Trump2cash – A stock trading bot powered by Trump tweets

Post by willis77 » Fri, Feb 10, 2017, 2:30 PM UTC

djb_hackernews wrote: post #78

>This bot watches Donald Trump's tweets and waits for him to mention any publicly traded companies. Ok, simple enough, go on. > When he does, it uses sentiment analysis to determine whether his opinions are positive or negative toward those companies. Eh, sentiment analysis isn't perfect but it has come a long way, plus Trump does typically say what he means in simplistic language. > The bot then automatically execut…

Post by ryanlol » Fri, Feb 10, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

laumars wrote: post #76

ryanlol wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that you'd have to be an "insider" which obviously isn't the case here.

You don't need to be hired by the company to be classed as an insider (though that obviously also counts). If you are privy to non-public information (which you would be if you were forewarned about a Trump PR stunt before it happened) and then you trade stock based on that information then legally you could be classed as an insider. In fact that wiki link I posted earlier previously says just this: https://en.wikipe…

Post by bmelton » Fri, Feb 10, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #59

martin-adams wrote: post #30

This could make quite a fun experiment to see if it works. Crowdsource an investment of something like $10,000 and let it run for a year. At the end, donate all proceeds to charity.

It did work* as of December 2016, but I would guess something as accessible and straightforward as this has been arb'd out: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-07/flash-cra... ________________________ *But the devil is in the execution - and the amount of capital leveraged.

Post by hueving » Fri, Feb 10, 2017, 2:35 PM UTC

kohanz wrote: post #70

tombrossman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexism[0] isn't the right word here, since it implies the belief that the victims are less able, which women are clearly not. I won't assume you hold that belief. Discrimination[1] is more neutral and is the better word to describe this situation. I do occasional technical talks or workshops for free and some organisers have asked to make them 'girls only'. I've always declined and made it clear that everyone will be…

I presume that you also refuse to do talks or workshops where all the speakers, panelists or mentors are of one gender or race? If so, good on you. Look, you sound like a nice guy, so I don't mean this as a personal attack, but your take on this is a classic example of how good people can fall into the trap of their own privilege. You don't do events where men/boys are not allowed to attend (e.g. girls who code) and…

Post by kohanz » Fri, Feb 10, 2017, 2:38 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #87

kohanz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume that you also refuse to do talks or workshops where all the speakers, panelists or mentors are of one gender or race? If so, good on you. Look, you sound like a nice guy, so I don't mean this as a personal attack, but your take on this is a classic example of how good people can fall into the trap of their own privilege. You don't do events where men/boys are not allowed to attend (e.g. girls who code) and…

False equivalence in your examples. The gp didn't say he would refuse to go to events that happened to be all girls. He would refuse to present at events that prevented male attendees. The massive difference is being explicitly prevented from joining based on sex, which makes your privilege rant pointless.