>A lot can change in that period. It's hard to imagine Hughes providing a "smoking gun".
I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination.
>Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.
I'm not sure what washing a Little Debbie snack cake will accomplish, outside of preventing its ingestion, which, now that I think about it, is an excellent outcome!
Totally agree about how inane and insufferably out of touch this complaint is. As if today's now-totally-normalized tech company valuations, openly built on nothing more than cash bonfires, aren't dangerous at all.
Markets such as the US health care market, characterized by ineslastic demand and secret prices, should never, ever be tolerated under any circumstances. This arrangement is here to benefit the supply side and screw the demand side and it has to be stopped. The only pathway out of this crisis starts with the federal government replacing private insurers, relegating them to selling supplemental coverage. Such companies also should be legally compelled to run as mutual insurance companies, where any profit deriving from good risk management is sent back to policyholders. It is long past time everybody in the US admitted that markets have completely failed in US health care.
Has anybody evaluated whole-network hardware filter+VPN solutions that filter cookies ( such as Winston https://winstonprivacy.com/ ) in the context of this article? I was planning on testing Winston at some point at my home, but Winston requires a separated modem and router as opposed to the combo box I have.
I think the declarations in the article do confuse the issue a bit - some of the benefits of a VPN such protecting against DNS logging are real but are probably not as useful to VPN marketing people as a "pitch", because they're a bit tougher to explain to laypersons.
> it also seems to massively favour what you have watched once - if that is something especially controversial or perhaps otherwise ‘special’.
This is my experience as well. YT thinks I love Jordan Peterson. Four or so months ago, I didn't know who he was, and clicked one clip, found it ridiculous and never clicked another one. But my recommendations are lousy with the guy.
If one isn't sure if they want recommendations related to a video (that they haven't even watched yet!), the only safe approach is to watch the video in incognito mode.
You are the second comment here stating this specifically about Jordan Peterson. Weirdly enough, I had that same experience. I saw one video, didn't like it and yet YT keeps recommending this and that video of him or more right-wing people DESTROYING someone. It's frustrating to say the least, not only because I don't want to see it but because I showed a video once when giving a talk, and after it had finished, all those garbage recommendations showed up for everyone to see, making it look like I am secretly some lunatic.
I'm lost as to what is meant here by "number". Are you saying the target firm was randomizing its iceberg order's component order sizes using the same seed? If yes, how could the target firm's usage of that seed be known by the "attacker" here?
The target firm had a number in their name, kinda like a16z or Office365. The attacking quant knew the target was using iceberg orders which split up and randomize parts of large orders. Attacking quant took a guess at an RNG seed by guessing they used the number in the target firm's name, and then somehow fit the resulting random number stream to order chunk sizes, and was able to confirm they used that number as a seed. From then on, using that information, they would identify (I'm assuming probabilitistically) when the target firm was executing a large iceberg order, and then front run the remainder of their order.
It sounds ridiculous on its face, but the industry is known for going to extremes, and that sort of problem solving isn't unheard of in other domains (like cryptography for example). I'm way out of my depth with understanding it, and it could be complete bullshit, but it isn't outside the realm of what I've seen proven in the past, which is why I'm hoping someone someday will confirm it.
It would be amateurish if it were cryptography for sure. But I would never expect that sort of attack vector as a quant. Most quants are worried about alpha loss, not having your order flow fingerprinted.
Facebook ads in the residential real estate space absolutely allow violation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act on the part of real estate agents, sellers, marketers and brokers. The mechanism of FB ad targeting inherently grants permission to exclude groups from ad targeting by way of discriminating on the basis of demographic detail. The FHA was passed to redress the widespread and normalized practices of racial and socioeconomic exclusion from home ownership, and as such FB's practice is a major step backwards in fairness and transparency for persons participating in housing markets.
Does anybody know if FB's practice has been attacked in court sooner than this?
I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination.
>Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.