Someone got the natural gas report 400 ms early - <AUTHOR> http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/4090.html <comment><USER2> [http://invezz.com/news/alternative-investments/625-uk- report...](http://invezz.com/news/alternative-investments/625-uk-report- advises-against-more-hft-regulations)

"Veteran traders would usually wait in anticipation for the weekly report of gas-inventory figures by the U.S. Energy Information Administration released on Thursday at 10.30 AM and then dive into the busiest trading window of the week. This is no longer true as most traders are now staying out of the market due to the HFTs new strategy - sending floods of orders in an effort to trigger huge price swings just before the data gets released, also known as "banging the beehive"."

edit: Fast algo puts orders out on multiple equity exchanges and then hedges itself with a slow algo in the futures market.

<comment><USER3> At what point will HFT drive out the proper functioning of a Market?

Have there been any studies on this? If human traders mostly reacted to "real" news (the Orange juice crop is bad this year) then human trading was mostly linked to actual changes that affect the price mechanism

But if large volumes of trades are speculative, or even worse, are directed at affecting the behaviour of other large Market players, is there not a point where the selling of actual OJ is just noise in the Market?

One can anticipate HFT bots acting like the strange Amazon pricing of obscure books in the millions of dollars, bots competing against bots to acquire more of the rent redistribution. If we can imagine that we can imagine a failed crop with prices being driven down in a frenzy.

Surely some research exists on this? Where is the price signal tipping point?

<comment><USER4> I've been wondering if an exchange that prevented HFT would prosper in the current climate. I'm sure that plenty of companies aren't a fan of their market cap being at the whim of an algorithm and the large number of swings it would undergo.

Wouldn't they prefer an exchange that offered liquidity in minutes or even hours, opposed to fractions of a second?

<comment><USER5> What is your definition of H though? If someone decides to offer a large block of shares for sale, and they break it into 100 lots, are they a high-frequency trader under this definition? What if it's 10,000 lots? 10,000,000?

This is a data structure problem at its core - the fact that someone entered one billion BUY orders at $15.51 should not prevent me from seeing that there's an outstanding order at $15.52. The stock market employs the queue only for legacy reasons.

<comment><USER6> "This is a data structure problem at its core - the fact that someone entered one billion BUY orders at $15.51 should not prevent me from seeing that there's an outstanding order at $15.52. The stock market employs the queue only for legacy reasons."

(1) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about price information. You seem to be saying that level 2 quotes don't exist. I assure you that for the major exchanges, level 2 quotes do exist, but they're more expensive than what most discout brokerages/Yahoo/Google give you.

(2) I'm not sure what you mean about queuing at price levels being a legacy artifact. There needs to be some objective rule for deciding who trades with whom when there are multiple participants at a given price level. In most markets, it's first-come-first-serve (a queue). I read that MS POOL was going to try prioritizing based on size, but I haven't heard anything since. So, if it's not first-come-first-serve, and there are two offers at $5.43 and a trader comes in and lifts one of the offers (not enough size to lift both), which of the two offers should get lifted?

<comment><USER7> several futures markets queue partially or only by order size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The most likely explanation: no one got anything early.

Venue timestamps can often disagree by a significant amount. It is very likely that SIAC (distributors of CQS and CTS) simply are not well synced to the reference clocked used to distribute the report.

Nanex spends a lot of time doing analysis based on precision timing without providing any sort of error analysis as to how well timestamps produced from different references synchronize. It would lend credibility to their hypotheses if they either provided their own reference or provided some measure of margin of error to the timestamps they so heavily rely upon.

For example, if Nanex had stated that they measured the time of release and the time of trades themselves as they appeared in CQS as observed from their machines then they could make a much more concrete statement as to whether: (a) the report was "early" or (b) the trades were "early" relative to one another. Most likely they would observe that the report appeared "early" as measured to their system clock (or possibly some other reference), but the trades did not appear before the report. Of course, Nanex would be smart enough to account for transit latency and other what-not.

<comment><USER9> The data are printed with the CME's and NYSE's official timestamps. It would not be unprecedented for the CME's timestamps to diverge from, say, the NYSE's. That would present itself as a consistent temporal dislocation between the CME and NYSE, but would be invisible within each data-set (sort of like your calendar putting itself into the wrong time-zone where - the times are off, but they're consistently off, i.e. spacing between events is preserved).

Instead, we see a signal _within_ each dataset and symmetry _between_ them. It could still be a data aberration, but that would implicate the CME and NYSE of having irregular clocks, a far more serious problem than some twat front- running a government report.

Most likely is that this is a real trading signal, but not one based on insider information.

<comment><USER8> Relative timestamps between venues don't matter. More importantly, using timestamps without a common reference point makes it impossible to assert what happened first, because the absolute value of the timestamp does not matter. What matters is what "really" happened first. Of course, everyone's view of "first" can differ, but that's a different issue.

Whether there is signal here or not wasn't my point. There may well could be. My point was simply that the analysis provided by Nanex is spurious without a definition of the timestamps, where they came from, and their relationship to known reference points. Taking three events with a timestamp from each of: CQS, CME, and an arbitrary point in time such as 10:30:00 and then asserting that events observed within a CQS or CME event stream happened "before" the arbitrary point in time, 10:30:00, is impossible.

Unless either (a) one observes CQS, CME, and the event scheduled for 10:30:00 from a known reference and accounts for all variables (differing transit latencies, etc) or (b) each of the generating events are known synchronized and the current state of that synchronization is observable (CQS lags CME by 475us, government event source leads CME by 1.2ms, etc). Clearing (b) is not happening today. (a) can be accomplished by Nanex, if they so choose.

<comment><USER10> "(a) can be accomplished by Nanex, if they so choose."

Doing so doesn't give them a sensationalist headline that finds its way to the top of HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Or someone got the report a few hours early, didn't want to be seen to jump the gun (insider trading, and all that) and kicked off a new trading strategy 400ms earlier than they intended...

<comment><USER12> and of course that also is only possible, when they know the exact time of when the news would go out. So that, they can time their activity just milliseconds before that, using tech.

<comment><USER13> For a lot of these economic numbers and earnings report, they are provided to news organizations prior to the announcement with instructions that the information cannot be released prior to a certain time.

So, for this example, that time was 10:30AM. The moment it hits that time, the reports get pushed out into the newswires and reported on-air.

This allows the reporters to digest the numbers and figure out how to report it.

<comment><USER14> So news organizations get this financially sensitive information before traders? Seems an almost too obvious way to make a quick buck.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but they have strong motivation not to abuse it. I've seen one case where an news org broke an embargo due to fat fingering a release, that news org lost early access privileges for a year as did every sister company that belonged to the same news group.

If you specialize in financial news losing numbers is a huge deal, you'll lose thousands of customers over it. And when those customers are often $1000/month subscribers it can easily mean a financial loss of tens of millions of dollars.

Within news organizations the information is typically restricted to 1-2 named individuals who have restrictions on trading. If they leak the information they can generally be criminally prosecuted.

<comment><USER10> R.R. Donnelly is still kicking even though they released google's earnings early: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-google- results-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-google-results- idUSBRE89H14Q20121018)

<comment><USER15> I'm talking about government figure releases (employment, inflation, etc and the like).

In that case it was probably just a contractual issue between Google and their printer, to the wider market it would have been the same as if Google had accidentally released their numbers early.

(Actually even in the governments case it's still a contractual issue, it's just that governments have huge power by withdrawing early access rights)

If RR traded on those numbers they would have violated criminal insider trading law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Some back of the envelope calculation for UNG (ETF in the top Nanex graph) profits for the early mover.

In the second before the announcement UNG was trading at $18.72 High and $18.55 Low. According to some minutely data I saw 400,000 shares where traded between 10:29:00 and 10:30:00; I believe this ties out with the first Nanex chart where there are 490,000 shares traded, with majority of it coming in 400 ms before the 10:30:00 mark. 4 Seconds after the 10:30:00 report release the price had stabilized at around 18.51. I will consider this $18.51 the fair price with all resonably fast algos having made their post release moves.

