Placebo effect works in video games too - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28319-placebo-effect-works-in-video-games-too/ <comment><USER2> I don't see how their conclusion follows.

The way I see it:

\- They gave people two randomly generated maps \- They told the people that the second map was AI generated \- There were differences between the maps (because, well, random) \- People noticed these ("no one found it equally challenging") \- People attributed the differences to the AI, because that's what they were told

This would be a valid conclusion to make if the players had been told that the AI did something specific and there were consistent claims that said specific thing happened. This, on the other hand, is just a study of how randomness works.

<comment><USER3> The second experimental design attempted.to address this, but the article unfortunately doesn't go into detail, just that it "confirmed the effect."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Some thought the game was harder with AI, others found it easier – but no one found it equally challenging."

So maybe it's just random? As in maybe some players randomly got an easier level in their first play than the second, and vice versa. I've played Don't Starve a little and each new game is very different.

Other points the article makes are more interesting, for example about players rating the AI version as more. It would be nice to see some confidence intervals, but I couldn't find the original research.

<comment><USER2> Agreed. Nothing in the article indicates that the results were due to a placebo effect and not due to randomness.

<comment><USER5> Yep, they would need a lot more play time.

Like first two weeks of play in the "non-AI" version and then tell the player "AI" was added and ask after another two weeks if they find the new version more enjoyable in general

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like this study set people up to believe a system was trying to help them so instead of seeing a random set of events unfolding they were looking for a pattern and then trying to attribute that pattern to the system they believed was helping them.

This doesn't seem like the placebo effect, it seems like an example of the human mind trying to find patterns that don't exist. Just like when someone tells you a cloud looks like something and then you can't stop seeing that thing in the clouds until it goes away. Tell people there's an AI and they can't stop seeing it, even if it's not there.

</comment><comment><USER7> Some interesting anecdotes on the placebo effect in games from the developers of League of Legends: [https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/36gop4/rio...](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/36gop4/riot_scarizard_on_the_placebo_effect_of_buffs_and/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a fun study but I really have to question the legitimacy of the experiment. They said the second run was always the 'placebo', this should have been evenly distributed first and second runs.

Don't Starve is a really great game focused on discovery and knowledge and going into your first run knowing completely nothing is going to be fun but you are going to spend your day checking everything out and learning how to survive 1 day. You are so excited to play the second run, you think to yourself "now I know what I want to do on my first day", you are almost guaranteed to live longer and discover more of the game. I would love to see a follow up of this where there is no 'placebo' and people are given the same experiment and asked which one was more fun, I think almost 100% would say the second.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is not a placebo effect, this is manipulation of expectations and is a well in other areas, such as marking the same wine with two different price tags.

</comment><comment><USER10> Theological question? If you substitute AI with God, and ask people not to starve, don't people react in a similar way IRL?

</comment><comment><USER11> Url changed from [http://gizmodo.com/the-placebo-effect-can-make-you-enjoy- the...](http://gizmodo.com/the-placebo-effect-can-make-you-enjoy-the-same-old- vide-1736013951), which points to this.</comment>


RECESS is a simple, attractive code quality tool for CSS - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.github.io/recess/ <comment><USER2> I wonder why twitter decided to roll their own instead of just using JSLint.... Why fragment the field more?

Whenever I am about to start a project, I check if other solutions exist, and weigh introducing fragmentation (of course, it's not guaranteed that I am going to succeed at all), and I know there must be tons of other people smarter than me at Twitter...

<comment><AUTHOR> Erm... JSLint is a JavaScript lint tool. RECESS is for CSS.

<comment><USER2> Oh Sorry I meant CSSLint _</comment></comment></comment>


Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power relatively dangerous - <AUTHOR> http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

<comment><USER2> Okay, that's DIY _rooftop_ installations and though I'm usually against atomic fear-mongering I have to say that it's difficult to accurately gauge the effects of the Chernobyl incident. And to be fair, we also need to count birth defects and other permanent injuries. So I don't know if this is a valid comparison. By the way, without having the facts to support it, I'd wager that fossil fuels cost the most lives of all energy sources, but again, that's also impossible to ever measure accurately and in islolation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, sorry, I had to edit the title to get it into 80 characters, and I cut out "Rooftop". I still thought the comparison was interesting. Edited: title to be a little less alarmist.

<comment><USER2> It is interesting, don't get me wrong! The larger message for me is that we have a lot of strange causes of death, simply because of the large population size. Of course every death is a tragedy to be avoided, but it follows - somewhat counterintuitively - that sometimes a few thousand highly linked and direct casualties drown out an even larger number of people who die routinely without anyone questioning why. The same issue became apparent when we started looking at the number of deaths resulting from terrorism compared to ...pretty much any other cause of death.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous."

In other words, this article only counts the deaths of reactor staff and emergency crew, and goes on to outrightly dismiss cancer deaths.

The article's stated purpose is to show a comparison of death tolls. The dramatic loss of quality of life due to radiation poisoning for thousands of people exposed to the highest levels of radiation surrounding the Chernobyl disaster, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands, is also worth considering when weighing the negative impact.

That said, with Chernobyl, we're talking about the absolute worst-case scenario for a nuclear reactor improperly contained (actually, not contained at all) and neglected long after warning signs were shown. We shouldn't practice historical revisionism or insult its victims by downplaying its impact, but we should also remember that its particular history will not be repeated with the containment barriers and safety measures in place at today's plants.

<comment><USER4> The 4000 people have not started dieing yet. Otherwise the two years of lifespan reduction from air pollution

[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-DW9Uoz93Cvo/TXZo0dHQDNI/A...](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-DW9Uoz93Cvo/TXZo0dHQDNI/AAAAAAAAKow/goGPMXlkyqM/s1600/globalhealthrisks4.jpg)

[http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHe...](http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf)

Would be applied to the shorten lifespans of billions of people.

Air pollution increases the cost of public health by about 30%. The effect is so widespread that people do not know it because it is constant and pervasive

<comment><USER3> To be clear: the NASB estimates that 93,000 deaths so far (as opposed to "eventual" deaths), the ICRIN estimates 500,000 deaths so far, and the RAS estimates 60,000 deaths so far and in Russia alone, were caused by Chernobyl. These are the deaths the article outrightly dismisses in favor of the IAEA/WHO's figure of 9.

The latter figure may be the correct one, but the article is still wrong in using this death toll to decide that "rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power" if Chernobyl is the example of nuclear power against which we are comparing rooftop solar: this is a callous and casual dismissal of the horrific disfigurements we see in children at Novinki, the hundreds of thousands of displaced families, the rescue workers who lost body parts to the cancer they subsequently suffered, and to the many other horrors and humiliations Chernobyl's victims have suffered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Woah, so that basically means that for coal in the US of the 3 or 4 cents per khw (wholesale price, not yet transmitted to your house) there is a hidden cost that is between 35 and 50% more, assuming $1mm / life (a standard non- conservative assumption by engineers). So basically coal isn't worth it at all? It's not just nuclear, natural gas could be made cheaper (and greener) than coal after you take in the human life costs. I also question why the oil cost in human life is so high. Do they take into account oil related conflicts like the Gulf War?

<comment><USER6> I'm doubtful that the large round number quoted as deaths due to coal pollution have any foundation. China has half a million? How can we know that? Its such a large, round, made-up number.

Fewer people die from car accidents. I know several dead from car accidents. Why don't I know one person dead from "coal pollution"?

<comment><USER4> Global health risk studies (by the world Health Organization) compiled many other health impact studies. It was easiest for them to analyze and correlate particulate matter (10 micron and 2.5 micron)

<http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/global-health-risks.html>

[http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHe...](http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf)

In the year 2004, outdoor air pollution in urban areas was responsible for almost 1.2 million deaths (2% of all deaths) and 0.6% of the global burden of disease

Exposure to particulate matter, including metals, has been linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, including modest transient changes in the respiratory tract and impaired pulmonary function, increased risk of symptoms requiring emergency room or hospital treatment, and increased risk of death from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases or lung cancer. Particulate matter is estimated to cause about 8% of deaths from lung cancer, 5% of deaths from cardiopulmonary disease and about 3% of deaths from respiratory infections.

