with in the first place
You lost the debate and then you lost the vote. Get over it.
Many Leavers voted leave for reasons wholly disconnected with immigration. Me, for instance. It was all about the economics and ability to do our own trade deals for me, and nothing to do with immigrants, of whom my wife is one. The facts don't fit your narrative very well, do they?
If you can't conduct yourself in a grown up manner without insulting everyone who disagreed with you, even when that is most of the country, then can you please keep your hackneyed hard of thinking opinions to yourself?
Voting to leave the EU does not make anyone a racist. It does not make anyone a xenophobe. And it most assuredly does not mean they didn't understand what they were voting for. Capiche?
Oracle have hostages, not customers.
Yup. Where I work we couldn't be dumping them faster if they'd given us clap.
It's generally OK to take a bath at night, just don't drain it - leave the water in and drain it the following morning. It's not OK to take a shower.
I get home from work at 6:40ish in the evening, then have an hour and a half family time while getting my child to go to sleep. I typically go for a run some time around 8pm or 8:30 start, finishing about 9pm or 9:30. It'd be impossible for me to exercise if I couldn't have a shower afterwards. There's no way I'm going to bed covered in sweat.
My neighbours don't care about my running the shower because they do pretty much the same thing. We all get along great - beers over the garden fence when we're supposed to be cutting the grass etc.
How does it work in Switzerland please? Do people not exercise on an evening? Always have a bath after then leave the water? (What if two people have gone running - how does the second runner bathe?)
I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere.....
Not quite a dead language, but one with increasingly little point
An interesting view, and not one I'm qualified to disagree with particularly. I'm a C# dev - have been since it was released. I've not looked at C++ since the 90s, but upon reading the article formed the view I should possibly look again at C++ as another potential tool, so I've ordered the 2018 book as a prerelease.
Actually stopping from 40 in 2 seconds only uses about 60 feet or roughly four car lengths
I'm not sure its even that far. At 30mph every modern (this millennium) saloon car will stop in its own length when doing an emergency stop, provided tyres, brakes, and shocks are working. I could see 40 requiring an extra car length, maybe 2, but an extra 3 car lengths sounds too far to me.
The slow part is always the meatsack. Which is why I've long suggested we move beyond this idea that almost everyone should be allowed to drive. Why? Its a skill where lapses in concentration, slow reactions, or just not being very good at it can have terminal concequences for 3rd parties. If we just took the bottom 20% of people in terms of capability off the road, we'd have probably fewer than half the fatalities we get now.
What kind of prat waits for the car to decide? This is exactly the kind of complacency that is the problem.
Quite. I wonder if overriding the Autopilot incurs some form of extra charge to own the vehicle, because I can;t for the lfie of me understand why the human is giving the system priority when they can see a hazard developing they ought to be getting involved in the game without delay.
So you applied the brake not the Autopilot. Did the world end? Were kittens/puppys/bunnies exploded at the road side? Has it broken your car? No, so WTF were you waiting for?
Continuing this pretence that drivers have to always be prepared to take control
The vast vast majority of drivers in the UK are hopeless. Utterly woeful, and frankly, unsafe. That will, statistically, include most people reading this. the idea that such low skilled drivers would be capable of correcting something the car has started doing, say swerving, is fanciful - they'll over correct and end up in a hedge. That presumes they're sober/awake/alert enough to realise something needs correcting.
It'd be nice if we had a realistic driving test that was difficult to pass, then regular retesting. Most people never progress beyond the very basic L test in terms of driving, so we really do need to make sure they haven't regressed too far from that point over the next, say, 50-60 years.
Move? To what city/state would you suggest? Is there any city/state that isn't run by idiots?
To be fair you can't blame Amazon as such, but introducing the tax would have been an interesting experiment in deterring the sort of jobs that push up property demand and prices, and if it didn't they'd have at least made a move on either getting more money for social housing or social care.
There's quite a significant economic flaw with that line of argument. Those in the best paying jobs are those best able to adapt to market conditions, or are otherwise brighter or harder working than those not in them, according to conventional economics.
