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

When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 243 posts

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#231

Post by doikor »

lokedhs wrote: post #226
doikor wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For my bank they just send a verification request to the app (or web page using your one time code book if you prefer that) to verify who you are. So basically the same process as logging into the bank and/or verifying payments.

Correct me if I misunderstood, but that sounds insecure. I imagine an attack where someone attempts to log in to your Internet bank account, and at the same time calls you and tells you that they are the bank and that they have sent you a notification on the phone to confirm this. You accept the notification on the phone and all of a sudden they're not just logged in to your Internet bank, but also on the phone with…

The verification app does tell you what the verification request is for. Also you can't really do anything in the bank without verifying yourself again (basically any change/write requires you to approve again)

Basically in the app you see if the verification is for logging in, providing strong auth for some service, approving transfer of X euros from Y account to account Z, etc

In general we have had really well working online banking since the late 90s here in Finland (first versions are actually from the early 80s where you dialed directly to the bank instead of your ISP with your modem). Haven't really heard of any major security flaws ever so they do have a really good track record. This is also why the governments attempt at creating their own strong auth service failed. The banks already effectively provide that and everyone is used to using them.

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#233

Post by chasd00 »

rtpg wrote: post #112
dheera wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put my phone in airplane mode at night. Don't a lot of people do that? What are they thinking?

Apparently people who are likely to win the prize tend to hear rumors beforehand and are mentally prepared for this (especially if they care)

I would assume they know they night the calls go out and take their phones off DND. I bet many don't even sleep that night in anticipation of the phone ringing.

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#234

Post by spicybright »

mennis16 wrote: post #163
anonymousiam wrote: post #143

The probability of my ever receiving a Nobel Prize is pretty much ZERO. Coincidentally, that is almost the same probability of anyone being able to reach me at 2:15AM, unless they come pounding on my door (and I still might not hear it). I value my sleep and I have set all of my phones and devices to automatically go into DND mode sometime around 11PM. If it were you, would you rather have a good night of sleep and b…

I'm usually pretty neurotic about getting enough sleep, but if I just won the Nobel Prize I certainly would want to be woken. That's gotta be the moment of a lifetime.

I don't see the point though. Either you get woken at 2am, get all excited, then have to sit with it alone and wait until 8am to talk to anyone about it or celebrate.

Or, you can get a good nights sleep, wake up to good news, immediately tell people, celebrate with a nice breakfast, etc.

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#235

Post by ineedasername »

smabie wrote: post #168
ineedasername wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HFT can increase market volatility and exagerate trends. They are not beholden to and can run counter to the idea of an "affirmative obligation" to help keep the market operating orderly. Hence the occasional flash crash or more minor blips.

eh, there's not much evidence that HFT increases volatility. I work in HFT and in general, HFT decreases volatility. Of course the flash crash is a notable exception, but that would never happen today.

There's plenty of evidence that HFT increases volatility [0][1][2].

Flash crashes still happen [3] and there were multiple rapid crashes triggering limit down circuit breakers in 2020. The circuit breakers stopped things from getting worse, but didn't stop the crash itself.

[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1691679

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573677

[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573677

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/25/what-happened-during-the-aug...

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#236

Post by cxr »

beambot wrote: post #139
munificent wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on. Achievement and power are runaway positive feedback loops which means we need damping forces to have any reasonable level of fairness where "fair" means reward is proportional to the effort.

I don't see why reward should be proportional to effort... Rewards should be based on results and outcomes, regardless of the amount of effort involved.

This comment doesn't track the argument in the comment it's responding to. It happens by using a different reading of "proportional" than the one that was intended.

The results and outcomes alluded to in each comment, mine and the one you're responding to, are consequences of essentially begging the question. It's that part where the flaw lies—because it leads, as in your comment, to justifying things as rational and fit even when they are not equitable.

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#237

Post by effingwewt »

saalweachter wrote: post #172
teh_klev wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I found this funny, just like the submission. There's sometimes an awful lot of po-faced folks on HN, even when the post is funny and heartwarming.

Eh, what's the point in collecting karma if you're not occasionally going to spend it on a bad pun or a good joke? It's not like it buys anything else.

This could be cool, at least in theory. But after thinking it over, then we'd have people farming points, which would probably lead to lower quality of all forms of participation.

Maybe if it were to be spent on like adding notes about posts/comments or something purely fluff/sparkle. Different color schemes maybe?

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#238

Post by munificent »

lopmotr wrote: post #184
munificent wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was struck by how my list of awards and recognitions was kind of a sham—most of them were each a consequence of some earlier achievement, and so on. Achievement and power are runaway positive feedback loops which means we need damping forces to have any reasonable level of fairness where "fair" means reward is proportional to the effort.

Scientific achievement is the actual value of science, not getting a prize. We certainly don't need any kind of damping forces to make scientists rewarded for their effort if that in any way impedes the most successful from pushing the boundaries forward. I think you're putting the cart before the horse in prioritizing fairness and personal awards over humanity-improving results.

I think you're overlooking the quote I was replying to. The situation the author describes is like this:

Scientist A and Scientist B both produce results X and Y respectively that are exactly equally valuable to the world. However, Scientist A happens to already be well-known for other work. What we observe is that A will get more accolades for X than B gets for Y. Not because X is more valuable, but solely because people assume that since famous scientist A did X, it must be worth more.

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#239

Post by adrianmonk »

jedberg wrote: post #97
adrianmonk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They even have signs "Reserved for Nobel Laureate". Assuming they work in the same building, now is Stanford's chance. The bigger flex is to have two or more adjacent parking spaces with signage that says "Reserved for Nobel Laureates" (plural).

Berkeley has a lot more laureates than Stanford. It would be a weak flex. :) Berkeley already has rows of NL parking.

Wow did I grossly mis-guesstimate the total number of living Nobel laureates.

I assumed there were so few that even world-class, elite universities would have in the low single digits, so that adding two would rocket Stanford (or any university) to near the top.

But there are some universities that have 50 or even over 100 depending how you count.

Re: When You Win a Nobel and They Can't Reach You at Home

#240

Post by btilly »

andreareina wrote: post #210
btilly wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, HFT is willing to pay retail brokerages like Robinhood to get access to orders from retail investors BEFORE they hit the exchanges. This is how trades are offered for free. Why? Because they know that they can buy those shares at some reported price then trade them on their own books then sell them at a price sufficiently different from the reported price that they make a profit. This means that HFT is expl…

Matt Levine claims that payment for order flow still benefits the retail trader: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-16/carl-i... .

I'm not willing to pay Bloomberg to read that.

But on a reasonable assumption what he is arguing is that the competition in the marketplace means that they are paying competitive prices for that order flow. They are making money but not much considering what they are doing. And it is massively better than what used to exist.

I know this and agree with it. But as I said above, "The fact that it is better than what existed before doesn't change the fact that we can do better yet."

The first point is that Robinhood is the one that they negotiate with. So the extra profits go there, and not directly to consumers. Secondly the HFT middlemen are still playing market makers, which means that they still are being paid for. There are cheaper ways to make a market work than HFT, and I outlined one above. Third, automated algorithms as market makers have the potential for some pretty dramatic events - such as the flash crash. Alternatives can avoid that.

Post reply on HN