The impact of outdoor air pollution on the burden of disease in the world's cities is large, but an assessment of sources of uncertainty, including the fact that only mortality impacts of exposure to PM were estimated, suggests that the impact is actually underestimated.

The coal pollution deaths are increased heart attacks and lung disease and more hospitalization from asthma and other illnesses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like at some point you also have to factor opportunity cost into this as well--so the numbers probably become even more compelling. So if a form of energy is especially expensive, that's dollars you could have spent on say healthcare, food, etc.

To me this is the real indictment against things like solar, not the risk of people falling off roofs.

<comment><USER8> Another problem is that solar is an alternative to nuclear in the same sense that sex is an alternative to food: no matter how much you enjoy it, attempting full substitution would be fatal. The alternative to nuclear is fossil fuels (+). Thus, you don't get the moderate increase in deaths from going nukes to solar, you get the massive increase in deaths from going nukes to fossil fuels. (And that's before you get to worrying about global warming, if that is your thing.)

There are a variety of reasons for this: the necessity of meeting the base loads, the fact that solar is ridiculously geographically restricted, the cost issues, etc etc.

\+ Or decreasing per capita energy needs to below that of the late 1800s, which has aesthetic appeal to some people but absolutely nothing else to recommend it. Among other reasons, it would condemn the worldwide poor to perpetual grinding poverty, which kills a heck of a lot more people prematurely than _every other cause combined_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > $4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, > which would generate 12 TWh/year

In China maybe, but not in the western world. The EPR for example, is 1.65GWe, and is projected to cost €6.4 billion, or almost $9 billion in Finland. The one being built in France is now projected at €5 billion ($7 bililon), but may cost more as it'll take another 3 years to complete.

<comment><USER10> Why isn't that gap being arbitraged away? Sure reactors aren't exactly portable, but a 5bn gap surely can't be right.

1\. Build reactor pieces in China 4bn 2\. Ship over to Finland at 1bn cost 3\. Installation 2bn 4\. = 2bn profit

<comment><USER11> I'd love to see the NIMBY crowd's take on importing a cut-rate Chinese reactor.

But surely the electricity itself is fungible. I guess there's no grid connecting China to Finland to arbitrage the power directly (or conceivably no way to build Chinese reactors any faster than domestic demand and imperfect pricing mechanisms).

<comment><USER12> Electricity itself is hard to move over large distances due to resistive losses. However, energy-intensive industry will move, accomplishing a similar thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One difference: if you're killed falling off a roof it's probably because you failed to take appropriate safety precautions; if you're killed by one of those other things it's probably because it was out of your control. People are, understandably, happier to take risks where they feel in control of the outcome - which is why so many of them fall off roofs.

</comment><comment><USER14> My first thought is that once a solar panel is installed on the roof, that death rate has to drop nearly to 0. That is, the risk is foremost in hoisting and installing these heavy fragile panels on your pitched roof.

With nuclear, though, I'd think that very little comparative risk is associated with construction. The bulk of the risk is in ongoing operation.

So the die is not yet cast on nuclear deaths.

I'm reminded of a case a few years ago at a nuke plant in Ohio where an acid leak above the reactor head had slowly eaten away... The 6-inch thick reactor head was, in this spot, corroded down to just 1/8 (!!!!) inch thick.

Now, politically, I do favor nuclear power. I think it's a national security issue to wean off fossil fuels. But i think this "study" is a little overheated and needed a healthy dousing of sea-water.

<comment><USER15> How many decades do nuclear plants need to run before you're willing to make a call?

It's stupidly irrational how people require hundreds and hundreds of time more proof for a power source that has OMGRadiation!!1! but require _no_ evidence of the safety of other much _much_ more dangerous sources of power.

<comment><USER16> After three decades of nuclear power went by without incident you'd have presumably have felt confident making the call that there was no threat whatsoever from nuclear power accidents. But the number of deaths attributable to nuclear power in the its fourth decade were more than the first three decades put together. Would it be fair to say that the first three decades weren't a sufficient sample size?

Evaluating the safety record of something which due to extreme safety measures fails only very occasionally, but renders cities unsafe for human habitation and livestock _on the other side of Europe_ unfit for human consumption decades later, clearly requires a different approach to evaluating risk than something which kills people only in regular small industrial accidents during manufacturing and on-site erections.

The _known_ safety record of nuclear power thus far is pretty good, _which is mainly because of huge investment in safety driven by paranoia_. But even looking purely at the catastrophic failure scenario as the only nuclear- related cause of death, if you design nuclear power stations to be able to withstand natural disasters that only occur once every hundred years then you might have to wait sixty years for the first breach and another sixty for the first _bad_ unavoidable breach. Making a call about the long term safety of something which can potentially cut short the life of millions of people just because it hasn't happened yet[1] could be a little premature, although with any luck we'll have something sufficiently better and safer than U235 fission to render most of today's power generation technology obsolete in a couple of decades time anyway.

[1]If you take the most extravagant claimed death figures published by scientists ["Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" - Yablokov; V & A Nesterenko], Chernobyl could have been responsible for the premature deaths of as many as a million.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would also like a more complete comparison of costs (including deaths, loss of arable land, ...) but I very much suspect that the picture would be similar. Renewable energies combined with nuclear energy seem to be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think if more people would operate nuclear power plants in their backyard (as they do with solar panels), we would see a different kind of statistic to emerge.

Also, what goes into this statistic? Maybe a lot of people die in chinese coal mines (don't know), or somewhere where they don't use up to date technology? People die from pollution, but could better filters be installed? And so on...

In the end, no power source will be free of side effects. Best to reduce power consumption.

<comment><USER19> You're missing the point which is that all forms of energy production are unsafe, and all forms of energy production can be made safer, but the public perception of the _relative_ dangers between the different forms is completely wrong, and people are focusing their energy and fears on what _feels_ the most dangerous instead of what actually kills most people.

The events at Fukushima will lead to a global backlash against nuclear power, and some countries will most probably shut down some plants or postpone the building of new ones in response to public fears, and since the same public is unwilling to cut back on their power consumption, some other form has to increase, which means that more people will die.

And to anyone with a rational mindset, this is just infuriating.

<comment><USER18> Let's wait how Fukushima plays out. If all is fine in the end, maybe the public opinion will also turn.

I don't think this "killing most people" comparison is very useful, there some to be a lot of aspects and details missing from the picture.

<comment><USER20> What kinds of "aspects and details" are you thinking of?

<comment><USER18> Production, consumption and disposal of fuels. Is it coal mined in some shoddy third world mine, could things be improved with better technology? (nuclear power received a lot of research money, can the same be said for other power sources?). Environmental impact (oil spills - blame on power plants, or on cars?). Quality of life (just surviving is not enough).

Sustainability (nuclear power also seems to be a limited resource).

small chance for big damage (nuclear power) vs higher chance for lower damage (fossile fuels).

And so on - honestly, I am not an expert on this stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do you know who is completely insane? People who think statistics like "deaths per TWh" have any meaning at all in public policy debates. You're in complete denial if you think the populace at large cares.

</comment><comment><USER22> safety isn't just about deaths. we're all gonna die eventually, independently of our power source.

what is the most important factor to me is the quality of life provided by different energy sources.

personally wind is the big winner there for me.

Full disclosure: I like sailing.

<comment><USER23> Hydro works well here in Sweden: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_Sweden.PNG)

<comment><USER24> And geothermal works pretty well in Iceland, but we're not all in Sweden or Iceland.

<comment><USER22> well, we all live on planet Earth, so the question about geothermal is just about how deep you're willing to dig. Geothermal is pretty nice IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Disingenuous opinionated twaddle masquerading as statistical reasoning.

<comment><USER15> Because you have some sort of substantiative criticism, or because it challenges your preconceptions and you have no rational response to make to it?

<comment><USER25> They're comparing an arbitrary and selective pool of deaths to the modern death rate of roofers & DIY and pretending it has some significance in energy policy. If you take that seriously maybe you need to look closely at why you're so keen on such questionable material.</comment></comment></comment>


In Antarctic dry valleys, early signs of climate change-induced shifts in soil - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-01-antarctic-valleys-early-climate-change-induced.html <comment><USER2> "In a study spanning two decades, a team of researchers led by Colorado State University found declining numbers of..."

20 years, is but a blink of an eye. It takes us back to 1997 only. What was the longer term trend ? How would they know if we started in a local maximum, or how often populations rebound ?

I complain that we barely have enough arctic and antarctic satellite samples and we have those from 1979.

So any decline of anything is linked to climate change automatically ?? That doesn't follow at all.

<comment><USER3> Your comment history shows a rather singular affliction for climate change submissions, along with a very common dismissal.

<comment><USER4> Attack the argument not the person making the argument. I believe that climate change is a major problem and we need to take steps to mitigate it, I also agree with the gp that the media is using a lot of crap logic and crap science to try and fight the good fight but in the end it's only going to give cover to climate sceptics.

<comment><USER3> Except there's no argument to attack. They never offer any argument or solution and instead seek to spread basic fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). It's most certainly valid to attack the person when that person has shown a pattern of action that is not based on anything substantive.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Payoff.io - <AUTHOR> http://payoff.io

<comment><AUTHOR> I created this because other sites I used to track and compare debt payoff plans were missing a few features that I thought would be good to have. For one, I wanted to quickly see how minor changes to my payment plans would have a big impact in the long run. Second, I wanted the ability for the loan info to save locally, so that the next time I went to the site I could view my info without needing to log in or re-enter my info. Lastly, I wanted a schedule that told me exactly how much I should pay to each loan for each month, and to get this schedule in an easy to read format.

The site might still have a few bugs, and it could definitely use some optimization. However, I have been excited creating this and using it myself that I felt I should share it now before I added it to my list of abandoned projects.

<comment><USER2> Haha, I was just toying with an idea much like this. Do you have any interest in open sourcing this or doing further development?

PS. I can't seem to save a new Loan. The whole page freezes up when I try.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking it out! Yes to both of your questions. I do want to let others contribute, but I also have more features I want to add that I haven't gotten around to just yet. One would be mobile/tablet support.

I could be wrong, but there is one bug which doesn't stop you from putting in a loan which would never be paid off--based on the balance, APR, and minimum payments entered. I need to put in an evaluation before the details are submitted and pop up an error message if that's the case, but right now it locks up the browser.</comment></comment></comment>


Building Twilio Client for Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.twilio.com/engineering/2012/05/17/building-twilio-client-for-android

<comment><USER2> Any word when twilio client will run on WebRTC? Sound quality on the current flash client makes it almost unusable...

<comment><USER3> We are working on it. The WebRTC API is still a bit unstable though I believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel like I'm missing something here. What does the Twilio mobile API give that isn't built into the phone?

<comment><USER5> I don't know how it is on Android but on iOS for example, you can make phone calls only the Phone app. For example, the Yelp app gives you the business info and when you tap the phone number it switches to the Phone app. For the most part, that's fine but having an SDK like Twilio allows you to keep the phone calls and the user inside your app.

That can be pretty interesting in terms of user experience where your user stays in the same context instead of switching back-and-forth between your app and the Phone app.

<comment><USER6> Also, there are plenty of Android devices (tablets, PMPs etc) that don't have a phone function.

(Twilio employee)</comment></comment></comment>


Robinhood Traders Discovered a Glitch That Gave Them 'Infinite Leverage' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/robinhood-has-a-glitch-that-gives-traders-infinite-leverage <comment><USER2> The person that posted the $1M position using $4K ([https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drqaro/robi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drqaro/robinhood_free_money_cheat_works_pretty_well_1/)) hasn't said that Robinhood has shut him down yet, which is crazy to think.

Ultimately Robinhood screwed up, so I don't know if they really want to expose themselves any further by trying to go to court with any of these people. That would do more damage to their reputation/valuation than resolving these cases as quickly and amicably as possible.

I personally can't believe this is still unresolved, though. The original $50k Apple puts guy uploaded the video last week, and these copycats were still able to exploit the issue. As on right now, I don't think it's yet fixed. Why didn't Robinhood fix the bug over the weekend? Why aren't they treating this like a massive legal issue/regulatory violation? It's so strange.

<comment><USER3> Yes, that this bug has existed so long after it was used and publicized is scary. If it goes on too long, Robinhood becomes insolvent because they absorb the losses but pass the winnings on to their customers.

Which leads me to believe this has already happened and Robinhood is falling apart organizationally as they realize they don't have enough money to cash everyone out. Which in turn means they need to keep it quiet or else there will be a "run on the bank".

<comment><USER4> >If it goes on too long, Robinhood becomes insolvent because they absorb the losses but pass the winnings on to their customers.

Companies rarely absorb losses due to "abuse" by their users. Even when it is entirely the fault of the corp. I'm sure they have small print somewhere that absolves them of all responsibility for trades that do not meet some arbitrary guidelines.

It would likely require a class action lawsuit by the users, and get dragged out for years. They have more to worry about from the SEC on this then paying their users, if history is a predictor for this.

<comment><USER5> Where exactly do you think the money is going to come from? These people are taking $2k and making trades that are losing $500k. They never had $500k. Robinhood is still out of that money, regardless of their guilt or whether they are convicted/sued/etc. There is no money to chase after. That's why this sort of thing is so insane.

<comment><USER6> What happens in a normal brokerage when someone, despite the brokerage's risk management checks, manages to get a margin deficiency that they cannot possibly rectify by liquidating their holdings or depositing cash? Serious non-rhetorical question, I have no idea...

<comment><USER7> The more interesting question here is what Robinhood's clearing house is exposed to. It's been a while since I looked but they don't clear themselves and the clearing house may have had exposure.

If that's the case you can expect the relationship to change. Robinhood will either lose some capabilities or will pay more for clearing.

<comment><USER3> Looks like Robinhood is now Robinhood's clearing broker: [https://robinhood.com/support/articles/360001397126/whats- cl...](https://robinhood.com/support/articles/360001397126/whats-clearing-by- robinhood/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As ridiculous as all of this is, there's some poetry in a company called Robinhood taking angel investment from various billionaires and using it to give millions of dollars in (probably) free leverage to teenagers.

<comment><USER9> But the real recipients of the money are the traders (hedge funds, market makers, etc) on the other side of the transaction.

So, it's a cash flow of billionaires -> teenager margin account -> billionaires.

"He stole from the rich, and he gave... Well, he airdropped the money over a gated billionaire neighbourhood." doesn't make the most catchy song for a folk hero.

<comment><USER10> Eh, if I did this and I came up in the black off on a play with $1M in free leverage I would just close the position, pay off the margin and dip without posting about it. If like five people posted about it and lost money, there are probably a couple winners who are lying low, even just completely randomly assuming the traders have absolutely no signal whatsoever in their choice of play.

<comment><USER9> But in that case, since the margin was returned, RobinHood, or its investors didn't lose anything. So, the analogy still doesn't hold. :)

<comment><USER11> You're not understanding the math here.

RobinHood is essentially lending unlimited money to the teenagers in question. Assume, as an oversimplification, half of them will win big, and half of them will lose it all.

For the wins, the teenagers will keep it all, and for the losses, RobinHood will have to pay for it, because the teenagers don't have the money and will declare bankruptcy if RobinHood tries to recover it. This is a net wealth transfer from RobinHood to the teenagers.

The net wealth transfer looks like this:

teenagers: +lots of money

traders on the other side of the transactions: approximately +0 (wins and losses cancel out)

RobinHood: -lots of money

You can play games with which money comes from where, but you can't deny the way the money is flowing on net.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It will be interesting to see if Robinhood will go after (i.e., pursue claims in court) teenagers who get carried away and rack up $50k+ deficits from this. The article links to a Youtube video of a young person watching their account (which they used this bug to accumulate a $50k+ position in Apple puts right before they beat earnings recently) evaporate in front of their eyes, going deep into negative territory. Even though Robinhood has a good legal claim here, it would be very bad PR for people to start thinking that they can lose a lot more than they put into their accounts. Bad enough that you can lose all of that in the blink of an eye with margin trading, but it should be impossible to mortgage your whole future that way!