If you remove those jobs, those people will out compete those in the tier of work below them, forcing everyone else down a step on the ladder. You don't have fewer people or more buildings. The price may fall, but it will be the same people able to afford them on the new lower salaries all round.
The only answer to any perceived price problem with housing is to have more houses or fewer people. You can either build more property, or reduce population increase by lowering immigration or the birth rate; neither is universally politically popular. And that leads us on to the subdivision problem where a house gets turned into two flats, or a large flat into two small flats etc.... which is where places like London find themselves. It increases the price of the remaining houses or large flats because there are fewer of them, forcing people to move out to the suburbs and commute in, while migitating some of the small flat demand, leading to developers not wanting to build more.
Entertainment companies like Disney, NBCUniversal and several others represented by the trade association The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) have hit back, declaring the bill to be too restrictive to creativity and storytelling
Presumably they'll be happy if I start creating deepfakes of Mickey Mouse doing whatever the hell I like then? No? Hmmm, hypocrisy in action, again.
Still, lawyers might as well do something for their paycheques.
It'd be for the benefit of all society if they didn't.......
Indeed, the nerve of it, thinking we have the right to our own images! It's much more important that wankers with poor imaginations can still get off.
LOL!! Upvoted because its the funniest comment I've read all morning.
So his Boring company sold 20k limited run of flamethrowers to fund his tunneling startup.
I know lots of people on here don't like the man, but making a simple popular product with the staff, materials, and skills you have in order to find what you want the company to really do, is quite a clever way to fund your startup. Worst case, you restructure and spin out the inadvertently more successful flamethrower startup.
Obviously that ignores the difficulty in achieving the simple popular product step, given that most companies fail in the first 12 months....
Then you have the fire hazard issues of a warehouse full of on-charge aging Li-Ion cells in every service station, getting planning permission for those all over the country might be tricky.
Petrol stations seem to have managed it, so I don't agree that planning permission will be an obstacle.
The rest of your post I agree with.
Many big American firms can the lowest 5-10 percent of their workforce each year.
It's not just American firms that do this. It's reasonably common in the City - many of my employers have used the 20-70-10 system: The top 20% get a pay rise, the next 70% get nothing but keep their jobs, and the lower 10% you fire, all based on that years performance review.
To be honest, even when I tried hard to get into the 10% because I wanted a payoff it was really quite hard to achieve, so hard in fact I couldn't make it stick.
Charging a car at a garage takes a long time
However, if I'm on a long trip and stopping to eat, then its more or less manageable. If I'm on my commute, I can charge up overnight (off road parking).
especially if you have to wait for other people to charge theirs first
That, for me, is the real problem. A 45 min charge when I'm on a long trip is fine, unless I'm second or worse in a queue, then its not.
An electric car doesn't solve my commuter problem because the main issue is traffic and moronic driving on the part of others. All others, it seems. Full autonomous might solve that problem if I could trust it and retrofit the car with a desk and a bed instead of seats.
What's far more interesting to me is the range of electric motorbikes coming on line - these could be a real option for me, but I'm still not convinced surviving to retirement is of sufficiently great odds commuting to and through London every day.
What's wrong with wearing the easiest and comfiest clothes when outdoors? I'm ugly anyway, putting on some uncomfortable but pretty clothes isn't gonna help. So I might as well be comfortable.
LOL! I wish I could upvote you more than once, I really do....
Unfortunately the elephant in the room has grown much too large to be handled and just like the corrupt banksters of 2008 they are too big to jail.
Society needs banks. Its an unfortunate fact of life, but it is a fact, however much it may be disliked. I've yet to see any particular reason why society needs social media - the modern economy works perfectly fine without it, as did society. Its nought more than an unhelpful distraction, so quite clearly it could be banned with limited if any downsides. Not, of course, that I am in favour of banning things - just saying that banks and social media are at polar opposites of the worlds needs spectrum.
Why? Because Zuk & Crew apologized. So there, that fixed it - FFS!
In order to be fixed, something must first be broken. Farcebook are unlikely to consider compromising your privacy as something being broken; it's basically the core of their business model.
