Prove it. Write a very large program in an experimental state chart-based language and prove that doing the same thing in any conventional language would have been impractical or impossible.
> We debate whether Rust’s borrow checker is better than Haskell’s type classes. We argue about whether TypeScript’s structural typing is superior to Java’s nominal typing.
Life is too short to argue about stupid programming language bullshit. If you want to use Rust, do it. If not, don't. The actual code that makes up the computer system as a whole is still 99.99% the same because you are running on an operating system written in C calling a database or other systems also written in C.
> access to raw compute is still one of the biggest bottlenecks
> We are planning to test and make a limited number of these
So this does approximately nothing to solve the original problem of supply and cost. Even if you sold it at a loss, that GPU is still going to be expensive.
Just be honest and say you thought it would be cool and you're not Y Combinator so you gotta do whatever you can to make your firm seem like a special smart kids club.
Learning OpenGL. https://gamemath.com/ is free and a great way of explaining most of the math in an intuitive way without getting handwavy or imprecise. https://learnopengl.com/ is also free!
Oh boy, I love making adding a trivial nullable column take even more code and require even more tests and have even more places I forgot to update which results in a field being nullable somewhere.
And don't forget, you get to duplicate this shit on the frontend too.
And what is a modern app if we aren't doing event-driven microservice architecture? That won't scale!!!! So now I also have to worry about my Avro schema/Protobufs/whateverthefuck. But how does everyone else know about the schema? Avro schema registry! Otherwise we won't know what data is on the wire!
And so on and so on into infinity until I have to tell a PM that adding a column will take me 5 pull requests and 8 deploys amounting to several days of work.
Congratulations on making your own small contribution to a fucking ridiculous clown fiesta.
what is your reasoning? if you make your own object system, that is indeed polymorphic. do you now feel the need to model the world in your application?
Yes, this what the people who will curse you out and judge you for not using wide events omits: it will greatly increase storage costs compared to the normal metrics + traces + sample based logging that is conventional. It has both a benefit and a cost, and the cost part is always omitted.
Properly implemented wide events usually reduce storage costs comparing to typical chaotic logging of everything. It is expected that a single external request leads to exactly one wide event with all the information about this request, which may be needed for further debugging and analytics. See https://jeremymorrell.dev/blog/a-practitioners-guide-to-wide... .
How would you add an outgoing request you make to external system in the wide event?
For example, I receive a request, in that request I make a HTTP call to http://example.com. In tracing that will be a separate span, but how you manage that in a single wide event?
The market goes up exponentially over time. It's a mathematical certainty. The reason giving away trading signals is even possible is because the market isn't efficient. But not only that, there are forces behind prices beyond just speculation where signals can be correct over the long term. Also it takes a while to understand if particular signals are good outside of backtesting so there is no definitive 'these signals are perfect and everyone will use them'
In other words, markets have varying scales of information and are certaintly not efficient despite what academia has you believe. Trend following works precisely because there can be underlying reasons for the trend, and traders piling on just reinforces that trend. Where profitability of the signal depends finding robust trend changes as early as possible.
Most trading signals aim to exploit a secret edge. A temporary market inefficiency. The value is in the secret itself. Once you sell the secret, the small window of opportunity is competed away almost instantly.
Trend based models are different. The "secret" isn't a secret at all. Think of a trend based trading strategy more as a disciplined methodology. Trend based models follow price and attempt to identify as early as possible when an asset flips from bearish to bullish.
Therefore, selling our model wont destroy the underlying trend, especially in highly liquid assets, such as: SPX, BTC, etc.
This doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. If you could predictably trade a flip from bearish to bullish (for example, of course there are other trend-based signals), you would not share that signal because others would overcrowd your trade (by buying/shorting and moving the price more quickly towards the trending direction than you).
A potential argument is that these signals are only applicable to a certain bracket of portfolio sizes (e.g. larger AUM funds would not be able to trade this strategy) -- but you are sharing this with folks presumably in your range of portfolio size.