<comment><USER13> I visit /r/wsb pretty frequently, so I would like to add two bits of information that might change your mind.

1) The user /u/ControlTheNarrative (CTN) made plenty of posts before losing the money where he made it very clear he knew exactly what he was doing. He had a post where he spelled out exactly how to gain the extra leverage and that his "personal risk tolerance" meant he could handle 25:1 leverage. Additionally, his response after the fact was something along the lines of "once I earn another $2000, I plan on doing this again". This kid didn't just click a wrong button and end up with the extra leverage, he was well aware of what he was doing.

2) Take this one with a major grain of salt, but based CTN's comments in the original posts and some comments by other users, it seems like this might not have been the first time CTN has used this exact trick to blow up an account. When the video was first posted, multiple commenters mentioned that he'd done it before and some of CTN's comments after the fact seem to hint at that. Again, take this with a huge grain of salt since I have nothing concrete to back that up.

The last time RH was in the news for some user losing way more money than they had (IR0NYMAN) I actually felt for the user a little bit and can understand why RH (supposedly) didn't go after the money after the fact. IR0NYMAN was creating box spreads, which can be a legitimate strategy, although they are very hard to find a situation where you can make money with them. That user stupidly didn't understand RH's rules around options exercise which is how he got screwed, but had he been able to hold all his contracts to exp (like European options allow) he actually would have been fine.

I can understand RH writing off IR0NYMAN's debt because it didn't seem like the user truly understood what he was doing, but this one feels different, IMO.

<comment><USER6> If you try to sign up for options (or margin) trading on any brokerage, none of them will let you do it unless you affirmatively confirm that you understand that: not only can you lose your ass trading derivatives, but you can lose asses that you don't currently have and you can lose asses that you didn't even know exist.

Doesn't RobinHood have these disclosures and gates?

<comment><USER14> There is no requirement that you understand anything except how to check that checkbox that says, "yeah, yeah, I promise I read the PDF you sent. Let me trade da options!!!"

<comment><USER15> Some brokers have different levels of option trading privileges, and require you to attest to a certain amount of experience to get to the highest.

I'm not sure if there are any consequences to lying about your experience, but in principle, you are claiming certain facts in writing, not just saying you read a disclaimer or educational material.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really liked this ELI5 explanation how does it work

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dqg6xx/infi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dqg6xx/infinite_leverage_explained/)

The original guy (CTN) stopped at 50k and posted the famous video where he basically lost everything but that's another story lol [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tNkuYV4_Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tNkuYV4_Q)

People were speculating that what would be the uppermost limit before Robinhood does anything and turns out you can even get $1m...

<comment><USER17> What the hell was this guys APPL position, and why did he not know what would happen long before market open?

<comment> 1-more Also he picked his position because he thought apple was overvalued due to having too many female execs. Even if we concede his point, that should be priced into the stock already, no?

<comment><USER18> It may be priced in the stock if other traders have the same logic.

If you think it's a good investment thesis, a better strategy would be to build a portfolio where you go long on a basket of stocks with "not too many female execs" and another, offsetting, short basket of stocks with "too many female execs". If you do that properly, you should be able to almost entirely eliminate market and industry risk and basically "amplify" your investment thesis.

<comment><USER19> This is what a hedge fund originally was (now usually referred to as long short equity funds). Relative value trading. A lost art in our current central bank driven markets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> The person that got $1M has very limited upside though because they sold deep in the money call options on the same stock that they own, Ford ($F). This is known as a covered call e.g. as the price moves up your stock is worth more but the premiums on the call options you sold increase as well, limiting your profit.

On the other hand, if the stock tanks you will still lose, though the premiums from your options you wrote will cushion your downside.

The Youtube guy owned naked puts, which is far riskier than covered calls.

<comment><USER20> Selling deep ITM options is one step in the "hack" to create infinite leverage / infinite buying power.

Buying weekly OTM options is the "yolo" they do once they mess up Robinhood's margin into giving them hundreds of thousands of USD of buying power.

<comment><USER2> Right, but looking at the $1M guy's positions he doesn't own naked calls/puts it's mostly a covered call on $F.

<comment><USER20> That's actually super smart.

If you ever get such ridiculous margin you should buy things that have high chances of very small profit, such as selling deep OTM options or credit spreads. Wait for expiration, unfold the scheme, collect your profits, disappear.

If you leverage up to $1M a small 2% profit with 95% chances of success is an easy thing to achieve by selling options, and would pay you $20k instantly. In the 5% outcome your margin will just totally blow up, like LTCM in 2000, or the whole idiotic concept of Value-at-Risk in 2008.

<comment><USER21> A 2% profit with a 5% chance of going busto doesn't sound like a super smart trade, unless I'm missing something.

<comment><USER22> 95% probability of winning 2% of $1mn = $20k

5% probability of losing $4k

Not so bad (if you can get away with it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> From the article:

>The problem arises when Robinhood incorrectly adds the value of those calls to the user's own capital.

This is not precise. Premiums received from short options positions _do_ get added to your "capital" and show up as cash in your account. You will accrue interest, etc. on this cash like any other cash in your account. The premiums should _not_ increase your margin/buying power which is where RH made a mistake.

<comment><USER24> Not quite. The issue is that Robinhood incorrectly valued the stock collateral covering a short call position. It should be valued at the strike price of the call option, rather than the current spot price of the security.

Eg, suppose FOO is trading at $100/share, and you have $5k of cash and $5k of free margin. You use all $10k to buy 100 shares, then sell a call option with a strike of $60 for $40/share.

Under RH's calculations, you have $5k of account equity, $10k of stock and $4000 of cash from selling the call. This qualifies you for a margin loan of up to $9k.

Under the correct calculation, the stock is only worth at maximum the $60/share strike price of the short option, since that is the cash you'd get if the option is exercised. So you have $5k of account equity, $4k of cash, and $6k worth of net marginable securities.

The advantage of this is that it treats out-of-the-money covered calls better. If you sold a call option on FOO with a strike of $105 for $2/share, you should have $200 extra free to spend on stuff. Selling extrinsic value _should_ wind up generating net cash that users can use for whatever purpose they want. Selling intrinsic value, on the other hand, is selling a portion of the economic right to the underlying.

<comment><USER25> This seems like the sort of thing that happens when the people writing the code don't know the domain, and the domain experts can't express how the software needs to be tested.

<comment><USER24> This entire class of bugs should be caught via fuzz testing. Swap out the live back-end with one that fakes execution against a snapshot of prices, do whatever you can do, and verify position sizes are within leverage limits.

<comment><USER25> That probably would help. I _think_ a properly functioning margin system would never result in negative balances on liquidation, as long as the fake executions were filled at exactly the trigger price. Doing crazy but valid shit and looking for negative balances would probably catch other issues too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "...I repeat this until I am sufficiently leveraged for my Personal Risk Tolerance. Right now I am at 25x leverage because I had 2000 dollars in Instant Deposits."

Of course it's within his risk tolerance. He has the potential to turn $50K into a lot more money and would only lose $2k if it goes south (and it did.)

It's going to be a sad day if Robinhood goes under because a bunch of gamblers lost Robinhood a couple million dollars. It'd also be sad for them if in later developments they find out their Margin Call feature didn't work as advertised.

<comment><USER27> it's their own damn fault. Turns out "Move fast and break things" doesn't necessarily apply to all industries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Summary: Robinhood's margin system is completely broken and allows for practically infinite leverage. One guy leveraged up to 1'279'550 USD on a 4'000 USD deposit.

