581–590 of 717 posts
A lot of Robin Hood's growth in particular was driven by people gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to make ends meet, and by the Fed juicing the markets with low rates for far too long, and by the ridiculous meme stock phenomenon. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. Personally I'm glad that some sanity is returning to investing, and we are still a long way from getting back to normal.
The hardest part of this to me to deal with is that it’s the truth. For decades, the conservative line was if you give people money they’ll just blow it on gambling and booze. Turns out it’s true.
The untargeted stimulus just enabled mob madness and scams paid for by tax dollars. Wealth redistribution from the tax payer to the dishonest and lucky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Robinhood is struggling for capital, so I wouldn't trust them with my cash whatsoever. Why not? You're protected by SIPC for up to $500k (for securities) and $250k (for cash).
SIPC pays out eventually. If you routinely withdraw money from your brokerage account to pay for expenses or are doing anything fancy with options, you may not want to twiddle your thumbs for months while the bankruptcy court chews things over. https://www.sipc.org/for-investors/investor-faqs >Once a customer claim is filed, the trustee will research and analyze the claim and then mail to the claimant a written deter…
Anyways i don’t know how SIPC works but I bet it’s similar. Also if Robinhood can go under then so can lots of other neobanks so I’d be worried about money in all those accounts.
So several times I've had the opportunity to join fast growing startups that offered quite a bit more compensation, and equity as well. One of the things that I always took consideration of was the stability of the company vs where I was at. Many of these people made a bet that working for Robinhood would pay off, it didn't that is part of the risk that came with the SV salaries, and the stock. I get that it sucks, b…
I’ve heard a lot of tech people not consider stability because it’s so easy to just get a new tech job. Everyone was hiring. Everyone was throwing money everywhere. Why be stable when you can find an employer easier than calling a taxi. Obviously that’s over now.
"Last year, we staffed many of our operations functions under the assumption that the heightened retail engagement we had been seeing with the stock and crypto markets in the COVID era would persist into 2022..." We are now at the point when we will find out which of the changes to behavior (financial and otherwise) that came about with the onset of the covid-19 pandemic are going to be lasting, and which are not. I…
I suspect we’re going to see a regression of most new trends. Especially anything that felt too related to lockdowns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are not engineers then, they're managers. It's strange to see this confusion when it comes to software. Any other discipline and you wouldn't say engineers that don't do any engineering are the best engineers.
They are still ICs, not people managers.
Either way, IC means primarily a producer of work product, not a manager.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or when making money became harder. Amazing the number of people I personally know who took 1 year of day trading to be the “norm” and made big life decisions based on their results. From quitting good jobs to buying houses they can’t afford, all because they made big money in 2021 and thought they could keep repeating it every year.
Options trading in particular is really addicting, like gambling. I’ve had periods where I was completely sucked in, looking at charts and news all day. I will admit I’ve had thoughts in the past of “I should just quit my job and do this” without any practical consideration as to how sustainable it would be. Not because I thought I would be rich, just because I wanted to trade all day! It’s kind of like being addicte…
I talked with a “professional” day trader who basically said “write down your strategy on a piece of paper pre-market and the. Paper trade that strategy. If it doesn’t match what you were doing then you weren’t acting like a professional, you were a gambler”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What about Dev leads who mentor/architect stuff instead of writing code day to day. Those are precisely the negative-impact people I want to get rid of!
Up to a certain stage in your life everyone in a position of power is a moron. Some people evolve past that line of thinking, some don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No heuristic is perfect, but it's fairly easy to quantify empirically from activity/records. Developers who are productive (actually write and ship large amounts of quality code) tend to be valuable and those that don't, aren't. That being said there are some intangibles, like morale etc. It's possible there are people that benefit the team while having low personal productivity. But anyway, no need to approach in th…
> (actually write and ship large amounts of quality code) What about Dev leads who mentor/architect stuff instead of writing code day to day. How will you measure that?