Let us assume that there was a single trader/algo who got the report early and executed all of the 400,000 share sells 400ms before 10:30:00 and all other market participants only bought. Additionally assume that the average fill for these sell trades was the average of the High and the Low at (18.72 + 18.55)/2= $18.635. I believe this fair because looking at the first Nanex graph the early trades are somewhat uniformly distributed between the high and the low. In a simple arb on UNG, where the trader went short 400ms before the the announcement and closed the position at the fair price a few seconds after the announcement he stands to make a profit of (18.635 - 18.51) * 400,000= $50,000.

For a trade that lasts 5 seconds, making $50,000 is nothing to sneeze at, it is not that much in grand scheme of things. Additionally other ETFS and futures were impacted and could have made more or less money.

TL;DR: If one guy captured all the profit from the early UNG trade, the max he made was roughly $50,000.

<comment><USER17> If the total value of any trades that might have been made in the claimed 400ms window was only $50k, it would suggest to me that there was nothing untoward going on, and that this story is most likely nothing more than a clock error. For any of the HF firms, prop houses and Hedge Funds that I've run into (which is not a short list, but my no means exhaustive, given that I work in finance) $50,000 is not interesting action - especially since transaction fees will eat away a reasonable chunk of that.

<comment><USER10> It is a clock issue, as observed by others in this thread.

I would point to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5146571> because its clear from nanex's response that he hasn't fully thought through the clocking issues with using CQS data without observing it directly himself.

<comment><USER2> Or, it's not a clock issue: [http://live.wsj.com/video/banging-the-beehive- explained/A943...](http://live.wsj.com/video/banging-the-beehive- explained/A943CC10-8E9D-45E6-B986-A73352A7CF03.html)

<comment><USER10> Have you looked at the raw data in this particular case? The particular deviation that nanex points to isn't borne out in the exchange raw feeds ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> After seeing some of their posts earlier and comparing it to live data I record at the colocations, I've concluded that they have clock issues which makes these types of anomalies appear frequently. Or they have a bad data vendor.

Interestingly enough, even the regulators don't have good (only millisecond- resolution) trade data.

<comment><USER18> These are charted with CQS (official) timestamps. Try again.

<comment><USER10> CQS has had issues in the past. You should know this.

More importantly, why wouldn't you invest in colocations and collect the data yourself using direct feeds (with GPS clock synchronization etc to validate the data)?

<comment><USER18> We do. You are grossly misinformed. The charts correctly show the sequence and times of this event. I'm not going to engage this discussion further, though pmail is fine.

<comment><USER19> As a bystander who does not have the background necessary to evaluate either of your claims at face value, I would really like to hear your explanation for why you disagree with his explanation.

<comment><USER10> A simple analogy: you are an advertiser using Facebook. You tell them you want to get 1000 impressions, and facebook gives you a report at the end of the day saying that they gave the number of impressions you paid for.

So you look at yesterday's view count and today's view count and notice that somehow the view count only increased by 900. Something is afoot!

Nanex's argument is tantamount to saying "that means we must have lost 100 organic views today"

My argument is tantamount to saying "I actually bothered to look at our access logs (which we record on our servers) and only saw 900 that we could definitively attribute to real Facebook users. Is it possible that the report is incorrect or falsified?"

Now I bring up this example because this actually did happen with facebook. Quick HN search revealed one such discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=667308>

Back to the current situation. There are many sources of market data. Each individual exchange generates its own feed, and with the major exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, BATS, DirectEDGE, ...) you can colocate in the exchange data centers (NYSE and ARCA are in Mahwah NJ, NASDAQ is in Carteret NJ, and various other exchanges are located in New Jersey and Chicago) and record the data yourself. There is a unified tape (CQS/CTS) which combines and disseminates a combined record (across all exchanges). This is used to determine the "national best bid/offer" -- the prices people are willing to buy/sell at.

The process of CQS generation is fraught with problems, but lots of older traders and academic types use CQS data because its much cheaper to get that data than to get data from individual exchanges directly. However, you are subject to the quirks of the combination process, including subtleties regarding timestamping data (since this data includes trades and quotes from Chicago and from New Jersey, the sequence of events may appear different if you record from chicago or new york or philadelphia or some other place; if you ask the exchanges to timestamp directly, you have to worry about clock delay and skew between the exchanges' servers).

nanex is saying that it is acceptable to depend on that data and any anomalies must have occurred outside of the recording process. I am saying that the recording process can create the types of anomalies that nanex is showing, and that the only way to be sure is to record the data directly and carefully synchronize your recording machines. _AND_ when you do that you see that there really is no anomaly.

Just to emphasize how sloppy the exchanges are with regards to timing: on the BATS exchange they use multiple servers to run trades and generate quotes, and every once in a while you see messages appear to be out of time order because the individual machines weren't properly synchronized (although, if you filter for a single ticker, messages are always in chronological order)

<comment><USER20> There's quote feed solutions that do co-location at the exchange servers and deliver the quotes to you in individual channels (ARCA/BATS/EDGX-A etc) and also SIAC feeds.

<http://www.limebrokerage.com/services/marketdata/citrius>

<comment><USER10> That looks like a hardware product. You still need to purchase market data access to the relevant exchanges to get that data, and those are expensive (NASDAQ costs, for example, run upwards of 20K/mo to get the lowest-latency data)

They should just spring for the data before making accusations -- the problem is that when you cry wolf all the time no one will take them seriously when a real case comes around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This has nothing to do with the main subject matter of the article but those graphs are almost unintelligible. I didn't even try to decode what they were trying to communicate.

<comment><USER9> The graphs are brilliantly clear to me, but I have a background in electronic derivatives trading and so am used to staring at wiggling psychedelic surfaces for hours on end. Nanex's audience is algorithmic securities traders. Imagine trying to explain a circuit diagramme to a room of uninitiated economists ("is there a reason the wire goes all squiggly right there?").

<comment><USER22> "electronic derivatives trading" is the phrase I was looking for. Thanks a bunch

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't think that increased trading activity supports a conclusion that the report leaked.

People may have anticipated increased trading after the rapport release and may have prepared algorithms to try to gain during this event. The algorithms may have started working before the release.

I'm not saying this was actually the case, but my theory is as well supported as the claim in the post.

<comment><USER24> >...my theory is as well supported as the claim in this post.

Are you familiar with Nanex beyond this article?

<comment><USER23> No, I'm not, but based on the quality of this post alone, I don't value them much. A respectful source would present a compelling argument for such a claim, whereas this post looks like a marketing trick to attract attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _It is worth pointing out that the EIA Natural Gas Report comes out weekly (every Thursday at 10:30) and the market reacts within a few milliseconds._

Since it's not the report producer's job for investors' computers to rapidly parse it, they should have some fun in phrasing and presenting the information in different ways each time. If nothing else, it could lead to an explosion in NLP and content parsing technology ;-)

<comment><USER26> Not as long as they are presenting it in JSON format.

<http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/wngsr.json>

<comment><USER27> Haha - yeah, they still could: they could change the schema weekly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Since it takes a while to digest the report after having seen it, chances are that they were in possession of the report far earlier than T-400ms but waited until they were in a time window where they knew the regulators would not come after them.

This is how fortunes are made. By taking advantage of loopholes in the regulatory mechanism.

<comment><USER29> I don't know the way these reports are structured, but is it regular enough where there's even a possibility that a bot could digest, analyze, and act on the information there in near real time?

<comment><USER30> The thing is (supposedly and based on this chart) that this order was placed faster than that, even.

Edit to clarify.

<comment><USER31> How can you read this chart, and infer from it that the activity is due to having already read the report?

Surely everyone knew that the report would be released at 10:30, and they had strategies (or hedged positions) that were not as likely to be influenced by the contents of the report as by the market forces surrounding their orders?

<comment><USER30> I'm not, I'm not certain of that at all.

<comment><USER31> I don't have any idea, I don't want to sound snarky,

I read the headline and jumped to the same conclusions as everyone else. Jumped on Twitter and re-tweeted, all I had to say was "incredible"

After having some time to think about it, all I can say is...

Can you imagine how many people would be fired already if their dots were 5 seconds on the wrong side of 10:30, instead of being 400ms early?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Can someone explain what this means in practice. As in how much money did these people make or stand to make because of being 400ms early?

</comment><comment><USER33> Sorry if this is a question with an obvious answer, but how is the report delivered/obtained?

<comment><USER34> By parsing this JSON file <http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/wngsr.json>

<comment><USER35> Do they hammer the webserver for this? Is the JSON pushed somehwere? I'm in Europe, so numbers are probably too high, but httping results for the file suggest this is not how it's done:

        % httping http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/wngsr.json
        PING ir.eia.gov:80 (http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/wngsr.json):
        connected to 220.127.116.11:80 (286 bytes), seq=0 time=459.92 ms
        connected to 184.108.40.206:80 (286 bytes), seq=1 time=230.15 ms
        connected to 18.104.22.168:80 (286 bytes), seq=2 time=232.81 ms
        connected to 220.127.116.11:80 (286 bytes), seq=3 time=235.23 ms

I would love to have some background information about how this trading works. Are there any technical details available how this works?

<comment><USER36> HFT traders are actually physically positioning their systems to be as unhindered by physics as possible. They likely have servers in DC just to check ir.eia.gov, and definitely have servers at (or as near as possible) to the exchange on direct lines with trading systems.

<comment><USER37> I'd be shocked if anybody big was doing that. There are news agencies (Reuters, Bloomberg, etc.) that get the reports early and sell exchange- quality news feeds. People subscribe to those news feeds, and at the appointed time, messages go out to the subscribers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This shows that not all investors acted on the information at once. But doesn't show that the report got out early.

To the point of "private investors", if you are expecting to be able to see a news release the second it drops, spend 10 seconds reading it, make quick predictions on stock movements, and then buy/sell equities based on that... computers have had you beat for a long time on that game. Find another or automate that.

</comment><comment><USER39> "There is the old story about the market craze in sardine trading when the sardines disappeared from their traditional waters in Monterey, California. The commodity traders bid them up and the price of a can of sardines soared. One day a buyer decided to treat himself to an expensive meal and actually opened a can and started eating. He immediately became ill and told the seller the sardines were no good. The seller said, "You don't understand. These are not eating sardines, they are trading sardines."

</comment><comment><USER29> If we can't solve this problem, with the rise of machine driven microtrading, is there really any reason to place any faith in the stock market as a private investor?

<comment><USER40> We could significantly alleviate the problem by limiting by law the trading frequency. Traders ultimately depend on the law to recognize the validity of their transactions. There is no value to society in high frequency trading. Mandating a full second in a market that operated quite well when slow- reacting humans conducted all the transactions should be more than sufficient.

<comment><USER41> Will laws work? I imagine the big investment banks will just set up dark pools in countries with favorable laws and just trade there instead. Added benefit: no more taxes!

The solution is to realize that high-frequency traders are playing a different game than you, even though they're on the same playing field. They do weird things but it's probably not hurting your returns. (It wasn't HFT that imploded the big banks, Enron, and Worldcom, right?)

<comment><USER40> _They do weird things but it's probably not hurting your returns._

I'm not so sure. The financial system is a nonlinear dynamical system. The hallmark of such systems is that small local perturbations can lead to very large changes in system-wide state. High-frequency trading vastly increases the number of small perturbations, and while most remain local, there is a finite probability that some will percolate upward in scale. So micro-scale trading may increase our exposure to catastrophe.

<comment><USER7> i think that is nonsense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Every sell is someone else's buy, and every buy is someone else's trade.

If you saw a bunch of activity happening milliseconds before it should, why would you be the other party to someone you suspect is committing fraud? You will be the primary victim of the fraud.

<comment><USER40> _If you saw a bunch of activity happening milliseconds before it should, why would you be the other party to someone you suspect is committing fraud?_

If no such report had come out milliseconds later, the activity wouldn't be suspect. How could a person (or in this case, given the timeframe, an algorithm) possibly distinguish this spike from a 'legitimate' spike? It doesn't make sense to blame the victim of a fraud when the victim has no way of knowing at the time that they are being defrauded.

<comment><USER42> I presume the report didn't just randomly come out at some random time. That is, everyone knew exactly when it was going to come out.

<comment><USER40> To the millisecond? I suppose it's possible. Even so, rumors drive spikes all the time. Someone could put out a false report, committing fraud in the reverse direction. I still doubt such a fraud could be detected at the time in any remotely reliable way.

<comment><USER43> The report is a government report, in machine-readable format, that is taken from a government server. If you wanted to put out a false report, you would have to hack the server or the connection to the server.

<comment><USER40> No, you'd just have to convince people you were releasing inside information, like this kind of thing: [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/28/tech/web/google- icoa-fake-...](http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/28/tech/web/google-icoa-fake- news/index.html) .

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Remind me of the film Trading Places and the Orange Juice crop reports.

A pico or nano second is in this digital age is an advantage - it is the fairness of that advantage be it routing or some more underlying more sinister aspect that is the real issue here.

</comment><comment><USER45> Maybe that news was published 400ms or even a little bit earlier. Such little difference human beings cannot notice. Those who trade early were those who utilized A.I. systems to watch and analyze the report and trade accordingly, 400ms is long enough for big expensive machines to accomplish that task. To add even more conspiracy into the story, you can imagine someone was paid to publish the report just about 400ms earlier than supposed to by those who use computers to trade, and not very many people will notice, or just like post said feds don't even think this matters.

</comment><comment><USER46> There is a lot of philosophizing over whether HFT harms or helps the market, etc. Much of the pro camp centers around liquidity, but as someone else mentioned, much of that liquidity is absorbed by offsetting HFT.

Rather than get lost in all of the gnarly details, however, I think it is easier to simply look at the purpose of the market and ask whether HFT serves or harms that purpose. IMO, it is pretty clear that it represents a hijacking of the market's true purpose and functioning in the service of that purpose.

For example, is it helpful in setting a price which reflects true supply and demand that we have algorithms designed specifically to manipulate the pricing mechanism by creating artificial supply and demand. These algorithms place phony orders, never intended for execution, but instead merely to trigger a move from the other side. How can that possibly be helpful to such a fundemental market mechanism as pricing?

HFT uses the market for an entirely different purpose. Anyone who defends it must acknowledge this point and argue that the purpose is good if they wish to defend HFT honestly. Otherwise, to couch pro HFT arguments in terms of it being supportive of the market's true purpose and functioning is to mislead.

<comment><USER47> So what _is_ the market's true purpose?

<comment><USER46> I assume that such a simple question is intended to allow its author to make a point. So, perhaps we can skip the dance and get right to what your point is?

Else, if you really are unaware of the market's purpose, perhaps you can spend a little time on Google. There is much available information online that you might find helpful in answering your question.

<comment><USER47> What perplexes me here is the enthusiastic response received for the development and deployment of bitcoin mining hardware (for which the motive is giving a hardware edge to people in order to make lots and lots of money) versus the condemnation of HFT (for which the motive is giving a hardware edge to people in order to make lots and lots of money). Both cases require a significant outlay of resources and talent and I have respect for the work that went into each.

And this gets at a bunch of people, including yourself, claiming that HFT somehow defeats the "purpose of the market(tm)." But if I look this up on Wikipedia, I get the notion that it exists to help corporations raise money and secondarily to provide an indicator of the general economic mood. I fail to see how HFT goes against this. That said, I'd support everything Mark Cuban suggested short of the trading tax (because I believe (without proof) that it would have unintended negative consequences far beyond HFT).

Mark Cuban aside, I mostly see various people who, to quote an Amazon review of "Broken Markets: How High Frequency Trading and Predatory Practices on Wall Street are Destroying Investor Confidence and Your Portfolio", sound like the reviewer's grandparents explaining why they don't use computers. No hard proof - just lots and lots of fear-mongering.

So much so that I'm starting to believe that the underlying issue here is resentment and jealousy that they didn't pull these hacks off themselves and walk away with the big bucks.

Finally, how is HFT worse than the "good old days(tm)" where major brokerages all had seats on trading room floors from which they could manipulate the bid/ask spread with impunity? I'd counter that it's actually better now that _anyone_ capable of getting the cash and talent upfront can get into the same game that's been played since the very beginning, except that the pace is continually accelerating and those left out in the cold are succumbing to future shock. Buffett knows how they'll deal with the events preceding an actual Singularity(c) if one occurs.

But that's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

<comment><USER46> Ah, now there's an honest response. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I'm not sure why the comparison between bitcoin and HFT, however. My admittedly limited knowledge of the former informs me that the purpose of using compute intensive operations to mine bitcoins is to prevent arbitrary creation by limiting the number and means of creation, thereby attributing value to bitcoins.

I will allow that my understanding could be off by some degree but, in any case, there is no comparison. There is nothing in the design, purpose, or function of the market that is served by accruing advantage to whomever simply has the best hardware. Hence, I am really missing the leap that "well, if it works for bitcoin it should work for anything". The market is designed for economic purposes such as raising capital and allowing broader participation in the economic output of society via investment opportunities. To see how counterproductive HFT is to these purposes, one need only take it to the extreme. That is, what if all transactions were performed by HFT algos? Would the market continue to serve its purpose and function the same? Or would it simply become some strange self-serving system that benefits an entirely different group with entirely different agendas and objectives? How would an IPO even work in this scenario?

Now, going back to the point in my original post, one can argue that the new system is better or fairer, or whatever. But one cannot honestly argue that it is the same or, worse, better serves its current purpose due to HFT.

Your argument that HFT is no worse than the good old days is a straw man, so there's not much I need to say there. I will add though that whether spreads, prices, etc are manipulated by major brokerages or "anyone capable of getting the cash and talent up front", it does subvert confidence in the market and its core mechanisms.

<comment><USER47> Let me see if I understood what you wrote...

Summarizing:

1\. I don't understand bitcoin mining but that's no obstacle to rendering a negative judgment on a comparison between building bitcoin mining farms and building an HFT firm.

2\. The market is designed for raising capital and HFT is deleterious to that purpose.

So, looking at the market today, GOOG is 772, AMZN is 264, FB is 29, ZNGA is 3, and LNKD is 126. Sounds like they're raising capital to me. What am I missing?

3\. I'll just dismiss your comparison of HFT profiting from bid/ask spreads to the previous roll of pit bosses doing the same thing as a straw man. And then I'll close with an unsubstantiated claim that HFT has reduced confidence in the market because it's obvious(tm).

Now I'm assuming that because Mark Cuban has wisely decided against investing in markets he doesn't understand that you're reasoning that _no one_ understands the market?

Which to me is as much poppycock as the belief that the market is %100 efficient 100% of the time (for if so, there would be no housing bubbles, no dotcom booms, and more recently, no fiscal cliff chaos and witness <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies> which whose performance would be effectively impossible if so).

Might I propose an alternate path from futilely fleeing the event horizon of this mini technological singularity? Instead of saying "I don't understand HFT so it's bad" why not use the same physics currently in use to understand the ensemble behavior of 10^23++ molecules to derive higher-level trading strategies? It's worked in the past (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Sornette>) and I have no reason to believe it cannot be made to work again (which means to me that smart people are already working on it or have already figured it out).

Finally, I'll close with evidence that HFT does reduce bid/ask spreads: [http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/hfts-spreads-credit- suis...](http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/hfts-spreads-credit- suisse-110365-1.html) and a statement by a day trader that he's benefiting from it:

From the final comment on [http://www.amazon.com/review/RNIOIX766KXWG/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?...](http://www.amazon.com/review/RNIOIX766KXWG/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0132875241&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful)

" So if I can make a dollar or more per share with a .16 risk, why do I care about HFT's? They might even help me if they decide to move the price up a few pennys when Im close to my profit target and they may hurt me if I was a few pennys away from the stop.(all my stops are in my head, never manually till close to the target or stop. And even then I may sell at market if last 2 moves were upticks. Ithink HFTS hurt the other greedy scalpers and market makers and specialists and whatever goniff's are swimming around looking for a quick edge. But how would they hurt the buy and hold value investor who lets say buys AAPL at 100 and knows its going way higher and doesnt sell till its at 500. Who got hurt. Maybe a penny in slippage somewhere. Irrelevent to the long term player and even to me, the shorter term player. Its the scalpers that get hurt and they supposedly are providing liquidity anyway so their job is done. How do I get affected?"

<comment><USER46> It's hard to get to the meat of your arguments because they are riddled with logical fallacies. You seem to be trying to wedge as many in as possible.

Regarding your itemized "summary":

1\. You seem to forget that YOU are the one asserting the validity of YOUR comparison between HFT and bitcoins. So, the onus is on YOU to prove it. So far, you have failed. Beyond that, I simply stated that I am no bitcoin expert. But, I believe my summary of bitcoins was sufficient and relevant to draw the distinction. If it wasn't, then you should have explained how I missed the mark and why that miss is relevant to your argument.

2\. Are you kidding? So the fact that there are people who have cancer but not yet died from it proves that cancer is good for you? I mean your argument here is literally: HFT exists; there are stocks that are doing well; therefore HFT cannot be harmful. Wow.

3\. You introduced the straw man. Don't blame me for noticing. As for much of the rest of the stuff you wrote, I never said it.

Ditto the Mark Cuban stuff. Not sure why you invoke him or the question of understanding the market for that matter. Likewise with the 100% market efficiency comment. I never referred to any of that. How many straw men are we up to now?

You do a really good job of arguing with yourself, but you fail to address my original point. Your talk about bid/ask spreads does at least address market mechanisms, but even if we were to accept all of the great wonders that HFT does for spreads at face value, that is a far cry from rebutting my OP, as spreads are but a small part of the picture. In fact, it is so insignificant to this discussion, let's call that one a red herring.

I also noticed that you left my example in the extreme completely untouched. Wise decision.

In any event, you joke about my not offering evidence, but the irony is that much of this actually is self-evident. For instance, who do you think is sitting on the other side of the trade when HFTs profit? I won't ask you to buy my trademarked brand of common sense this time though: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/high-speed- trades...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/high-speed-trades-hurt- investors-a-study-says.html?ref=business)

That's an actual study, not an Amazon review from some random "day trader". BTW, it is slightly hilarious that you referred to that review as "evidence".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> A fun thought experiment. Suppose someone invents a time machine that gives the correct price of all securities at all future points in time.

1) Would it be against current rules to trade on this information?

2) If someone did use this machine surreptitiously to their own gain, how quickly will they approach owning 100% of everything?

3) If the entire data set of future prices were made publicly available, what would happen to markets? I mean, exactly, what would happen to stock prices?

<comment><USER49> I'll bite.

Chances are, the existence of a perfect trader would cause enormous shifts in how a market handles trading. This trader would, by default, be barred from trading, because her influence on the market would be staggering to the effect that it would influence the market itself. Even Warren Buffet has to temper things he says, so as not to accidentally push the market around.

 _But_ , assuming the FTC just decided to take a nap on the whole thing, I imagine those shifts in trading would so quickly dilute value that you'd end up with a system very similar to one we see now: machines doing the majority of the trading, but rather than on algorithms, more on observing Perfect Trader X.

