so nobody read the article and instead regurgitated pre-existing sentiment, while forgetting the golden rule of journalism:
if an article ends in a question mark, the answer is no.
> the greenback dominated 88% of traded FX volumes — close to record highs — while the Chinese yuan (CNY) made up just 7%, according to data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
> Likewise, there is little sign of USD erosion in trade invoicing. “The share of USD and EUR has held steady over the past two decades at around 40–50%.
there is currently no other alternative to meet the global liquidity demands
That first sentence starts with "In 2022,", so presumably the numbers are different now, but I couldn't find anything in the article about how things have changed in the last four years.
To me this is all the more reason to get regulatory gatekeeping out of the financial markets
If the odds in some financial products are worse than gambling while everyone can access gambling, then people should stop making a distinction under the guise of protecting investors
it just drives investors to actual gambling because they cant get the exposure they were already looking for
> it just drives investors to actual gambling because they cant get the exposure they were already looking for
This argument gets trotted out by Wall Street every decade or so, usually under the guise of "democratising" some piece of finance. It's almost always bunk.
Most investment capital is looking for safe returns. It's not competing with gambling. Even within the high-risk end of finance, the game is in turning that high risk into above-market but predictable returns through portfolio mechanics. (Fuckups aside, you can't generally portfolio mechanic your way out of the negative expectated value of a lottery ticket.)
More simply: the notion that we need to increase risk and profitiabilty for intermediaries in investments to keep people from gamblig is a false economy. Gamblers are seeking a different thrill from what financial markets are designed to provide. To the degree we have a problem, it's in letting our markets look more like casinos.
> exposure they were already looking for
Broadly speaking, if you want exposure to the economy you're investing. If you want exposure to a number that goes up, you're gambling. This is an overly-simplistic delineation. But it works for first-order estimates.
The same financial products are used in both gambling and smart investing. The canonical example here being options. And the restrictions on what the public can and cannot invest in are complete bullshit. You can't buy shares in a series A startup because that is deemed to be too risky for anyone who is not an "accredited" investor ("accredited" here literally means rich). But anyone who wants to can bet on sports, go to a casino, or buy a 2x levered VIX ETF.
It's not tied to the spot price of the VIX because there is no spot price. It's a third order calculated quantity based on options pricing. Not that anyone who gambles on that ETF knows that.
You're misunderstanding the dynamics here. Modern prediction markets are 90% sports gambling by volume. The trick is that, by positioning themselves as general financial markets and accepting the corresponding regulatory gatekeeping, they're exempt from the often much stricter regulations that states put on normal sports gambling apps.
My stance has been the same long before prediction markets, long before sports gambling moved to prediction markets, and the landscape has been the same the whole time
The states regulate gambling and the feds only protect the state's rackets by restricting online gambling, and the feds regulate financial markets that are not considered gambling, we get it, its two different governments that don't see the silly user experience they've created and are both very passionate about what they do. The people regulating the financial markets think they are doing a noble good by protecting people from losing their money, and now, fast forward to the present, neither are the regulators of sports betting
I didn't write this about sports gambling or event markets and I don't care about that particular subset. There are many many many markets and financial products either accessible or not, in this paradigm
The user experience is stupid when the dumbest trades are still available after the investor has been protected
The capital wants to move so let it move
The regulators should continue mandating transparency and keeping markets operating predictably, but they need to get out the way of approval or denials of financial products or access to them, because its redundant and silly
so basically despite the higher resource requirements like 10TB of data for 30 minutes of footage, the compositing is so much faster and more flexible and those resources can be deleted or moved to long term storage in the cloud very quickly and the project can move on
fascinating
I wouldn't have normally read this and watched the video, but my Claude sessions were already executing a plan
the tl;dr is that all the actors were scanned in a 3D point cloud system and then "NeRF"'d which means to extrapolate any missing data about their transposed 3D model
this was then more easily placed into the video than trying to compose and place 2D actors layer by layer
Gaussian splatting is not NeRF (neural radiance field), but it is a type of radiance field, and supports novel view synthesis. The difference is in an explicit point cloud representation (Gaussian splatting), versus a process that needs to be inferred by a neural network.
Hmm if gaussian splatting is radiance field rendering then so is any 3D rendering, and what's the point of using the name? Though having looked up the name it seems like it isn't well defined enough to mean much anyway tbh.
