Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gloomberb

gloom.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 249 posts

Re: Gloomberb

#101

Post by _fat_santa »

ryukoposting wrote: post #40
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Asked a dear friend in the finance industry what he thought about Bloomberg. He's the type of guy who uses these systems daily. Mostly paraphrasing: 1) Bloomberg was lightyears ahead of anything else in the pre-internet days, so there's a lot of UI familiarity. 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then…

I've heard the same thing about Bloomberg's chat many years ago. Since everyone you're chatting to also has to fork over ~$30k/yr to use it, there's the implicit assumption that you're talking to a serious person.

Re: Gloomberb

#102

Post by grigri907 »

linkregister wrote: post #80
globular-toast wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a bit less funny. There is this perception that what finance people do is super important and grown up but following a brief stint in the industry I realised it literally is just a game. We used to trade bits of stationery and trading cards for fun at school. They never stopped. The only difference is people who never consented to any of this are paying for it all, especially when it all goes wrong.

Why would a trader need your consent to make a trade with somebody else?

I assumed they were referring to market crashes caused by irresponsible levels of risks and deceptive practices like we saw in 2008, and/or government-funded bailouts

Re: Gloomberb

#103

Post by dewey »

janlukacs wrote: post #67
gymbeaux wrote: post #12

When I see new software now, my first thought is an LLM wrote it and it makes me not want to use it. I also assume there are bugs and it’s not particularly feature-rich.

same and for some reason people are downvoting. why would we use vibecoded stuff with sensitive information?

What’s sensitive about displaying public information in pretty graphs?

Re: Gloomberb

#104

Post by storus »

u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Can't you just use a bunch of agents to extract financial statements from company websites the moment they are published? OK, no insider info but you can still do quick agentic fundamental analysis and decide which companies are interesting.

Re: Gloomberb

#105

Post by pverheggen »

NDlurker wrote: post #43
croes wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name

Inspired by and competing with are different things

Well yes, but a lot of people immediately jump to conclusions based on name alone, it's human nature. Definitely something to consider when you're picking a name for a project.

An example that comes to mind is JSON5. People have a visceral reaction to the name, it sounds like it's trying to be HTML4.01 -> 5 but for JSON. In reality, it has its uses but doesn't supersede JSON whatsoever. The name itself has given it a bad rap though.

If you pick a name like "Gloomberb" the most obvious interpretation is that it's a Bloomberg alternative.

Re: Gloomberb

#107

Post by intrasight »

dpmartinez wrote: post #77
wnmurphy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. I see a cool product that someone built and is sharing with the community, and the top comment is basically a criticism that it's not a $31k terminal.

It is almost like they want to be ripped off, the massive amount of gatekeeping is bizzare. Financial information should be free for everyone.

Yesterday's data is much cheaper and often free ;)

Re: Gloomberb

#108

Post by sheeshkebab »

globular-toast wrote: post #63
pizzalife wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to think some of the world's largest trades are being done in something that resembles a game's tradechat. (WTS bonds)

I find it a bit less funny. There is this perception that what finance people do is super important and grown up but following a brief stint in the industry I realised it literally is just a game. We used to trade bits of stationery and trading cards for fun at school. They never stopped. The only difference is people who never consented to any of this are paying for it all, especially when it all goes wrong.

It’s pretty bad except that any other way is even worse.

Re: Gloomberb

#109

Post by [deleted] »

ryukoposting wrote: post #40
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Asked a dear friend in the finance industry what he thought about Bloomberg. He's the type of guy who uses these systems daily. Mostly paraphrasing: 1) Bloomberg was lightyears ahead of anything else in the pre-internet days, so there's a lot of UI familiarity. 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then…

[deleted]

Re: Gloomberb

#110

Post by [deleted] »

ryukoposting wrote: post #40
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Asked a dear friend in the finance industry what he thought about Bloomberg. He's the type of guy who uses these systems daily. Mostly paraphrasing: 1) Bloomberg was lightyears ahead of anything else in the pre-internet days, so there's a lot of UI familiarity. 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN