dsacco

10 ms·

1.
by dsacco 8y ago
That's a good comparison. In general, closer to Dropout.
2.
by dsacco 8y ago
At the highest level there are broad approaches which are kept secret in the financial industry, but the reason that's peculiar is because their efficacy is inherently antagonistic to publicity. Tech firms (mostly) don't lose ut
3.
by dsacco 8y ago
> These guys averaged a ~9% return over the last few years. Who are "these guys"? The funds discussed in the article have average annual returns well above 9%.
4.
by dsacco 8y ago
> Could somebody explain why so much effort is being put into quant strategies, when it seems that real-world information gathering would be a much easier way to gain an edge over others? I used to be part of a research group that sold
5.
by dsacco 8y ago
1. I don't have proof I can share publicly, 2. It's not just my opinion, and 3. I didn't say they're "well ahead" unilaterally. This isn't unique to finance; industry labs in tech also often have novel res
6.
by dsacco 8y ago
This is precisely the kind of question for which you won’t find any meaningful, public answer. I’d be thoroughly shocked if you could find someone in the know to give you an answer even anonymously.
7.
by dsacco 8y ago
This has been the case for a long time in applied mathematics and computer science (not so much pure mathematics). There are hedge funds using work that is not only unpublished, but also unknown to research labs like FAIR and Google Brain.
8.
by dsacco 8y ago
I should clarify: I don't mind "unfocused" writing like this. I can definitely appreciate a creative take on exposition. But I think the introduction of an article is not the most appropriate place to do it. An upfront para
9.
by dsacco 8y ago
Offtopic, but I have a really difficult time reading articles like this. I don’t know if this reflects a problem with the style or my ability to focus, but I find it really annoying: > “SANDHOGS,” THEY CALLED THE LABORERS who built the
10.
by dsacco 8y ago
Sure, I agree with those two points.
11.
by dsacco 8y ago
> If there are a dozen investors willing to buy stock at $x it’s worth $x. This is not a correct representation of liquidity, and thinking about it under this definition can be very dangerous. You need to consider: 1. How many shares a
12.
by dsacco 8y ago
Can you clarify how terms of changed, or direct me to further reading about that? Otherwise I think point about the $80B not being liquid is a good one. It's not a dishonest figure, but it's clearly inaccurate and inappropriate
13.
by dsacco 8y ago
An aquihire is not always a positive exit. More generally, not all liquidity events are positive outcomes for all parties involved, including investors. Many exits are agreed to by all parties to cut their losses and recoup some amount of
14.
by dsacco 8y ago
I think the fact that they're phenomenal is pretty clear, but I think a more important question is how reliable the returns are. They might be reliable, but that doesn't seem obvious to me from the comments in this thread, and it&
15.
by dsacco 8y ago
I think you should clarify what liquidity means in your anecdote, because liquidity is a function of time and volume. Definitionally speaking, shares in a private company are not as liquid as shares in a public company. So what does "c
16.
by dsacco 8y ago
But even if the metrics are not the same, they can still be positively correlated with each other.
17.
by dsacco 8y ago
I really don't think you can declare that any success of the process is due to chance or "other factors." That particular point is completely unsubstantiated. The process is inefficient, yes, but I really don't see any b
18.
by dsacco 8y ago
> Actually, that result would be precisely what you would expect from a process that fails to disprove the null hypothesis, and is therefore meaningless. You'd see them hiring essentially a random sample of engineers with the same
19.
by dsacco 8y ago
That still seems like a pretty strong claim. Inefficient? Sure. Misaligned incentives? Definitely. But actually meaningless? If a company turns away many developers who would be excellent hires but consistently meets its product/engine
20.
by dsacco 8y ago
Are you saying there's no such thing as developers significantly better than the norm, or rather that it's infeasible to identify them? I don't think your point about precisely quantifying the definition of a "great deve
21.
by dsacco 8y ago
> There is no free money in finance. There can be free money in the sense that a strategy can beat the market at a similar or lower level of risk. The "cost" for this is in personnel and infrastructure capital.
22.
by dsacco 8y ago
> This is one thing most people don't understand. If someone is selling you a financial instrument with >6-7% annual returns, it's as ridiculous as someone selling you a time machine or the cure to death. That's actua
23.
by dsacco 8y ago
> Is it true that the encrytion algorithms still aren't the weakest link for highly sensitive classified information (e.g. in the government)? (Or in similar high-secrecy situations, not the ones that an everyday person takes part
24.
by dsacco 8y ago
No one is saying high quality random numbers are not important for cryptography. We are saying true randomness is unimportant and undesirable, given the comparatively enormous complexity required to achieve it. The modern conception of cr
25.
by dsacco 8y ago
All else isn't equal. The better randomness that might be provided by quantum computers comes at a significant complexity cost. This is the same reason we don't use one time pads, and why modern cryptography is computational inste
26.
by dsacco 8y ago
We collectively set aside one time pads for the same reason. I’m sure the NSA or GCHQ will implement this for some practical purpose eventually since they use one time pads, but this concept is madness. It’s telling that proposals for infor
27.
by dsacco 8y ago
It’s relevant in an information theoretic sense. However modern security is explicitly computational rather than information theoretic, which means it’s not relevant for modern security in any practical sense. For example one time pads are
28.
by dsacco 8y ago
I'm interested in those recommendations.
29.
by dsacco 8y ago
Why would you get into a car with that driver? Out of the total population of licensed drivers in the United States[1], about 1% have DWI in any given year and the recidivism rate is upwards of 20% depending on the state[2][3]. Given availa
30.
by dsacco 8y ago
I think most people would look just as nefarious if private conversations from their college years were selectively publicized. For all of his failings it's unfortunate that at 33 years old, Mark Zuckerberg still has people vilifying h

More ›