91–100 of 216 posts
This is pretty cool, I wasn’t aware of these types of challenges. How does one even approach this? Feels to me like it’s similar to dumping a binary with an image, the format being entirely custom. And/or trying to decode a language or cipher, trying to recognize patterns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I think when I see this is "this intelligence wasted on finance and ads." Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc? Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?
I like that Jane Street hires smart people and supports cool initiatives like ocaml. But don’t fool yourself, they don’t make their money with intelligence. They just do fees and insider trading. [1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-24/jane-stre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I approached the puzzle using an A11‑style reasoning architecture, which focuses on compressing the hypothesis space rather than decoding every neuron. Instead of “understanding the network”, the task reduces through successive narrowing: model → program → round‑based function → MD5 → dictionary search for the target hash. The key steps were: Input → the integer weights and repeated ReLU blocks indicate a hand‑design…
I'm really curious what were the magic words. > Alex had actually tried to brute force the hash earlier, but had downloaded a list of the top 10,000 most popular words to do it, which turned out not to be big enough to find it. Once he had a big enough word list, he got the answer. They don't reveal the answer.
If I had to guess, “hot dog” would be the first thing I’d try. “Vegetable dog” was given as 0, and it may be alluding to a Silicon Valley episode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the comment history (and the username), it's pretty clear this is an LLM. No idea what would possess someone to do this, unless there's a market for "baked-in" HN accounts.
Maybe selling upvotes? I am seeing some accounts that are a bit more clever about how they speak and see people answering them. That's sad. Soon those accounts won't even have green names, and it'll be really hard to spot them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are much much more great minds working on new medicines than on HFT. Also HFT is good, it makes world better place!
What exactly is the point of making a unverifiable statement(s) like this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the comment was a roundabout way of saying this is a clear market failure. There are more societally important things these people could be doing instead of shaving another ms off a transaction or finding minuscule option pricing inefficiencies. That the market is not correctly remunerating those options is the failure. > For example, the tariff tantrums caused by trump proposing 100%+ china tariffs where he…
this undervalues how financial engineering allows more ideas and companies to be funded compound interest is a rare exponential force, and it is available to most citizens of a developed country through the stock market financial futures remain important for farmers to have predictable pricing, and increase crop yields science is limited by funding at least as much as it is limited by ideas or intelligence I understa…
I think the comment is about the marginal utility of additional workers at Jane St over, perhaps, DE Shaw Research. The caliber and education of roughly the same kind of person might be applied to understanding drug mechanisms, or shaving off trading milliseconds.
Is the marginal benefit to the world greater if someone is advancing financial engineering? I don't think it's obvious that our increased complexity is, itself, yielding further increases in 'allowing more ideas and companies to be funded' except in the sense where already-wealthy people gain more discretionary income which they may decide to spend on their pet projects. Futures have existed for much longer than derivative markets; are we helping farmers more when we allow futures to be traded more quickly?
But I disagree that the limit is funding—it's simply a lack of concerted interest. We accept that we should spend tax money on rewarding certain financial activities, and we create a system that disproportionately rewards people who facilitate these activities. But we might restructure things so people are incentivized to do research instead of financial engineering.
I think the fundamental idea is that things of value need to be extracted or manufactured at some point and we're not set up to reward people studying new extractive tools or new manufacturing processes when those people could instead work on finance products.
[stub for offtopicness]
All I think when I see this is "this intelligence wasted on finance and ads." Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc? Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the comment was a roundabout way of saying this is a clear market failure. There are more societally important things these people could be doing instead of shaving another ms off a transaction or finding minuscule option pricing inefficiencies. That the market is not correctly remunerating those options is the failure. > For example, the tariff tantrums caused by trump proposing 100%+ china tariffs where he…
this undervalues how financial engineering allows more ideas and companies to be funded compound interest is a rare exponential force, and it is available to most citizens of a developed country through the stock market financial futures remain important for farmers to have predictable pricing, and increase crop yields science is limited by funding at least as much as it is limited by ideas or intelligence I understa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We let the market dictate how society's resources are allocated. And we see, as a result, how the market is actually not at all interested in the satisfaction and well-being of the people in society.
"The market" here is just a convenient substitute for "people weighted by the disposable income", which today roughly approximates to "rich people".