<comment><USER50> If I were the trader with perfect information, I'd program my trading algorithms to lose (or at least not be guarenteed to win) 40% of the time. This would make you look merely like a incredibly fortunate trader, and not a perfect one. Just make sure that your algorithm guarantees an X% return per year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Is there any way to subscribe to these Nanex posts? Couldn't find an RSS read but I'd like to slowly dip into HFT, and they like a good source of trading news.

</comment><comment><USER52> Why would trade relevant data be released while trading is open?

Seems like it could screw tons of people with open orders who can't react within seconds of new information.

<comment><USER53> If the release of information could affect you, don't trade until after its released. You are free to pretend the market is closed whenever you like.

And it's not like this risk isn't there anyway. Earthquakes rarely coordinate their timing with market hours, to name one example.

<comment><USER24> >Earthquakes rarely coordinate their timing with market hours, to name one example.

When speaking of trading and earthquakes, it's hard not to mention Nick Leeson.

 _The beginning of the end occurred on 16 January 1995, when Leeson placed a short straddle in the Singapore and Tokyo stock exchanges, essentially betting that the Japanese stock market would not move significantly overnight. However, the Kobe earthquake hit early in the morning on 17 January, sending Asian markets, and Leeson's trading positions, into a tailspin. Leeson attempted to recoup his losses by making a series of increasingly risky new trades (using a Long-Long Future Arbitrage), this time betting that the Nikkei Stock Average would make a rapid recovery. However, the recovery failed to materialize._

 _Leeson left a note reading "I'm Sorry" and fled Singapore on 23 February. Losses eventually reached £827 million (US$1.4 billion), twice the bank's available trading capital. After a failed bailout attempt, Barings was declared insolvent on 26 February._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Delay every trade by 10 seconds. Not only does it prevent spikes like this, but it will ensure trades done with thousands of transactions per second by software are brought down as to not cause stupid crashes : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash>

</comment><comment><USER55> To make shenangins more obvious, what if 1 minute were the maximum resolution that any trade could happen? Say, every order gets a random number of seconds between 0 and 60 added to it before it is executed. Or even longer. What would happen if everyone gets 10 minutes to digest any news?

<comment><USER56> This sounds like the type of regulation that people outside of an industry put on the industry with good intentions but really no idea what the consequences would be.

Consider a company who holds a press conference announcing something huge (either positive or negative). Anyone wanting to buy or sell in this tiny window pretty much gets shafted by such a system.

<comment><USER57> I think that's exactly the point. So the whole world gets to trade after they've digested the news, not the guy with the fastest computer or the shortest wire to the exchange.

<comment><USER47> And why exactly _shouldn't_ the guy who's invested in the best hardware have an edge? Should perhaps we also mandate that all software engineers use exactly the same 2004-era Acer Pentium 4 laptop so that any difference in productivity is strictly due to programming skills?

<comment><USER58> Because the purpose of the stock market is not to give the guy with the best hardware an "edge".

<comment><USER59> This. The entire reason for having this market is to reward making _better_ decisions about allocating society's resources, not the _same_ decisions imperceptibly faster. The market's clearing system is flawed in ways that reward huge misinvestments in solving the wrong problem.

<comment><USER47> So I looked at Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market#Function_and_purpo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market#Function_and_purpose)

Didn't see anything about rewarding better decisions about allocating society's resources. I did see a lot about raising capital for corporations and for providing an indicator of the general mood of the economy though.

The stock market is effectively a giant casino for pros. If you're not one, you're just plain dumb if you try to play their game by their rules.

And of course, with the sort of thinking you're putting forth, we should obviously _OUTLAW_ that 66 GH/s bitcoin hardware. It's so unfair to everyone else who can only afford a cluster of 8 AMD 7970s, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> If the report is accessed via HTTP, I wouldn't be surprised if the clocks on the government server are off by a few ms, so all the HFTs that are pounding the URL are trying to get access to the data. The first one who got it made their trades before everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER61> Off-topic; what was used to generate those graphs?

<comment><USER62> It looks like it's JTools: <http://www.nanex.net/CodingNxCore/JTools/JTools.html>

However, I don't know what JTools uses internally to generate the graphs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> What is the benefit of trading over ms resolutions. What problem is it solving?

Wouldn't trade be more efficient if it were lock stepped - say one trade per hour (per day?): you agree your trade and the exchange processes it on the hour.

What would be lost that benefits the pseudo-capitalism of these systems by having such a regime. How would this negatively impact production.

<comment><USER64> >What is the benefit of trading over ms resolutions. What problem is it solving?

The problem it's solving is that people want to do it. Exchanges on which they can't are outcompeted by exchanges on which they can.

>Wouldn't trade be more efficient if it were lock stepped - say one trade per hour (per day?):

No.

>you agree your trade and the exchange processes it on the hour.

You "agree" your trade outside the exchange? What do you think an exchange is?

>What would be lost that benefits the pseudo-capitalism of these systems by having such a regime. How would this negatively impact production.

Spreads would get wider, i.e. more investor cash would get creamed off by middlemen, leaving less for the productive companies it was actually invested in.

<comment><USER63> > _The problem it's solving is that people want to do it._ //

As a generality I'd say that's false. Why buy in to a system that makes a tiny proportion of the populous vastly wealthy only because those people already are wealthy.

> _You "agree" your trade outside the exchange?_ //

No, hence the conjunction. Perhaps "you issue a bid or offer" would have been better?

> _Spreads would get wider_ //

OK, can you give a reason why that happens and why it leaves more with middlemen. At the moment a change in price so transient as to pass in milliseconds gets exploited to extract value from the system. In essence surely a greater spread means more to lose from selling quickly, that would appear to tend to stabilise.

Presumably the middle-men here are primarily market-makers.

To this layman it appears that traders currently extract value by reacting fastest to the rapid variations. That the value extracted far exceeds the original notion of guaranteeing trades in order to provide liquidity. Slow the variations and there are less opportunities to extract capital. Again this seems like it would tend to money being invested for longer term growth.

Thanks.

<comment><USER64> >As a generality I'd say that's false. Why buy in to a system

Because it gives you a better price. There are two sides to any trade; people go to the HFTs because their prices are better than anyone else's. If they weren't providing value, no-one else would trade with them.

> that makes a tiny proportion of the populous vastly wealthy only because > those people already are wealthy.

HFT has greatly democratized market-making; in the old days stockbroking was an old-boy's network, virtually impossible for new participants to enter. Nowadays, three or four blokes with computers and one investor can start a new trading firm, and many of the biggest HFT players started that way.

>OK, can you give a reason why that happens and why it leaves more with middlemen

Because there's a higher risk. If I offer to buy microsoft for $50 but that offer has to stay out there for an hour, and news of a lawsuit comes out 20 minutes later, I'm going to lose lots of money. So the middlemen need to be able to bear that risk, they need much bigger capital reserves, and they can't afford to offer the penny spreads we see nowadays (because they need to make a greater profit to offer the same return on their bigger capital reserve).

> At the moment a change in price so transient as to pass in milliseconds gets > exploited to extract value from the system.

Where's the value being "extracted" from? Certainly not from a fundamentals trader, who's getting the best possible price with the smallest possible spread (sadly, regulations require shares to be sold in increments of $0.01 and no smaller, so there's always $0.005/share to be made on every trade, which by modern standards is absolutely huge - and is why the HFT guys are willing to spend so much on low latency to maximize their chances of getting that $0.005/share. But the fundamentals trader always pays exactly $0.005/share; the HFTs are just fighting among themselves for who gets it).

<comment><USER63> > _Where's the value being "extracted" from?_ //

> _there's always $0.005/share to be made on every trade_ //

I [clearly] don't know enough to know if you're exactly right, but lower the latency and increase the trades and there you have it. Aren't bids and offers listed in pips (like $1.4032).

As I see it production, processing, administration, etc. are the only value inputs. When a 400ms glitch extracts something of the order 1e5 USD the value that money represents comes from those inputs. Yes liquidity is an administrative input but the way the system is set up trades appear to extract far greater amounts of money than their value to society; of course that money comes from other investors, but money is not value, the value the money ineffectively represents is brought to the system by those said inputs.