The more highly liquid an asset, the more efficient it is and the fewer trading opportunities after accounting for transaction costs. In something like the S&P 500, everything is already priced in.
Meme stocks and shitcoins being manipulated by whales are not efficient and also not as liquid.
The larger point remains that none of the above considerations are discussed on this product's page.
I'm realizing there's a lot of confusion about what trend based models actually are. I was under the assumption the concept was more widely understood, but I'm realizing we need to explain it better.
To be clear, there's nothing new or innovative about a trend based model. It's one of the most commonly used investment strategies by intuitions, etc. It's been widely utilized for far longer than I've been alive.
There's no confusion about the type of edge. Just pointing out that if you are selling an edge rather than trading it yourself, you're either grifting or naive.
Money now is better than money later. If you have a secret that is guaranteed to make money, but only over the course of several years, you could just sell it now and get that profit today instead of waiting.
The person buying the secret will pay less than the long term profit as a fee for them giving you the money upfront now.
But if you have rights to resell the secret multiple times you will earn money far quicker, perhaps more than the secret’s long term value.
200%/yr starting from $10,000 => still needs a day job for a number of years.
This is why Wall Street is able to hire talented young traders, some of whom will develop profitable systems. Over time, some of them are able to amass enough savings and the track record necessary to get investors. But at t=0, somebody has to pay the rent.
If you can reliably generate 200% a year after fees/taxes/etc, you could just get a bunch of credit cards and use broker margin on top of that. It wouldn't surprise me if you could easily start with 200k at that point. Sure the first year would be rough, like grad student living but you would quickly be in the six figures.
Yes, _but_ (and that is a huge but), I remember some summers ago Erdogan was giving a speech in a village and instead of saying "we have faith in the markets" he said "we have faith in Allah" (not judging, just observing)(it was a time that Turkish Lira was doing very bad, inflation was ruining the country, Erdogan hired his son-in-law to be central banker (or something like that) and that very day Euro took a big dive because of the exposure of Turkish debt, etc etc. Trump (again, not judging, just observing) said "tariffs all around" and markets and currencies crashed a couple of months ago, then recovered, then dropped again, etc.
So, "big bets", especially wig margin, require small movements (or small bets with big movements). And getting in debt is never a good idea, because a tweet by Jerom, Kristine, Vladimir, Xi, Putin, Macron, can send you packing and with an extra $200k debt at 20% interest rate, from which th average person will never recover.
If you returned 200%/yr, you'd be running a fund an multiple times more successful than Renaissance's Medallion fund and would be able to attract outside capital and become a billionaire many times over in maybe five years.
Obviously 200% is not realistic. But, entertaining the claim, even if you can do 200% annually, you still have to earn money in the near term unless you have a pot of cash so you can both invest and live.
Centering an interview around MCP and "building an agent" which often means "write a prompt and make HTTP calls to some LLM host service" is incredibly stupid unless that is what the product the company produces is.
MCP is a tool and may only be minor in terms of relevance to a position. If I use tools that use MCP but our actual business is about something else, the interview should be about what the company actually does.
Your arrogance and presumptions about the future don't make you look smart when you are so likely to be wrong. Enumerating enough predictions until one of them is right is not prescient, it's bullshit.
Maintaining and improving existing software sure is boring and often thankless compared to starting flashy new projects where you get to make and understand all the major decisions up front.
> Maintaining and improving existing software sure is boring and often thankless
There was a big public episode where he appealed to Elon Musk for a job at Twitter, was given an “internship”, tried soliciting public submissions for the code he was tasked with, left a lot of people shocked that he was struggled with basic FE work, and then resigned 4 weeks in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34074344
> We debate whether Rust’s borrow checker is better than Haskell’s type classes. We argue about whether TypeScript’s structural typing is superior to Java’s nominal typing.
Life is too short to argue about stupid programming language bullshit. If you want to use Rust, do it. If not, don't. The actual code that makes up the computer system as a whole is still 99.99% the same because you are running on an operating system written in C calling a database or other systems also written in C.