Current "leaderboard":

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drt5tr/guh_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drt5tr/guh_of_fame_2019/)

And an outbreak of memes on Reddit:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dr4iem/cont...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dr4iem/control_your_autism/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drxcpw/this...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drxcpw/this_one_is_for_the_history_books/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drsxau/the_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drsxau/the_new_brokerage_war/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dr3eki/say_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dr3eki/say_something_im_guhving_up_on_you_official_music/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dpwa5v/in_l...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dpwa5v/in_light_of_todays_events_i_have_decided_to_be/)

People wondering what is Robinhood even doing, and that it's in violation of the federal law:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drmr6y/how_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drmr6y/how_the_fuck_does_robinhood_exist/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drn8gf/this...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/drn8gf/this_sub_has_gone_to_a_new_level/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dr6gus/robi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/dr6gus/robinhood_is_in_violation_of_finra_rules/)

<comment><USER28> Haha thanks for this, I haven't been laughing this hard in weeks!

The best meme was someone saying, it's now only a matter of time before Masayoshi Son invests in Robin Hood!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Chris Sacca took advantage of a similar glitch in the early days of online brokerages. [1] The leverage yielded phenomenal returns before it sent him into $4M of personal debt. It took him years to climb back up to $0.

[1]: [https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/chris- saccathe...](https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/chris- saccathe-4million-negative-balance-salinger-group-twitter/)

<comment><USER30> He was able to negotiate that $4M debt down to $2.125M, [A] proving once again that if you owe the bank $100 million, it's the bank's problem.

[A]: [https://pando.com/2012/11/01/how-chris-sacca-turned-his- stud...](https://pando.com/2012/11/01/how-chris-sacca-turned-his-student- loans-into-12-million-and-then-lost-it-all/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Of course /r/WallStreetBets did this.

</comment><comment><USER32> Isn't this essentially how the entire world economy works? This is exactly what it means when you saw headlines like "$60 trillion of derivatives are poised to come crashing down" around the time of the 2008 financial crisis. It's futures on leverage on futures on leverage, with all different kinds of counterparties sucked into the tangle.

</comment><comment><USER33> I know basically nothing about finance. But /r/wallstreetbets is endlessly entertaining.

<comment><USER34> > I know basically nothing about finance.

Neither does anyone on r/wsb, which is why it is entertaining.

<comment><USER35> Lot of it is a facade for entertainment value. A bunch of posters trade for a living. You'll see screenshots of Bloomberg terminals.

<comment><USER36> For reference, Bloomberg terminal costs $24,000 per year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is legendary - leave it to WSB for gaming this. The fact that Robinhood even allows recursive margin is a total failure on their part.

<comment><USER38> I'm just waiting for Bloomberg to add haupt91 videos on the front page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Makes smartphone investment product catering to unsophisticated and younger investors.

Makes options trading available to these customers.

Screws up risk management by incorrectly adding the value of those positions to customer's margin liquidity.

Incurs losses as a result.

::surprised pikachu::

"If you take advantage of someone's mistake to line your own pockets, you need to pay them back." \-- if that were the actual governing law I can only imagine that many brokerages catering primarily to unsophisticated investors (not to mention credit cards, and many other financial services) would be having a pretty bad time.

</comment><comment><USER40> Has this been fixed yet? It seems like a company-ending disaster for Robinhood if the bug remains exploitable now that it's on Bloomberg.

<comment><USER18> If they actually have a proper portfolio pricing model (to compute the available margin), and they're just missing one use case, then that should be relatively simple to fix. A few days, or a few hours if they really put their heart into it.

If they're completely lacking an option pricing model... they're just not going to add one overnight. They'll have to add a standard model (most likely Black Scholes), come up with an estimation of volatility to feed into it (you can extract it from the market; implied volatility), and also solve the problem of linking derivatives to their underlying. In any case this is not a simple arithmetic accounting issue.

<comment><USER41> This seems to the be case given that so far all they have done is freeze accounts and blacklist attractive options of used for this play.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Chris Sacca (legendary VC) exploited a similar bug in his early days.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Sacca#Stocks_and_Fenwick...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Sacca#Stocks_and_Fenwick_&_West)

> Sacca used his student loans to start a company during law school, and when > the venture proved unsuccessful he used the remaining funds to start trading > on the stock market. By leveraging trades for significant amounts > (discovering a flaw in the software of online trading brokers in 1998)[18] > he managed to turn $10–20 thousand dollars into $12 million by 2000.[19] > Eventually, when the market crashed, Sacca found himself in debt with a four > million dollar negative balance.[18] He negotiated to have it reduced to > $2.125 million[17] and had repaid it by February 2005.[18]

</comment><comment><USER43> Given Robinhood's lack of quality control, I'm not sure why anyone uses them anymore. ETrade has free trades now (thanks Robinhood!) and a much more robust platform and API, and a hell of a lot more assets backing them.

What is the advantage of Robinhood over ETrade at this point?

<comment><USER44> >What is the advantage of Robinhood over ETrade at this point?

This type of yolo nonsense and pure comedy value, from what I can gather.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> If you have any amount of money or equity held by Robinhood, you should seriously consider moving it to another broker.

This has the potential to end the company financially (at least until another round of funding bails them out) or regulatory (if they lose their licence over this).

<comment><USER46> Just because RH is in legal/regulatory trouble does not mean your money is just going to disappear. It's a fiduciary, not an ICO. Financial firms must have disaster plans that involve giving or transferring all of your assets back to you if it all ends. Selling your positions because of this would be a misinformed decision.

<comment><USER45> > Selling your positions because of this would be a misinformed decision.

That is why I specified moving. That should not be parsed as "sell everything".

My concern would not be losing my money/positions. My concern is Robinhood losing its license and then being stuck on a comically long cue while they hire 5 under-motivated temps to handle hundred of thousands of account transfers. Their customer support is already terrible now. I can only imagine what that incompetence + financial collapse + end of operations would look like.

I am assuming the prospect of being locked out of your accounts for several weeks/months would be stressful, not to mention the monumental task that may be involved in getting certain records back in place for tax season.

<comment><USER46> I worked at a fiduciary that went down so feel confident speaking to this. You're still not getting it. It's not like other startups that fail where you just get some temps and hope it solves itself. You have a specific timetable from the moment you lose your license to transferring every cent out. Past that window, there are penalties and further legal problems with the SEC. It's safe to say anybody – even slimy companies – are in full overdrive as this is going down.

ACAT is not that simple. Most brokerages charge you a fee of upwards of $50 to do it. If the brokerage is going down and they must invoke an ACAT for you, they eat the fee. Again, it's misinformed to be incurring charges and even potentially taxable events because of your philosophical beliefs in the success or failure of a company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Someone on reddit posted this, which makes it seem like Robinhood support is actually ok with the strategy: [https://m.imgur.com/a/g4tpH9y](https://m.imgur.com/a/g4tpH9y)

Of course I can't verify the authenticity, but it doesn't look good for them. In particular it seems almost financially smart to make incredibly risky plays on huge amounts of margin if you actually have very little in terms of assets, because the downside is you declare bankruptcy (doesn't matter, you had no money) and the upside is hundreds of thousands of dollars

<comment><USER2> They aren't OK with it - it's a legitimate bug because it violates FINRA rules around margin trading that they have to comply with.

<comment><USER47> I agree that it violates my layman understanding of FINRA, I'm just saying that RH support doesn't seem to be aware of that

<comment><USER2> Well it's not their frontline's fault but RH's executive team that is ultimately responsible. They've been in business for 6-7 years now and just discovered this issue? It's unacceptable, IMO. Hard to take them seriously when things like this happen.

<comment><USER41> You ever use RH? It's been hard to take them seriously since day 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> these people should just trade futures - you can buy a treasury bond future at effectively ~70x leverage without trying to defraud your broker...

<comment><USER12> Real brokers like InteractiveBrokers make you fill in a survey where you detail your experience and trading history before enabling you to do highly levered futures trading (and lying to them about this dramatically weakens any legal protections you might otherwise enjoy as a customer). Also, they have much tighter risk controls and will liquidate an account automatically if it gets to a dangerous level. And they also require a significantly larger account size before they will enable margin-- an amount that most teenagers are unlikely to have in liquid assets.