The problem appears to be that those in a position to rectify the aberration are too busy getting rich off it to care.

Thanks for your input(!) and education.

As an aside, do you [or anyone] know of something along the lines of a (FOSS) toy stock market program, something that allows one to model a market futz with parameters on trades (like changing minimum stock increments, or fixing time periods) and see the effects graphically. Like an ecological modelling program I suppose.

<comment><USER64> >lower the latency and increase the trades and there you have it

It is true that lowering the latency and more to the point narrowing the spreads increases trade volume, which I kind of glossed over, but again if you lower your margins and sell more of your product you're not extracting value but creating it. Fundamentals traders are (hopefully) buying and selling shares for good reason; helping them do it quicker and more cheaply is a good thing.

>Aren't bids and offers listed in pips (like $1.4032)

AIUI there's an exception for low-value shares, but most are required to be sold in increments of $0.01. (Of course that only applies to stocks traded on public exchanges, which is by no means all or even most HFT activity)

>As I see it production, processing, administration, etc. are the only value inputs. When a 400ms glitch extracts something of the order 1e5 USD the value that money represents comes from those inputs. Yes liquidity is an administrative input but the way the system is set up trades appear to extract far greater amounts of money than their value to society; of course that money comes from other investors, but money is not value, the value the money ineffectively represents is brought to the system by those said inputs.

You're right that there's a kind of "tragedy of the commons" going on; because there's that massive $0.005/share to be made and free competition on latency to be the company to get it, the competing companies naturally push harder and harder until they're all spending $0.004999/share on FPGA programming and the smartest employees they can find to get that $0.005. But it is at least kind of circumscribed; it's that fixed (ish) quantity of money getting wasted, nothing more.

>The problem appears to be that those in a position to rectify the aberration are too busy getting rich off it to care.

Maybe. I've seen elsewhere in these comments that large institutions are now trading directly with HFT players like GETCO and Knight, because they can offer better prices (narrower spreads - less than $0.01) there than they can publicly. These guys are now doing their own trade crossing, effectively acting as a private exchange - and competition between these private exchanges will make the spreads narrower still, and reduce the rents the market makers get. Of course, there are all the downsides of a private exchange - without a public order book it's a shark pool in the same way as the bond market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> For those who are skeptical of Nanex, or want some background on some of the problems with HFT, here is a Dec 2012 analysis by Credit Suisse. HFT Measurement Detection and Response

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/116761218/CS-HFT-DETECTION>

</comment><comment><USER66> I really hate that I can't find articles when I need to. However, I have read that investment companies build datacenters as close to internet hubs as possible, to take advantage of the extra milliseconds gained.

If I recall correctly, this is notable in Manhattan.

<comment><USER67> Actually northern New Jersey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I always get a kick out of reading these NANEX reports. Reading a new report usually means I spend 30 or 40 minutes filling in the gaps (giant) in my knowledge. Are there any other organizations that put out similar quality reports?

</comment><comment><USER69> BTW 400ms rules out that someone had a closer internet connection. As in 400ms light travels 119917 kilometers.

Someone sure new something earlier. But those high frequency traders don't go by names, and so never can be put to normal justice.

</comment><comment><USER70> Would putting a minimum time barrier on HFT systems help? Basically say, you can't make any trades faster than 100ms. You still get the benefit of fast HFT systems, but not the insane microsecond stuff going on now.

</comment><comment><USER71> Those are some heavy graphs, but I wonder what was the spread before the release of the news? Traders buying early on the news might be dealing with a big spread as everybody is expecting the news to come out.

</comment><comment><USER72> Is there some kind of wargame where we could all write little algorithms to trade/compete with one another for a couple minutes, and then check the winners/learn strategies?

</comment><comment><USER73> So is this evidence of insider-trading ? Why would they not prosecute or at least investigate ?

<comment><USER74> Somebody has to provide evidence (and, you know, a perpetrator) to a prosecutor first. But there's no real "investigation team", save maybe FINRA.

If FINRA detects something they can refer an investigation to the S.E.C. or other law enforcement body. But they don't exactly have a stellar track record. And nobody even has to listen to them; they just gather evidence and make recommendations. It's very much a dog with no teeth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> They really should learn data visualization to make it more readable and beautiful.

</comment><comment> iso-8859-1 What would happen if that crucial number was published as a riddle instead?

<comment><USER76> The high-frequency traders would pay $1,000,000 /year salaries to high-speed riddle solvers who trained themselves on Jeopardy shows for high-speed buzzer pressing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> if the market was architected to be fair, all data releases would happen at midnight london time. it just isn't and will never be...

</comment><comment><USER7> you guys remember the uproar that the telegraph caused in the trading community? the street has never recovered.

</comment><comment><USER78> any idea what kind of profit we talking about here? Perhaps this is just not worth for Federalies to pursue...

<comment><USER79> Is cost/return a factor in these things? I'd hope not. If expense stops prosecution, the offender can learn where the cut off lies, and just offend below the benchmark. Somewhat like the way I drive (speed camera goes at 10kmh above limit, I drive at just under this).

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> So, that initial downwards spike at -400ms that immediately kicks back up to the halfway point?

Those can only possibly be pre-programmed strategies. From the big boys. 'Cos you can't stack 'em exchange side last I checked, if they're price dependent. Which means they have a gloriously low-latency-close-to-the-exchange-link.

Which means this news was leaked well before the event.

<comment><USER43> Sure you can "stack" them. If you place a sell order larger than any of the buy orders on the exchange, then what you will see is a "stack" of executed orders beginning with the highest-priced buy order and working down to cheaper ones.

In any case, the bounce back looks to happen over ~100 ms or so, which is plenty of time for anyone's strategy to catch up. I don't see how you can conclude there is some big player who knew "well before the event."

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> What if someone got the natural gas report was earlier than 400 ms but used a computer whose clock set 400ms too early?

It then would be the regular "insider" knowledge trying to pretend business is as usual. But he got noticed because instead of starting abusing the system at 10:30:000 he unknowingly started abusing it at 10:29:400.

Petty amounts of money anyway and nobody is forcing to gamble in the stock market ; )</comment>


She Was Asked to Switch Seats. Now She's Charging El Al with Sexism - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/world/middleeast/woman-81-to-sue-israeli-airline-over-seat-switch.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Of course. If I (young, white male) was asked the same thing, I couldn't call up this argument.</comment>


Why Excel Vlookup Sucks (And What to Use Instead) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@cbenkendorf/why-excel-vlookup-sucks-and-what-to-use-instead-3d82e697512#.4a1xv32rw <comment><USER2> I never ever use vlookup for different reasons: it's a heavy computation function and I always resolve to find the data I'm looking for with different and much lighter solutions. (Which solution depends on the dataset of course)

How does OP solution compare with vlookup on computation? This is far from a trivial problem if you are operating on a 200k rows dataset (and for some reasons you _have_ to use excel)

At first glance it looks similarly hellish, but I would be glad to be wrong.

</comment><comment><USER3> The column order thing is pretty annoying but IMO the worst thing about vlookup is that you have to remember to set the last parameter to FALSE for pretty much every single vlookup you ever do.

(the default of TRUE is some backwards-to-the-80s-compatible behaviour where it expects the lookup column to be sorted and will return the wrong answers if it isn't, plus will return matches even if the data you're looking up isn't there - the closest match if your data is sorted, but it probably isn't, and "closest" may not even mean anything...)

</comment><comment><USER4> Even better, use free Excel add-in Power Query. It's vlookup on steroids.

