So is what they're doing some sick joke? I doubt people couldn't care less about the damage done by functionally worthless companies. People are pissed at the perception of manipulation by wall street. This is hilariously myopic. People aren't upset about losing money. They're upset that the game _looks_ (and ostensibly is) rigged. That is where all the lack of confidence stems.
I’m sure this is true for a minority of participants in the stock market, and I’m sure this is true for a minority of retail investors.
I don’t believe for a second that this is true for a majority of retail money in the market. Most people care very much about losing money.
Just because there’s a bunch of noisy people making news about YOLOing their savings away, doesn’t mean they’re the majority. They’re just noisy and newsworthy.
Nailed it. The people upset by minor regulatory intervention to ensure fair markets are as ruthless as anyone in this equation, but they play the victim. If you knowingly manipulate the price of garbage stock for personal gain, you're not a victim, you're an asshole.
I believe they are all instances of induced demand [1]: If you allocate a large pool of a given resource, you tend to use it more liberally, and in the end the consumption rate is about the same regardless of the size of your pool.
It's interesting to note that apparently people prefer to reconsider some wasteful uses of the IP address pool rather than switching to IPv6.
That's the story of our societies. Waste the cheap stuff until it becomes too expensive.
That's the very problem, in this case, it _did_ benefit the institution -- the hedge funds. By restricting buys, retail was unable to drive the demand and put shorts into margin calls (we discuss the ethics of this until the cows come home). In this very case, an unknowable amount of money should have been transferred from hedge funds to retail investors but didn't because buyers were unable to buy.
Robinhood is just one part of stock retail demand, and overall a tiny one. And institutional demand is huge, I guarantee you there were Hedge funds buying GME hoping to provoke margin calls for the shorts too.
There is no monolithic blocks here. The conspiracy crap is doo doo.
While a cursory search appears to prove your point (given the constraint of "public funds"), the fed has bailed out hedge funds [1], I don't remember reading that all.
Probably the quietest "bailout" comes from Long Term Capital Management in 1998 was basically bailed out by banks at the urging of the feds[2].
It seems that most funds are left to die [3] (or, more alarmingly, dissolved at the hands at the SEC for insider trading (I'm sensing a trend...))
Perhaps, as "an exercise left to the user", I'll look more deeply at this matter; as it's quite interesting.
This reads sort of tone deaf to me. There is a clear definition of what it means to be impoverished. In the US it's income relative to dependents, [defined by HHS](https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). TO say that someone isn't impoverished because they are living rent-free (legally or illegally) or don't have obligations to pay bills misses the point altogether; and quite frankly, is flat out insincere. It doesn't matter if the child moves back in with their parent and doesn't have bills to pay. I'm curious to know, what if the person that loses their job is 40 and moves in with their parents? My point is, I don't think it matters if it's a child moving in to their parent's second house -- they may never be able to recover from this, and that is the larger, systemic problem at hand.
How we, as a collective society, address issues pertaining to the poor, disenfranchised, forgotten, downtrodden, speaks volumes about our priorities and interests. And I think, given the types of relief that has happened during this moment, and looking at how society answers this historically, we are not doing well.
This fact almost killed my Ph.D. I wrote a programming language and type system for biologists and chemists. But the PL theory syntax nearly did me in. TAPL was like banging my head against a brick wall -- completely opaque to me. My PI wasn't familiar with the space either, so I was sort of on my own. The school eventually brought in a PL theory faculty and things sort of got better. But yes, the syntax for PL is certainly one of the more complex, nuanced, and difficult notations I've worked with.
There aren't any formal rules that he lives and dies by, but read "Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist" by Lowenstein. Buffett -- or at least Lowenstein captures -- expresses concern for people buying before he does.
Have had 2 kids in CA. Can confirm[1]. They even write you a pathetic "don't go" letter when you file the paperwork to destroy the records. They allow all sorts of organizations to use the data[2].
To ruminate about this a bit, let's assume our Congress critters never change. So Congress passes law "X" during Congress "Y". It is now 50 years in the future. Who do we ask about the intent of the law? Do we ask the initiators, cosigners, committee, do we take a survey of the entire congress? I'm not trying to prove any point -- I'm genuinely interested in understanding how this could play out!
More generally this falls into a discussion of context-specific vs context-free grammars. Of which C++ falls into the former, Java falls into the latter.
Pretty much every programming language has a nicely parseable context-free "rough syntax" (my term I just invented) that can be written down formally for the language documentation and a parsing tool. And then every language also has a notion of "well-formed programs", which introduces a whole bunch of additional constraints on what programs should actually be accepted by compiler frontend.
Well-formedness includes type checking. But even without full type checking that can be done later, it also includes things like being aware, in C, of whether a given identifier is declared as a typedef in the current scope. So while C has a nice context-free "rough syntax" formally specified in the standard, its actual input language is context sensitive.
As for Java, the first example that comes to mind is that constructors must have the same name as the class they belong to. This "choose whatever identifier you like, but at some later point repeat that exact same identifier" is a very typical example of something that is not context-free.
You might disagree whether this constraint is part of what you consider Java's "grammar". So the answer to your question depends on what language level you are thinking of. But whichever level you apply to Java, you should apply the same to C++. C++ also has a context-free "rough syntax" in its standard.
It's Turing complete because it could simulate a Turing machine, not because of metaprogramming. The language brainfuck is Turing complete, for example.
Checking if a Brainfuck program is well formed (i.e. can be run) is a linear time operation. In C++ this can take forever. They have different complexities.
The original comment was about Turing completeness, and it was defined incorrectly. I was giving an example of a dead-simple language that was Turing complete, because the claim was that metaprogramming made C++ Turing complete.
The claim wasn’t that C++ is Turing complete, that’s trivially true. The claim was that C++’s grammar is Turing complete. I don’t know if that’s exactly the right way to phrase it, but C++’s template expansion stuff is Turing complete.
Yes, but it is the difference to other programming languages.
In C you cannot encode a Turing machine that is executed by the compiler at compile time. In Brainfuck you cannot encode a Turing machine that is executed by the compiler at compile time. In C++ you can encode a Turing machine that is executed by the compiler at compile time.
No. You would need the ability to write unbounded loops or unbounded recursion. You don't have that with the C preprocessor.
Yes, you can do a lot with the C preprocessor. You can also do a lot in languages that only have bounded loops and are therefore not Turing complete. You can either express nonterminating computations (Turing completeness), or you can't (still powerful, but dramatically less poweful). This question is binary. There is no fuzziness, there is no approximation, there is no "quite close".
Context free means something different to what you're saying here. This is a good discussion of this topic, I never knew C++ was so irregular and informal.