“there’s no wrong answer, we just want to see how you think” gaslighting in tech needs to be studied by the EEOC, Department of Labor, FTC, SEC, and Delaware Chancery Court to name a few
let’s see how they think and turn this into a paid interview
> Some crypto trader created a “$GAS” coin via Bags, configuring it to pay a portion of the trading fees to Steve Yegge (via his Twitter account)
That trader, or others with the same idea, messaged Yegge on LinkedIn to tell him about his “earnings” (currently $238,000), framing it as support for the Gas Town project. Yegge took the free money and started posting about how exciting $GAS is as a way to fund open-source software creators
hey guys, this is what always happens when someone you respect "rugs" their token and none of their apologies sound genuine
in fact, they actually are also the victims and the real culprits (the token creators DMing popular people) are never held to account
there should be more knowledge of this so people feel deterred and also more likely to avoid these or bring the roving bands of scammers to account
and sure, still hold your community leader accountable in some way, but the proper way more in line with reality
these roving bands of token scammers look for people experiencing 15 minutes of fame, and take advantage of them
the US has very many visa programs, including half a dozen to a dozen work visa programs
this one particular visa program is politically radioactive, as if it is the only work visa program, and it doesn't accomplish its stated goals in hardly any way
until that can be settled I think and the program ironed out, it should be hampered to closed off, a moratorium
I would like to see the H1B program used to its original (and still codified) standards - highly in demand professionals that couldn't be sourced in the US so easily and are exceptional. The minimum wage for what such a professional would be paid was set in the 1980s, to $60,000 for someone with a master's degree, when it was exception. This minimum would be around $156,000/yr today. Okay, let's do that, that makes sense
if its politically radioactive to even just suggest that, all the more reason for a moratorium on that program, to me
For reference, I was an H-1B holder. My starting salary (straight out of college after finishing my master's) in one of the big tech companies was $95k base pay, this was 13 years ago. From my perspective, the visa program worked as intended.
13 years ago you should have been ineligible by both base salary and scarcity, until you were a senior architect in some specific niche and commanded a greater base salary
Or on a different work visa
Exhibit a b and c
I’m not saying you aren’t supposed to be here, I’m saying fix that program. The US shouldn’t be training talent and kicking them out. We should be training and keeping talent.
If I recall correctly, just my base was 20-30% higher than the prevailing wage that the government publishes (big tech bubble people forget how wages look like outside of big tech). In exchange, my employer hired someone with a graduate degree that knew C/C++ well enough to contribute immediately (I also did an internship with them a year prior).
> 13 years ago you should have been ineligible by both base salary and scarcity
I disagree. I don't believe my wage was lower than what a US candidate would get (from what I've seen at big tech, HR dictates wage brackets so same position translates to roughly same wage) and it is more expensive for a company to hire internationally. To me this means that they were unable to fill the position domestically. Later in my career I was involved in interviewing and the candidates were barely able to code (small sample size though) so either I was unlucky (after all, a lot of people apply even when they maybe shouldn't; some may have had a bad day), or the talent pool is indeed pretty small. I guess systems programming is a specific enough niche?
> I’m not saying you aren’t supposed to be here, I’m saying fix that program. The US shouldn’t be training talent and kicking them out. We should be training and keeping talent.
H1B was the only option available to me that allowed me to kick off the naturalization process so no issues there for me as well.
None of the things you perceived are what I think the H1B should be for though
so I can see how we're talking past each other
in neither my model or the current model, a salary percentage over what the government publishes has nothing to do anything. that's not a factor.
your wage being lower than what a US candidate would be paid for that role is not a factor either.
regarding the talent pool, I think you have it backwards to rationalize how it benefited you, companies are often looking for candidates in many places and then retroactively decide whether to accomodate special circumstances such as visa sponsorship
I'm glad you felt valued, empowered, had a nice compensation package, and a naturalization path you were looking for
now to my model:
in 2013 the minimum salary for the H1B with a master's degree should have been ~$113,000. Solely based on the 1989 $60,000 number adjusted for inflation. if the company wouldn't have justified that for their inability to fill the position domestically then it still shouldn't have occurred. or systems programming was that valuable and would have pushed up salaries faster because of the actual shortage.
if an article ends in a question mark, the answer is no.
> the greenback dominated 88% of traded FX volumes — close to record highs — while the Chinese yuan (CNY) made up just 7%, according to data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
> Likewise, there is little sign of USD erosion in trade invoicing. “The share of USD and EUR has held steady over the past two decades at around 40–50%.
there is currently no other alternative to meet the global liquidity demands
reply