<comment><USER5> Correct!</comment></comment>


Book notes: The Courage to be Disliked - <AUTHOR> https://sivers.org/book/Disliked <comment><USER2> A review of this book from Amazon:

"Unlike other giants in the field of psychology, Adler did not believe past trauma affects one's ability to be happy in the present. Adler taught the importance of liking oneself, contributing to community, appreciating another for just "being," accepting the fact that out of say, 10 people, one will really like you, two will dislike you, seven will be neutral and the important thing is to be yourself; not try to be other than yourself; concentrate on the one who likes you and not try win over others. Thus the title: "The Courage to Be Disliked." Adler proposed that one is happier and freer if they live"moments to moments, "working on one's own task in life and not doing other peoples' tasks"

This reminds me of Victor Frankl and his insights into Holocaust survivors in Man's Search for Meaning. Why do some people survive and others don't.

I look forward to checking out this book, thank you for sharing.

Shot in the dark, but I've had some traumatic life events, child abuse, suicide attempts, mental health issues, sexual assaults, and more. I've spent years, almost a decade, working through my issues every day. Has anyone ever been in a similar situation and what helped, helps you the most?

<comment><USER3> _Has anyone ever been in a similar situation and what helped, helps you the most?_

1\. Own your feelings.

It's okay to feel whatever you feel. There's no correct answer here. You don't really heal while trying to suppress the "wrong" or bad feelings or judge them or whatever.

2\. Give it enough of your time, but not too much.

It takes time to process, etc. Make sure to allow adequate time for that, but don't wallow. Figure out when you need to move on.

3\. Living well is the best revenge.

Don't let your past consume your present and future. Set goals. Work towards things you want. Walk away from the drama. Stop and smell the roses.

4\. Don't reject the parts of you shaped by it, but don't let it define you either.

Steel is forged in fire. I'm okay with who I am, steely bits included. But don't let "This bad thing happened to me" become your entire identity either. Also, don't let fighting against it define you. That's another form of being defined by it and imprisoned by it.

5\. "Experience is not what happens to you. It's what you do with what happens to you." (Aldous Huxley)

So, you experienced a thing. What you do with that experience is still up to you.</comment></comment>


We are posers. This is how hacking actually works. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39CRw7zH_2A

<comment><USER2> I am not worthy. That makes want to weep then die :)</comment>


Facebook labels some Russian users as 'interested in treason' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/11/facebook-labels-russian-users-as-interested-in-treason <comment><USER2> The old joke about searching something and ending up on a list seems disturbingly real.

What the hell Facebook. I get their reasoning:

>Facebook said the label was intended to only identify historical treason. "Treason was included as a category, given its historical significance. Given it's an illegal activity, we've removed it as an interest category," a spokesperson said.

But wtf are you thinking?</comment>


X-ray data may be first evidence of a star devouring a planet - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2018/x-ray-data-first-evidence-star-devouring-planet-0718 <comment><USER2> This article needed a computer animation that fit the observed data.

<comment><USER3> Here is a random simulation of a Jupiter like planet being tidally disrupted, hope it will do: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6LTEbBIpw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6LTEbBIpw)</comment></comment>


It's Too Late to Save Over 400 U.S. Cities from Rising Seas, Scientists Say - <AUTHOR> http://www.alternet.org/environment/rising-sea-levels-will-overtake-hundreds-american-cities <comment><USER3> If things are as bad as claimed, then we'll have no choice but to geoengineer our way out of the problem. Orbiting sunshades to reduce insolation is one option.

On the other hand, satellite data shows no meaningful warming for almost twenty years, and some scientists think that climate sensitivity to CO2 is substantially lower than the IPCC has been claiming. Perhaps we have a lot more time after all...

<comment><USER4> > satellite data shows no meaningful warming for almost twenty years

I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and this year will probably be a record too.

In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually increases quite unabated: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content)

As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade)

It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil.

<comment><USER3> "I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and this year will probably be a record too."

Not according to the satellite data, which is far less manipulated and inherently more accurate than the NOAA surface record.

"In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually increases quite unabated"

The claim made in the linked graph equates to an average temperature change of .004 deg C for all ocean water since 1978. The Do you really think we know this? What are the error bars? The graph is made even less credible by the near-instantaneous 5e22 spike around 2013 in the three month average...

"As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that"

What choice will we have if the alarmists are correct? The claim was that anything over 350 PPM would be catastrophic. We're now at 400 and climbing, with no end in sight.

"It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil."

That's not going to happen for a long time.

China's emissions will increase until 2030, and it's already the major contributor. India is also on a path to burn a lot of coal. There's almost zero chance of CO2 concentrations not hitting 500 PPM, and they will likely hit 600 PPM easily.

The win/win scenario involves vastly expanded next-gem nuclear electric generation, but there seems little likelihood of that happening.

<comment><USER3> Whoops, re-reading this I realized it should be a 0.04 deg C change - <USER2> slipped a decimal. The point stands though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my product concept: farsquare - A doorbell for your meetups - <AUTHOR>

farsquare is a concept for a tool which allows you to create events and meet-ups, invite guests to those events, and track their location before the event.
It is very much in it's concept phase and I would love to know what you guys think about it.
www.vikasvadlapatla.com/farsquare <comment><USER2> Nice idea!

Personally, I really liked the presentation, as it is very clear. You may want to put it on the top of the page!

Else, nice MVP!

+1 for the name: I'd suggest to change it to something less similar to another popular service.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot! I moved the presentation to the top of the page. Also, I'm definitely going to change the name! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The concept is interesting but why did you use such a similar name to another popular service? It was really the first thing I noticed and I really dislike that.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the process of coming up with a wacky name, I came up with "farsquare". (Because it tells you how far your friend's are etc..) But I didn't mean it in a bad way or anything against foursquare.!!

When I eventually build this application, I will definitely change the name!

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link!

<http://www.vikasvadlapatla.com/farsquare></comment>


Ask HN: Need suggestions to improve pinkvox.com - <AUTHOR>

Pinkvox is an online community for women focussing on women empowerment. How can we improve its UI/UX ? <comment><USER2> OK. I will play the devil's advocate because I want women startups to succeed. I arrived at the site and I don't know what the site is about. Do you want me to do something? or read? It looks like a content site but i'm not sure what the content is about.

I saw that you also have a tag line "connect. communicate. change." I have no clue what that means because it is too general. "connect. communicate. change." isn't this something we all do when we get on the internet? I see this a lot, but a lot of startups try to be "marketing" and we come up with a tag line because we think it resonates with the user.

I honestly think those taglines only work when you're an established company and people already know what you do. instead of a tag line, you should maybe describe something that you want women to do when they're on your site.

because i don't understand it, those quotes with pics don't mean anything to me.

OK, now i try to click on it, and i'm directed to a form to sign up? OK, why should i sign up? what do I get for signing up?

in other words, as an user I don't know what your site does. you have to ask yourself what do you want people to do when they get to your site? that's when you create a whole marketing message that resonates with the user wrt that specific task.

hope that helps!!

</comment><comment><USER3> I have to ask: why 'pink'?

I would imagine the way to empowerment is to remove such idiotic associations - you know, the kind that baby girls are subjected to _from birth_... It's the most insidious brainwashing other than religion, with all the attendant 'issues' that develop later in life ('Where are all the women in Science/Computing?', etc).

I rant because it's so _obvious_ , and yet it continues, even flourishes...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable : <http://www.pinkvox.com></comment>


Can flash be saved? - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2010/01/30/can-flash-be-saved/ another nail in the coffin <comment><USER2> I don't think Flash is at all threatened by the iPhone and iPad not supporting it. The owners of those devices are a tiny but vocal minority who may never be able to use Flash on those devices, but that's the choice they make by buying a device they have artificial control over. Flash itself is absolutely entrenched in the internet and unlikely to disappear because however many millions, out of a billion, can't use it.

You only have to browse down as far as the #2 website in the world, Facebook, to see a site that has extraordinary use for Flash and revenue and businesses built around it - Zynga is practically _printing_ money.

Go down to #4 and you're at YouTube, who are going to be using Flash for the next decade while HTML5 trickles down to an audience that doesn't care and won't even notice when it stops being Flash.

