121–130 of 343 posts
> Double the profit per employee than Google > Average TC of 900K > Several unranked billionaires it makes even OpenAI / Meta ML SWEs look underpaid
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and the thousands under them are getting salaries. The difference is that these thousands also get to invest in Jane Street, which seems a pretty profitable investment (70% margins, etc).
Typically at such companies you have to be at the very top of the hierarchy to be able to buy in and get a slice of the profits. It is very unlikely that rank and file employees are able to participate, at least at a scale larger than, say, a Google employee buying some extra shares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second definition of "anarchy" according to Google: > the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. Sounds like a perfect fit.
There is a CEO on top who has the power to fire anyone. There are department heads and middle managers. There is an org hierarchy. There are performance targets and reviews. Nothing about it is "voluntary cooperation". This is how every large company runs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second definition of "anarchy" according to Google: > the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. Sounds like a perfect fit.
There is a CEO on top who has the power to fire anyone. There are department heads and middle managers. There is an org hierarchy. There are performance targets and reviews. Nothing about it is "voluntary cooperation". This is how every large company runs.
> The only founder still at the firm is Rob Granieri, but insiders say it is functionally run by roughly 30-40 senior executives in what kinda resembles an incredibly profitable anarchist commune. Or as Jane Street itself puts it: > We operate as a functionally-organized structure consisting of various management and risk committees. Each committee is responsible for directing the overall strategy of the firm and for…
The second definition of "anarchy" according to Google: > the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. Sounds like a perfect fit.
Because people seem to think it's "politics" and "government" that are the problem. It's not. It's people. It's always been people. It will always be people. People are the problem. Failure to acknowledge that people can and will be shitty is going to doom your system before it starts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second definition of "anarchy" according to Google: > the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. Sounds like a perfect fit.
Yeah, that doesn't exist. Any gathering of people are going to have political institutions whether they are codified or not. Similarly, there's going to be someone or some group of people who the others look to for direction. And whether or not it is codified, those people will form a layer of hierarchy for your "non" government. Because people seem to think it's "politics" and "government" that are the problem. It's…
I'd say that Jane Street would seem to be less hierarchical than others and thus more closely aligned to an anarchist collaborative.
(It's all relative, I suppose. Bernie is a "leftist" in the US and would probably be a centrist in Scandinavia)
> A good mate who runs and wrecks expensive cars for hobby once reminded me that course plotting (i.e. research) and braking (i.e. risk management) are the two sine qua non contributors to a successful race.
Along with a reminder that disasters happen when businesses forget this (Boeing!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we say 17,000 kilometers instead of 17 megameters?
That's actually a good question. Why? We have nanometets, picometers, centimeters, decimeters, kilometers, why not megameters?
The only 'commonly' used unit of measure larger than a kilometer is a light year, at least that I can think of. Maybe a Astronomical Unit, but not 'common' I suppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Setting criteria such as having an Ivy League degree or a CS degrees with GPA over 3.8 was a logical way to achieve this goal. It wasn't a "logical way", it was an "easy way". That's classist at the very least.
To a certain extent, you are correct. However, companies like Jane Street need to filter and doing so based on colleges is the most efficient when other factors are all equal. Top tier colleges strive to base their admittance on performance and strive to be racially and culturally diverse. This gives Jane Street the ability to say they filter on the same criteria. I'm all ears if you have a better system that is more…
I know that fancy colleges like to say that they strive to base admittance on performance, and I believe that’s true to an extent, but it certainly seems like they make an exception for students who come from a lot of money. I’ve mentioned this before but think about any politician that you think is un utter moron, and there’s still a reasonably good chance that they went to an Ivy League because they come from a rich family.
And it annoys me that people act like Ivy League schools are the only ones that accept based on performance. I applied to a bunch of state schools as a teenager and I got declined by a bunch of them. We can wax philosophical about why I was declined but I doubt it was personal, just that they probably didn’t think I would perform well based on some metric.