I realize this isn’t something people want to think about, but that’s precisely why these people are doing what they do unchecked. The most surprising thing about this is that the people generally are living pretty normal lives and those close to them don’t know that they are running this industry
it does work though, because the sandwhichers will just take the delta between the accepted amount out, and the actual expected amount out, front run that, then back run the bulk of the trade with selling that delta on top of the bulk of the trade and benefiting from the price impact that the sandwhiched trade created
I'm curious about exploring this myself, would you mind explaining in more detail what is lacking after forking the main net with ganache?
Is it that you need a high powered server to fork it continuously, and that smart contracts tend to cost a lot to execute, or is there more to it than that? I don't understand what contracts and variables that you're targeting won't be included with the solution we're discussing
I'm far from an expert on this, you probably know better than I do, but wouldn't forking the blockchain at the block height you're interested in with Ganache and execute it there be enough? or is the issue the transaction queue?
I've had the opposite experience too. I have an Nvidia linux card and Wayland on Fedora has always worked very well for me. In comparison Xorg on Ubuntu was a nightmare on the same machine
it's not the same because many retailers do lose money because the short squeeze fails to execute. They dont just not make money, they buy shares for $300 and have to sell them for $100
Scenario 1:
1. Client buys share for $400
2. Hedge funds get short squeezed (because trading is not restricted by Robinhood)
3. Stock shoots up to $1000. Client made $600
Scenario 2:
1. Client buys share for $400
2. Robinhood restricts buying the shares (so the short squeeze doesn't happen)
3. Shares plunge to $50 because the short squeeze failed to happen (ie the hedge fund did not have to purchase the shares at higher prices, which is where the capital that the traders would share amongst themselves would come from)
4. Client lost $350
you completely missed the point. the fact that the squeeze fails means that it fails to squeeze the shorts of the hedge fund, which is the one that will be coughing up billions to pay all the retailers. So yes, the retailers that are buying shares at higher prices will indeed lose actual real money if the short squeeze fails. And it will be due to what is likely to be market manipulation (ie screwing over its clients) by Robinhood
I didn't until you linked to it, but having read it it still does appear that comparing single thread to single thread is not very accurate. Neither would core to core considering single thread does hold some weight compared to real world workloads.
I guess at the very least CPU benchmarking software should have a "thread to thread" benchmarker alongside a "core to core" benchmarker, or something along those lines.
That would be in the spirit of having benchmarks indicate real world usage
It turns out that the benchmarks for M1 vs latest generation Intel & AMD CPU's are indeed overblown, and it is an incremental improvement more than a great leap forward.
The source of the confusion has been the benchmarking software. To saturate one core on an Intel processor you need to run two threads, because that's the way they are designed. So the single thread benchmarks that have been used so far have been using 50% of the capacity of an Intel CPU core and comparing it with 100% of the capacity of an M1 CPU core.
if only they'd do this for apps accessing the microphone, or do the same thing as they do with the camera making the application visibly request access
You wouldn't know of any reason to believe that the NSA had access to google traffic back when they did if Snowden didn't allow you to know. Why choose to assume they don't rather than do?
they want to push iOS. They are begrudgingly updating their Mac line, with horrible specs such as 5400 RPM drives, and are avoiding holding an event for the announcements.
This way they get to ward off accusations that they have forgotten about the Mac, and they get the profits from the sales, while still trying to drive consumers to iPads.
I'll listen to music everyday for a week then not at all again for the next 8 months. I would happily pay for it on demand, but monthly it'd end up costing me something like $10 per minute of music listened to per year.
This is idle speculation from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about. Because it was published on Wired it has gone viral.
It's just technical enough that most people who don't have a clue think that it might be right so they spread it.
Anyone who knows about data processing, programming, or AI knows that it's a very stupid idea due to easy-to-implement fault tolerance (such as random dropout) in machine learning models.