<comment><USER49> all futures brokers have to do this to extent, and theyre all good things.

you can day trade futures (ignoring newer cme e micros) with a $500 deposit and its an awful idea for a plethora of reasons, but grown adults do it day in and day out blowing out over and over. its clear this leverage needs a little more oversight.

i will note however, i found myself over leveraged in an options position in august 2015 using TDA, and my account went very negative as the platform went completely down for the entire day and no automated or human risk liquidated it on their side..

<comment><USER12> What happened in your case? Did you have to pay back the loan or were you able to walk away from it?

<comment><USER49> this was futures options positions. when the platform came up the next day (mind you, no one was answering the phone the times i called, i bet others got killed), I had money in my account so i didn't get what i completely deserved.

I was trying to get some hedges in as soon as ES opened limit down again and i did manage to get a few off. ToS data was nearly instantly frozen so I was using another feed to gauge my orders. I digress with thinkorswim is not good for heavy intraday (and the market data is pretty bad anyway).

after this event, i changed brokerages and focused 100% on day trading and make a living, so it wasnt all bad i guess!

I can only image robinhood has no risk desk, or automated system that do not work correctly for non-trivial option legs

<comment><USER50> What did you switch to, IB?

<comment><USER49> nah, a smaller boutique ish futures broker. IB has excellent order execution and absolutely horrible market data, but i used to use IB with CQG data until they instituted a monthly fee to accounts with high risk positions in (i had a small amount of naked puts, but the fee easily became substantial). i do recommend them if you dont write naked puts etc and dont day trade or use other data

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The fact that the app doesn't prevent you from doing this doesn't make it ok to do. It's pretty likely that borrowing and trading on the basis of nonexistent collateral is securities fraud.

I'm not an expert eg I haven't even done series 7 but I did the comparable securities certification in the UK some time ago and exploiting this "glitch" to trade using leverage without real underlying collateral would almost certainly be considered fraud in the UK irrespective of whether the app allowed it. In the UK regulatory regime Robin Hood would likely also be liable for different reasons.

Dealbreaker (fwiw) seems to agree with me - its strapline for this story is "Press X, Y, Down, Down, Left, Y, X for what has to be securities fraud."

[https://dealbreaker.com/2019/11/robinhood-has-a- securities-f...](https://dealbreaker.com/2019/11/robinhood-has-a-securities- fraud-glitch)

</comment><comment><USER52> As a RH user, the fact that this is possible really scares me that there will be intervention/repercussions and that Robinhood doesn't know what they're doing. Is it possible for the FTC (or whichever entity) to freeze these guys' operations? Should I liquidate and move all my shares elsewhere ASAP?

<comment><USER53> As someone posted elsewhere, you are fine: [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050515/what-...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050515/what- happens-when-stock-broker-goes-bust.asp)

That said, the only thing RH really has going for it is their decent UI experience. Everything that else matters sucks: Customer support, terrible price fills, uptime, and apparently their ability to write software which protects the end user as we are finding out.

As an option trader on the side I moved to Tasty Works awhile back, the same team that made TD Ameritrade's Think or Swim software, and a company which runs a daily 8 hour show focused on learning for free. Shameless signup link with referral code: [https://start.tastyworks.com/#/login?referralCode=2GSNAJGJSQ](https://start.tastyworks.com/#/login?referralCode=2GSNAJGJSQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> [https://outline.com/sCeKc7](https://outline.com/sCeKc7)

<comment><USER55> Didn't know this service existed, how do they not get taken down for rehosting content without permission?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Someone has used this to turn $3000 into $1.7m now...

Top post in /r/wallstreetbets

From his screenshot - Margin Health GOOD ....

</comment><comment><USER57> They don't seem to have a page for their exec team (isn't that odd? I looked really hard) so here's the next best thing:

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/robinhood/current_em...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/robinhood/current_employees/current_employees_image_list)

(backup image: [https://i.imgur.com/tEx7uT8.png](https://i.imgur.com/tEx7uT8.png))

"About us" in the footer now links to a separate careers site. I'm sensing a certain feeling of panicking/distancing going on here, because of that odd choice.

</comment><comment><USER58> I recommend you read the article's legal input before you try this for yourself. Apparently the best case scenario is that those who exploit this pay restitution and the worst case is that they are tried for securities fraud.

</comment><comment><USER59> Robinhood has lots of bugs. Several of investments show an average cost of $0.00 with no market buys. And yesterday it was showing results out to Q2-2020 (?). I email them and they don't address it.

<comment><USER60> Aren't they supposed to only hire these Ivy League super geniuses and ex-FAANG HackerRank masters (I am not in the US so I genuinely don't know)?

It is kind of funny to see these tech geniuses fuck stuff up that non college educated degen brokers understood decades ago.

<comment><USER61> HackerRank measures your adeptness at answering contrived programming questions.

Not domain knowledge application to keep yourself from unknowingly creating a system that automates Federal Reserve margin trading regulation violations.

Also, given FAANG's current position, (of all being in one way or another under Congressional/regulatory scrutiny) I'd say that HackerRank fixation isn't turning out so hot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Why doesn't Robinhood just close the positions?

I'm pretty sure you could try something similar at any broker (write options, use the premium to buy on margin, rinse repeat), not all will block the trades but they do an account exposure/margin assessment periodically (hourly? daily?) and then take action.

For example a full service broker might call you and tell you to get within limits (a "margin call"). Low cost brokers like IB will just close all your positions regardless of loss.

</comment><comment><USER63> So I've said this multiple times in various forums for a while now: Robinhood is a gambling platform. The SEC should step in and treat gambling platforms like we treat casinos. There should be clear distinctions with platforms that give you Investment access and tools for your retirement. Versus video game high frequency trading.

</comment><comment><USER64> I think this will be the third time Robinhood has to address something that happened by way of /r/wallstreetbets...

</comment><comment><USER65> Now that trades are free everywhere, nothing sets apart Robinhood anymore. Robinhood may yet become the next WeWork.

<comment><USER66> No one else offers free options trades aside from RH

<comment><USER15> Considering the size of the spread on most options, why would you focus on commissions?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> They had better shut this down asap. WSB has enough crazy people that'll go full YOLO

</comment><comment><USER68> Wow. And I thought this (amateurs building financial systems) only happened in crypto.

Just wow.

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash The GUH heard 'round the world.

It should be noted that r/wsb is having a field day with people abusing the system left and right for lulz. At this point, the issue for RH isn't as much their bug as it is herd behavior.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is perfect for their name. Passing money from rich (VCs) to poor people

<comment><USER15> If someone gets a lot of leverage, makes a wild bet, loses, and then there is an uncollectable debt, then someone out there made a lot of money that Robinhood is possibly out, and the recipient probably wasn't poor beforehand.

Robin Hood of myth was not a person known for being robbed by poor people who gave his wealth to the rich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'm not really well versed in stock trading but isn't there a thing called margin call that would close the position once the traders loss is close to his balance? Why isn't it happening in this case?

<comment><USER71> Well, when you owe your broker $5,000, it's your problem.

When dozens of Robinhooders owe their broker $100,000, it's Robinhood's problem.

In this case, Robinhood generally applies margin calls near the end of the trading day. However, in this case, the trader's account equity went from $50,000 to -$100,000 in the span of seconds.

Robinhood did in fact liquidate his position at the end of day preventing further losses, but they are already on the hook for a 6-digit sum. (Yes, legally margin debt is the trader's problem. But I doubt they will/can collect on this.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> These are the assets that your Robinhood checking account is giving you (with SIPC).

Aka, another bank.

Why the SIPC allows them to run a half-baked investment bank providing free leverage to all is I guess the real mystery here.

</comment><comment><USER73> Does anyone knows if this is a RobinHood only thing or are other brokerage- fintech vulnerable to that?

<comment><USER63> This is a bug in RH only in how they calculate loans in their account

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Quote of the day from the reddit discussion:

Just block margin so she can't call you.

