Jane Street suffers $15B hit after meltdown at Situational Awareness

Post by margalabargala » Sat, Aug 15, 2026, 5:04 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #120

margalabargala wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egads, you got me! A half-relevant comic that, when posted, excuses and justifies all hypocrisy by the poster...I want you to know, I'm devastated right now. Just devastated. Gosh, I never would have pointed out your arrogance and rudeness if I knew you possessed such a powerful tool.

facepalm Look, dude. At this point two of your most aggressive comments have been downvoted and killed. That is additional community feedback you should be paying heed to, and it’s clear that you’re just not getting the message. Instead you just keep doubling down. Take the L and move on. If you think you’re still in the right, show this thread to your spouse (if you have one), parents, manager, and trusted friends w…

Post by margalabargala » Sat, Aug 15, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #102

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? Almost all the guidelines are curt and open to interpretation. For example, what counts as snarky? What counts as kind? Is there some hidden arbiter in between the characters I can't see? Not everyone will know exactly what these mean in every situation. In truth, the rules here are intentionally vague, so they can be used as a cudgel by people who don't like what they read. For the mods it's for behavi…

I suspect if you show this thread to enough random people, a clear majority opinion will form on whether that comment was snarky and unkind. The language in the Guidelines isn’t objective, but I also don’t think it’s all that difficult to understand if you were taught the difference between being forthright and being sarcastic, and the difference between being gracious and being unkind. Of course some people will get…

Post by loeg » Sat, Aug 15, 2026, 7:38 PM UTC

ralph84 wrote: post #94

Retric wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market makers are simply an artifact due to how shares are traded based on limitations that existed before computers. The aren’t some inherent aspect of having a stock market. The money isn’t coming from thin air. If N people trade a a finite set of shares back and forth every day the only way to extract money from that set of people is for them to lose money.

Yeah, the stock market may be positive sum over the long-term, but it's certainly zero sum over the millisecond-term. Whether it's "retail" or "institutional" that is paying for HFT profits, it's all retail in the end.

Post by loeg » Sun, Aug 16, 2026, 2:16 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #126

loeg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's certainly zero sum over the millisecond-term. Why do you think market-making is zero sum? Providing liquidity has value and market makers are compensated for that. (Milliseconds of liquidity being appropriately compensated with fractions of pennies.)

> milliseconds of liquidity Speed of light delays. Due to the underlying physics of the universe there’s physical limitations on how much liquidity can matter on sufficiently small timescale.

Post by loeg » Sun, Aug 16, 2026, 5:22 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #128

loeg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the costs are de minimis and they're just competing with other, slower market makers to provide the same service at lower costs and faster speeds. Who cares? Retail investors, rationally, should not care about this at all.

If the costs where actually de minimis nobody would be fighting on those timescales, instead the costs paid by the market is the full operating budget of these companies plus their profits plus their negative externalities which combined ends up being significant. Ultimately the primping value of markets is in information gathering and by flooding the market with trades based on ms timescales you’re masking important…