Learn about you and sell data driven access to you directly to ad slingers, with occasional bouts of giving away your actual data tossed in for shits & giggles.
You shouldnt have to pay the rich more to do their civic duty.
People aren't being paid more or less, they're being recompensed for lost earnings, nothing more. Nobody gains, nobody loses, everyone has what they would have had if they'd gone about a normal day without attending court to provide a civic duty.
Just because I'm not earning or on benefits doesn't mean my time is any less precious to me
No, but it does mean its a lot less precious to society. Sorry, but it just does. A persons time is worth whatever they can sell it for at the time. I know that will sound harsh, and perhaps it is, but that is just economic reality.
Each juror is doing the same job and deserve equal pay for an equal job done.
It's not a job, its a duty. The job is the thing the juror isn't doing while doing their duty, which is why compensation levels should be expected to vary such that each juror is equally not out of pocket in doing said duty.
The idea that all jurors do an equal job is demonstrably untrue - they will each bring differing levels of intelligence, experience, aptitude, and application to the task. As its not a job, doing so will not bring greater reward, but equally it should not cost a juror more in lost earnings than the one next to them - each should be compensated for their time at their individual prevailing rate. If your rate is zero, well, you weren't really doing anything of monetary value with the time anyway.
When Marcus gets released in maybe 18 months time
I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. Their justice system has been itching to get its hands on a British hacker, but thanks to all the last minute Asbergers/Suicidal diagnosis, we've been declining to send them one. Now they have one, why let him go?
Unfortunately for Hutchins, I can readily see him being made an example of.
My point being if jury service is mandatory then each juror should be paid an equal amount.
Why? Do they incur an equal loss of earnings or prospects? Are their travel costs always the same?
Do you want to be judged on a complex, technical subject by people for whom $50 a day is a pay increase?
It's not much better when you pay much larger sums. I've been interviewing for 4 weeks and all I'm looking for is someone that understands basic OOP techniques, TDD, GoF, and a few other things. So far nobody has made it through a basic phone screen, and we're talking people with > 1 decade of continuous work experience on their CV. Frankly, the state of our industry embarrasses me.
Regardless of country, I think as soon as a technical understanding is required to interpret the evidence, the prospect of a fair & reasoned trial goes out the window, in favour of whatever the jury 'feel', which is both dangerous and unhelpful.
Try swapping ISIS for "militia of good ol' boys", and I think you'll see the potential problem?
Personally, I'm not worried about grenades since you can kill more people at once with a rental van than you can with a grenade.
Sure, but it only takes say 3 or 4 seconds to lob a grenade - how many rental vans can you drive in say 30 seconds?
You'd have to work out a mechanism for it to drop the grenade and pull the pin.
Surely this is simply an electromagnet and a decent solenoid, with a bit of wire on the end?
For anyone that say's you can't, just check YouTube. One of the people I track has done all this on the cheap.
Care to share who? Not so I can SWAT them, or because I don't believe you, but finding a source on youtube is easy, finding a good one isn't, and I'd be interested to learn more from a credible source.
More reliable than throwing a tennis ball over the wall anyway.
Just bribe a guard.... everyone else does.
Considering the VAST quantities of drugs involved in a standard shipment into the US, the quantities of drugs available to be carried on a drone would NOT make that economical...
If only drones were scalable or even automatable...... "hang on lads, I've got a great idea".
The corporations are sneaky. I'm sure they'll lobby hard to ensure that they get everything and the people get nothing.
Which is why the peoples best defence is a good offence - buy shares in the sneaky corporations to ensure the people do see the benefit. All shares somewhere down the line are owned by real people, thus all fiscal benefit a company produces accrues to real people.
Its completely illogical to choose to live in a capitalist country (even France still qualifies, just) and not take the opportunity to buy a stake in its prosperity.
It's my dream too. The sooner we can offload the graft on to the machines and get on with our lives of leisure the better
Sadly, that day will never come. Unless, of course, you mean "The sooner we can offload the graft on to the millennials and get on with our retirements the better", in which case I hope you have a stonking pension accrued, otherwise that too ain't ever going to happen.