<comment><USER75> Just call her Margo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> How is this not fraud?

<comment><USER75> If a bank agrees to lend you $1M against your $500k house, and you are completely honest with them about your earnings (say $50k/year), send legit paperwork etc. then you accept the loan (even though you know it's "too much"), is that fraud?

<comment><USER77> If you borrow money knowing you can't or won't pay it back then yes, it's fraud. But it's more complicated in this case, because the dude could argue he expected major gains and believed there was no way he could lose.

<comment><USER75> Yes, but "the dude can argue" can apply to the house example. "I planned to rent out the rooms". "I planned to get a better job". "The house is worth $1M to the right buyer", etc.

If someone lends you money on the basis of honest information you present to them I don't see how it is fraud. It might be unwise to take such loans, but that's a different thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> The new high score is $1.7mil. Bloomberg can't keep up!

</comment><comment><USER79> How does this company still have a BD license?

</comment><comment><USER80> Robin Hood said this behavior is okay

</comment><comment><USER81> I tried to read the Bloomberg article & the subreddit wallstreebets but I cannot understand if this is just a mobile game people play or a real money scheme?

<comment><USER82> Robinhood is an app that lets you trade, it's all real trading on the same market as everyone else, it's just an app allowing you access. WallStreetBets is just a community of "investors" who trade on real markets, but with Robinhood having such a low barrier to entry they often trade using it. (Screenshots of Robinhood trades going really well or really badly are a staple of WallStreetBets humour).

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> (I also posted this on /r/wallstreetbets)

CLEARLY, Robinhood knows about the infinite leverage bug, they have the capital, resources and engineers to fix it in a day if they want.

Why are they not doing it? Are they stupid or what? Let's think about it for a second.

There are two possible outcomes here:

Let's say you do some leverage, and then use that leverage to lose 100k+, they can eat the loss briefly, and then they use collection agents to collect YOUR money. Robinhood will recoup the 100k$

You use the same leverage to gain 100k+, then, when you go to cash out to your bank, their audit team blocks the payment, saying that you "Violated the Terms of Service", by using a bug to make that amount of money. Thus, robinhood pockets 100k$. You can't sue them to get that money back, because you violated their TOS.

If I was Robinhood CEO, that's what I would do, a 100% legal, safe way to get rich quickly.

Prove me wrong.

<comment><USER84> What you've described is a very quick way to lose your broker dealers license, and get in massive shit from multiple federal agencies, not a safe way to get rich.

> CLEARLY, Robinhood knows about the infinite leverage bug

This is the same company that offered FDIC insured savings and checking accounts, while not actually being covered by FDIC. They have always taken a move fast a break things approach, and then had to cover their asses when regulators step in.

<comment><USER85> SIPC insured.</comment></comment></comment>


UK e-petition: Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content - <AUTHOR> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746?utm_content=buffer2a7c2&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer <comment><USER2> The last thing this situation needs is a bit of petition-based slacktivism to calm people's nerves.

Petitions do absolutely nothing. Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single petition in recent history that has done anything other than given its signers a false sense of contribution towards a cause. I'd go as far as to say that pushing petitions probably damages a cause more than aids it.

If you want to change something, you get some people together and start a rally, or get people inundate your representative's inbox with mail from angry voters who don't want to see a measure pass.

<comment><USER3> I don't think rallies really change anything either, unless they are large enough to really disrupt other media coverage and shift public opinion. Which is rare.

Polls change things. Politicians pretend to care about phone calls to their office and letters, but they're really paying attention to public opinion, as represented by public opinion polls. They will never do anything unless the math adds up, unless doing so keeps them safe (or safer) in their job. They will never do anything unless you force them to do so by shifting public opinion.

People get the government they deserve. Cameron is only doing this because he thinks this is what the majority of British people want, or at least wouldn't mind. Make the argument to the people, not the politicians.

<comment><USER4> It would appear polls don't change things either. Cameron and the Tories have been consistently polling badly. As for getting the government we deserve, this is a coalition, the public voted and no one won, we didn't ask for this government. Cameron has no mandate from the electorate, he is doing this because he is a bad person.

I'll tell you what really works. Riots. In my memory, the only time I can remember the UK Government bending to the will of the people was after the poll tax riots.

To help illustrate the futility of trying to engage with the UK government via peaceful means: At least 750,000 people marched on London to oppose the Iraq war and the government ignored every single one of them. And the protestors were right, dead right and not one single politician involved has ever acknowledged the failure to act on the overwhelming will of the people.

I personally have come to believe that There is no chance for democracy and no chance for diplomacy in this country. Our laws are drafted by the CEOs and stakeholders of private organisations who we do not vote for, and yet they have seemingly unfettered access to our MPs. When that scheming little turd of a man Lord Mandleson was against the Digital Economy Act, all it took was an invite to David Geffen's private villa and the man had a complete turn around on the issue. Come on for Christ sake, they can't even be bothered to hide their corruption anymore. Mere weeks ago a gaggle of MPs were caught taking money (or so they thought) to ask questions in the House of Commons. That is unquestionable illegal behaviour and to my knowledge not a single MP has been charged or even removed from the house.

I'm pulling my hair out wondering what the hell we're going to do about it. I write to MPs all the time with questions or to have hem clarify their thinking on certain issues and I hear nothing back. They do not care. However, when I wrote to the President of the EU, I had a response within a week. An unsatisfactory response but certainly not a boiler plate.

I think we've left it so long and done so little to keep our democracy healthy that we have a high price to pay if we want to fix it. But then there's an even higher price to pay if we don't, so fuck it, viva la revolucion!

<comment><USER5> > As for getting the government we deserve, this is a coalition, the public > voted and no one won, we didn't ask for this government.

That's an interesting take on coalition government. In continental Europe they are generally seen in a more favourable light. (Though, in proportional representation one party governments are much less likely.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having signed a number of these in the past I can predict what the official response will be. They will say that they are not forcing anyone and that the system is entirely voluntary. They'll say it's on by default merely to help protect children from accessing inappropriate content, and they'll say that the block lists are under constant review by a panel of independent experts.

<comment><USER7> The point isn't to come up with a petition that the government is unable to think of a response to, the point is to show that censoring the internet is unpopular.

<comment><USER8> You missed the point, the petition asks not to create a bill for a filter. However the current filter is being put in place without ANY law being enacted. The PM is threatening the ISP's into doing this.

This is not a democracy because I actually wrote to my MP about last year. He said he would vote against it. However there has been no vote in the commons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Bad parenting is the real problem ... not rely on filters of dubious effectiveness."

I'm not sure how this is an argument against the filter? We agree that "parents need to supervise and educate their children about internet use", in the same way that parents need to supervise and educate their children about crossing the road. That doesn't mean we do away with traffic lights. The filter will surely help facilitate parents in their efforts to protect their children. If they don't want it, they can have it removed.

"It also sets a poor precedent that objectionable content can be blocked ... promote education over flimsy, disruptive, and money-wasting "solutions"."

This is really the same argument, reiterated. Why not promote both good parenting and "solutions"? Many people don't have the technical expertise to set up filters of this kind on their own (I would suggest that in many households, computers are used almost exclusively by the children). They might have the desire to be responsible parents in this area, but not know how to go about doing it.

The only other point raised here is the "poor precedent" of blocking content. Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that this is the case. And if you really need to carry on watching porn, give your ISP a call. No one is stopping you.

<comment><USER10> "Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy."

No it's not because U.K. ISPs have revealed that the filter will censor other content, as well.

"As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course." [1]

[1] [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall)

The bottom line is that if you don't want your children to be exposed to content that may be questionable, don't let them get on the Internet. Set a password on your computer. Install a filtering program which don't require any technical expertise to install whatsoever. Hell, Windows has a web filter build in now a days. Don't force your preposterous views on to me. The government has no place restricting legal content. I'm tired of these bullshit "Think of the children!" arguments.

<comment><USER9> I wasn't aware of that. Such broadly defined terms are a worry, I would agree. I live in China so I have an idea of how a government might use such tools for its own ends while presenting it in a way that sounds like they're helping the population.

I'm not worried about my children (although I don't have any yet). But I think in many household this will be for the good. As I said, it's not uncommon for children to know more about computing than their parents.

I seem to be alone here in thinking pornography is a bad thing. I find it strange that you would say such a view was "preposterous", though. It certainly isn't unusual, outside of the tech/geek world. I would be quite happy if pornography were illegal. That said, I realise the argument for government intervention in this way is a difficult one to make.

<comment><USER11> Tolerance is the word you need to look up. If this technical way to censure the internet is implemented in a society that boast to be free, this is just another way to control information. Which can very easily degenerate into intolerant views.

Just imagine that tomorrow the common view in the UK is that China and all its citizen are the spawn of the devil, and any message coming to contradict this is to be censored out of the british internet, because it goes against the official view .... Only the technical savy being able to see what are the views from of others outside the UK.

Imposing your view onto others is not the way forward.

<comment><USER9> All laws are, in effect, a form of imposing the views of some onto others. Tolerence is a word that is held in such esteem as to be almost untouchable in our generation. I understand its meaning but reject the idea that is the answer to everything. A sexual appetite for children, for example, should not be tolerated (I'd imagine we agree). We simply draw our own lines at different points.

I agree with the general sentiment that the government regularly over step their mark in terms of involvement in our lives and attempts to control our activity and freedom of expression. However, I am happy to see voices speaking up against pornography which I see as a plague on our society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The government is currently trying to push a bill forcing ISPs to provide > opt-out pornography filtering, however this is an issue that fails to > address any real problems.

My writing is lousy. It would have been nice if someone had grammar checked this before it was set up.

> even though the filters are easily (even trivially) circumvented.

Petitions of this type force a debate in parliament. The above line will be answered by Cameron (or similar) saying "We are confident that the filters can not be got around"; he has already said that.

As well as signing this petition _please_ write a short letter to your MP and ask them to oppose this stupid filter, with short clear examples of why it's stupid. If you only chose one thing to do write to your MP instead of signing this petition.

</comment><comment><USER13> someone should setup a list of isps that oppose the filter and then get people to Email the isps that do NOT oppose the filter and tell them that u will cancel your service with them if they do not change their stance</comment>


Optimize Me: A Step-by-Step Guide to Landing Page Optimization - <AUTHOR> http://www.pagewiz.com/blog/landing-pages/landing-page-optimization

<comment><USER2> Cool stuff!</comment>


BitCoins - a real, alternative currency with a market? - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoincharts.com/ <comment><USER2> So...what can I buy with BitCoins?

Also, from the link, "Donations are accepted at 1Nqr3MqVyUp6k3o3QPePAdn4Yg4tzgB9kw." Somehow I think that's going to present an obstacle for most people.

Is this something that is really targeted at the general public, or at programmers who are bored of dollars?

<comment><USER3> Anonymity allows for online markets that were previously a lot harder to achieve: <https://ianxz6zefk72ulzz.tor2web.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> ohmiword... That is very interesting...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not sure how I missed BitCoins, but I'm trying to get a read on whether this is a real currency or not. As in: something to watch or something to ignore.

I also don't understand why the # of coins is limited to 21M. Given that there are going to be 10B people on the planet that means that, on average, a person will have about 0.002 coins. Maybe I'm just too used to having thousands of units of currency, but it seems odd to consider that prices will be in milli- or nano-BitCoins...

<comment><USER4> There is a finite amount of gold on the planet as well, and in all of human history we've only mined something like $7-8 trillion dollars worth.

That's only half the GDP of the entire U.S. for 2009, and we don't even control most of it (something like 12-15% in various reserves).

Look at the price of gold now, it's over $1,000 an ounce. Either the USD has inflated dramatically since 1970 when an ounce of gold was only worth $40, or gold has skyrocketed because of scarcity (or both).

Point being, bitcoins could very well end up being worth $10 or even $100 each as the years go by, or higher. At a factor of 100 that's $2.1 billion USD worth of bitcoins.

Are they worth that much? Maybe, gold and USD aren't worth anything at all until someone is willing to accept them in trade, and people are definitely accepting bitcoins in trade right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair points.

I guess I would be paying 0.001 ounce of gold for a candy bar, so why be concerned about paying 0.001 bitcoin.

w.r.t. worth: gold is backed by being shiny, pretty, desirable; USD is backed by the US Government (cue cries of "fiat money! fiat money!") which provides huge implicit inertia; Bitcoins would be backed only by inertia. I guess the answer to my question is: Bitcoins will be interesting if they get transaction inertia. Of course, as an entrepreneurial minded fellow, the next question would be: would it make sense to help build that inertia?

<comment><USER5> From the Bitcoin FAQ:

How divisible are Bitcoins?

Technically, a Bitcoin can be divided down to 8 decimals, so 0.00000001 BTC is the smallest possible amount. For convenience, the program currently accepts only 2 decimal places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where do I start selling pickaxes?

<comment><AUTHOR> By which you mean: this bitcoin thingy is analogous to the gold rush in which the miners make no money. Is this an educated assessment or a quick bit of sarcasm? Happy either way, just trying to understand whether Bitcoins are worth paying attention to...

<comment><USER7> Gold's a pretty good analogy. We're not quite to the point where it's impossible to make money mining, but you have to plan carefully to break even.

The real usefulness, though, of bitcoins/gold isn't to make money mining, but rather as a secure medium of exchange. Bitcoins are a bullion currency that you can spend online.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you have no idea what in the hell BitCoin is, check out <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPSwA2Itbs> (skip to around 42 minutes). Really explains it well.

<comment><USER9> Using the #t hash anchor works well for this kind of thing...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPSwA2Itbs#t=2516s>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note that it is illegal in the US to use an alternate currency. The second this becomes popular, the feds will raid it and shut it down.

See Liberty Dollar, e-gold, etc.

Casino chips are specifically exempted from this rule, but only inside a casino.

<comment><USER11> Liberty Dollar was busted for counterfeiting, because their coins looked too much like legal tender.

e-gold was busted for violating Know Your Customer money laundering regulations.

Alternative currencies can be legal-- see, for example, Disney Bucks (paper currency issued by Disney) or Ithaca Hours (oldest local currency in the US, going since 1991).

<comment><USER4> Interesting point, I wonder who in the bitcoin ecosystem would be subject to KYC regs, maybe exchanges?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> BitCoins for cash seems a bit suspect. :) Cash? No checks? No registered mail?

<comment><USER7> You can ask around in the #bitcoin-otc channel on Freenode to get an idea of who's considered reputable. I understand Bitcoin4Cash is generally well- regarded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Friendly (non-technical) introduction to bitcoins:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo&feature=player_embedded)

</comment><comment><USER14> from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Generating_bitcoins>

"All generating nodes of the network are competing to be the first to find a solution to a cryptographic problem about their candidate-block, a problem that requires repetitious trial and error."

i wonder whether this "cryptographic problem" is vulnerable to quantum computing, in the same way asymmetric schemes like rsa are.

<comment><USER15> The cryptographic problem is finding a nonce that, when concatenated with current transactions, gives a SHA256 hash below a certain value. Not sure about quantum vulnerabilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I had the idea of suggesting to Reddit a while ago that they should start their own currency (i would name it the Karmarian)

Reddit is a very large closely nit community, that is world wide. If the internet has a chance of forming its own open form digital currency, its going to need the backing of a large community such as Reddit or 4chan.

Personally I'd really wish something would take off. It pisses me off that the only way to do business online is via another private business. It would be awesome if our government created digital cash for online transactions, and it would be even better if a non government entity created a world currency to handle digital transactions.</comment>


A Ruby gem for genetic algorithms - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dorkrawk/darwinning <comment><USER2> Hey, this is my library! Thanks for submitting it. Let me know if you have any questions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi and thanks for developing this library! Could please document a bit better the options that reproduction and mutation take? Cheers!</comment></comment>