Any transition away from work requires a transition away from wealth (people will not be paid to do nothing - who would do the paying?). You can bet your bottom dollar that the transition will be bloody, and that things will get worse (properly worse) before they get better. The end game looks appealing, but the transition will be horrific for all involved. I personally don't want to be around when the transition begins....
“Our current era of mobile tech doesn’t measure up to the radical 1990s,” he said, as shown by the fact that productivity gains appear to have stalled for a decade or more.
I'm not sure that's technologys fault. For reasons that remain unclear, whenever the productivity problem is discussed, it gets pinned onto the financial crisis, when its far more likely caused by the Millennials entering the workforce and not being robust or skilled enough to perform.
“Even with the most generous assessment of mis-measurement we cannot explain the slowdown in productivity since the mid-2000s.”
Again, the clue is in the skinny jeans, comedy hair, and excessive sensitivity & emotion.
Anyway, the article misses the point - there will be a 10-15 year lead time for white collar roles to be replaced with AI, AFTER we can produce an AI that can handle the tasks; We're not there yet. Cutting code is only one part of being a developer, the main part, sure, but there's the other stuff such as interpreting vague requirements, knowing what the spec doesn't state, etc etc. The same applies for other roles - accountants and solicitors both attempt to interpret the law in ways their principle finds most beneficial, rather than simply follow rules.
Once we have the tech working properly, there comes the cost of scale issue - spending billions developing the AI will make it initially very expensive to use, meaning its cheaper to stick with fleshy staff. Eventually that cost comes down and role decimation follows, but we're at leats decades away from any threat there.
Boomers and Gen X will be retired, and the Millennials will have to figure out how to respond to it, but that's no different to the role evolution previous generations have adapted to and overcome - 25 years ago many roles that seem ubiquitous today didn't exist and were not readily forseeable.
I seriously cannot see how they can get out of this mess, I know they have to somehow (they are a bank)
Ok, up front, I work for a bank - I've never made any secret of that.
I question the whole idea of TSB surviving. Surely it has reached the point where they are going to be overwhelmed with compensation cases, fines, and customers fleeing just as soon as allowable, and with such reputational damage, that survival becomes uneconomic?
Would it not be simpler to shutter the lot, and novate customer credit balances to other providers? I realise that means they have to figure out how to associate an account with a person correctly, but if you scrape away their web tiers etc and only looked at the core mainframe (it will be) data, you could do this quite quickly.
Banks should have been allowed to fail. Quite why labour ever bailed them out is a mystery to most of the industry - yes contagion had to be stopped, but crippling lloyds with the rotting remnants of RBS didn't really achieve that.
Let TSB go - its already dead it just hasn't realised yet.
Tomorrows lesson is percentages and we're going to start at 4%
I've been wondering about that. I mean, lets assume the ICO actually grow a pair and start using their powers.... Surely this is an incentive to restructure every pan-European company into seperate entities? TSB is UK only, so fines would be capped at 4%. Someone like, say Farcebook, is pan-European, so could be fined 4% in each legal jurisdiction, which adds up to rather a lot more.
Obviously, that'd only be relevant, as I said, if the ICO actually started to do their jobs instead of simply existing to protect corporate law breakers from robust legal action.
Given the major stories each one has broken and the work that went into producing each one, the Grauniad and the Heil aren't exactly equivalent...
Oh yes they are. They're two sides of the same coin, which is why I read neither. The funny part is though, that groaners refuse to see it.
But Musk is right that journalists have lost the respect of the public.
Yes, he is. The Millie Dowler debacle finished any possible claim to being a respectable or serious profession that journalism may once have held. Journalists rank somewhere between MPs and Lawyers in terms of respect or trust, and the only thing lower than those is Estate Agent.
Just like your assumption that Stab Fest 2018 will be committed by black people.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I think given this years stats for London, we can say most of those stabbed will probably be young black men. Having lived in London for about 20 years, I can't remember a single year when most of the carnivals stabbing victims weren't young black men.
The carnival causes a spike in stabbings and rapes every time it is held. Any other event triggering as much violent crime and disorder would have long ago been banned. It does raise the question of why this event is allowed to persist when others would not be.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018