Further down the list you see MySpace at #15, a site which has ties to musicians (generous use of the word) and many millions of users who embed their own or others' music on their profiles in .. Flash.

#29 is a live cam streaming porn site, unlikely to be replaced anytime soon by a non-Flash technology.

Flash isn't "just" video, it's a richer platform than HTML/CSS/JS, both now and next-generation versions, and it's used prominently by some of the most- trafficked sites on the net and less prominently by most of them.

HTML/CSS/JS is an _insanely_ slow moving set of standards. Everybody's holding their breath for HTML5 to "be everything they need" ... and it's going to do a lot and it will be, for a while.

But it's also going to be a standard for a very, very long time and technology isn't going to stand still just because the W3C can't keep up.

<comment><USER3> As the ratio of Flash-having to non-Flash-having devices decreases, more and more sites will have to consider how much money they're leaving on the table by not supporting them.

For some this will be "easy" -- if you're a video site, serve up your vids in HTML5 <video> in addition to Flash. We've already seen YouTube and Vimeo take their first steps in this direction; Hulu appears to be going this way too.

If you're Farmville, it's harder. But would it really cost Farmville more to have a team rewrite their app in HTML than it would to not support all the people on non-Flash devices that want to play their game and will instead play something else? Perhaps today... 2 years from now, I strongly doubt it. Keep in mind, Apple's devices aren't the only devices that don't have Flash: Flash availability is actually decreasing on the web. And you _know_ Farmville's CEO's non-techy spouse is gonna get an iPad. If Farmville's CTO hasn't already priced out what a move to HTML would cost, they're negligent.

<comment><USER4> For something as dynamic as farm ville, what is more likely is just porting a farm ville client to iPhone/iPad vs. painfully recreating it in HTML so it can work badly on a smartphone screen. Most facebook apps in the beginning were HTML based. One of zynga's early, successful apps was mafia wars, a purely html game. The decision to create farmville in flash was completely intentional.

<comment><USER5> This trend is going to be massively increased by Adobe's addition of an iPhone compiler to Flash CS5 (barring capricious behavior on Apple's part to exclude these non-XCode-compiled binaries from the App Store, in which case, _war_ ).

Ironically, this will likely go further to decrease the use of the Flash player than anything Adobe has ever done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Could Nokia help Adobe out? No. The web elite don't have Nokia phones and don't care about Nokia.

I assume by 'web elite', he means 'people that he knows in the United States'.

Nokia is incredibly popular in Asia and Europe.

FWIW, Youtube has a mobile flash version that runs in my Nokia browser and it works great - better than the default video viewer that ships with the handset.

</comment><comment><USER7> Why should Adobe save Flash? They make money be selling developer tools. They don't necessarily need to save the Flash format. Their main dilemma is ensuring that sales of their tools does not drop, and instead continues to increase. One tactic I think they should pursue, is to make sure their developer tools can export to formats that consumer devices do support. If I were Adobe I would aggressively be pursuing a single checkbox build option for Flash projects to be exported to HTML5/JS/CSS not unlike how Apple implemented universal binaries. That would leapfrog them so far ahead of the competition that are stuck with more primitive tools to accomplish the same job that there would still be value in buying their tools.

<comment><USER8> I agree wholeheartedly.

The iphone development target is the first step of many. I predict they'll be investing in OSS developers to support their eventual CSS/HTML 5 target they make the flash toolkit spit out as well after the iphone thing is working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> hopefully not

<comment><USER5> I don't like Flash being used for ads, I don't like it being used for informational sites, I'd just as soon see Flash video replaced with HTML5, but I really hope Flash doesn't die. It's fun to develop for, and when it's actually used for appropriate situations (accounting for about 5% of actual usage, I know), it's pretty effective.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Pyow – function validation for humans, a python clone of ow - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/limelights/pyow <comment><USER2> Off-topic but I can't help but think "pow" would have been a cool name. Probably already a python project with that name though.</comment>


Apple Patent: Mini-Projectors Could Soon Come to iPads, iPhones - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/apple-patent-mini-projectors-could-soon-come-to-ipads-iphones/243510/ <comment><USER2> Wasn't there an HTC Android phone about a year or two ago with an internal projector?

<comment><USER3> I know for a fact that companies have been working on this sort of thing for years. It's not a new idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems to me that the cons far outweigh the pros here, cons being: increased costs, trapezoidal issues when throwing to a wall (requires machine vision to map wall and adjust dynamically), durability issues, input issues (impede image to adjust OR interact with device, which will shake the image), lighting requirements. Plus, exactly how often does the situation arise where something needs to be shown and there isn't a suitable screen around? We have laptops, iPads, and often the smartphone's screen suffices.

Apple are wizards though, and if they can do the impossible here then it will be a huge score for their hardware/software advantage.

</comment><comment><USER5> Here's the same article, formatted for print (I find these easier on the eyes): [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/08/apple- pa...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/08/apple-patent-mini- projectors-could-soon-come-to-ipads-iphones/243510/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't see apple pulling this off in a way that would fit with their high usability standards just yet.

Personally i could see it in the mac pro or iphone first.

But (whilst i think its awesome tech) i just have a feeling it is a little too gimmicky for the iphone any time soon.

<comment><USER7> It's a little annoying that the press flies off the handle about every patent Apple files. We've seen this for years - Apple files _tons_ of patents that never make it into a shipping product. To extrapolate from "Apple patents X" into "Apple plans to ship X" is stupid.

It makes me wonder if Apple purposely patents things it doesn't plan to ship to:

\- increase its patent portfolio

\- to inject noise and distract from patents it _does_ plan to ship

<comment><USER8> I think Apple patents everything they can find to avoid lawsuits. The patents they've actually used in a product are the ones the filed against Android manufacturers.

It's hard to take any of the patents seriously. Usually the new tech that Apple introduces are patents filed very close to when the product is publicly released so no one is aware of the feature. Even when they show new features that come from these patents it's never quite the same as what those illustrations show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just because they have a patent doesn't mean they will manufacture a product.

Perhaps they just don't want their competitors to put it in their products, for example.</comment>


Conceptual compression means beginners don't need to know SQL – hallelujah - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/conceptual-compression-means-beginners-dont-need-to-know-sql-hallelujah-661c1eaed983 <comment><USER2> And here I am still writing C++ like a chump.

Jokes aside, I love the idea of ORMs; SQL is tricky to get right and has lead to so many serious security vulnerabilities I think we should all be happy if we stop generating it inside applications.

But I wish DHH had actually said something technical about why they are ready now when they were not before. Most people's complaints about ORMs was not that they didn't work at all, it was that performance sucked if you used them naively and learning to use an ORM was about as complicated as learning SQL.</comment>


The Hurricane Station - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-20ed5228-1f23-4906-9057-ffdd9d5272f2

<comment><USER2> "The storm was scary, but at least we don't live in Chicago."</comment>


Ask HN: How would you make this 37Signals animation?  - <AUTHOR> https://news.layervault.com/stories/14475-clever-interaction-on-basecamps-sign-up-page

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to do something like this for a future project and wanted to know a best place to start from.

</comment><comment><USER2> The best place to start is looking to the page source code</comment>


Show HN: zVault – A new deduplicating backup solution written in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dswd/zvault <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, zVault is a new deduplicating backup solution that I have written from scratch. It is still in a pretty early stage and all your feedback will be highly appreciated.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use marijuana non-recreationally? - <AUTHOR> Inspired by one of the responses to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17310926 I'm curious about people taking marijuana regularly and non-recreationally (by non-recreationally I mean anything other than 'getting super baked and listening to Dark Side of the Moon', in broad strokes).<p>Specifically I'm interested in those that take it for depression, focus, creativity, sleep, etc. Would you be willing to share your experiences? <comment><USER2> Involved in development with pretty insane schedules, 14-18+ hrs/day pretty often and weird as it sounds enjoying my activity immensely. Marijuana keeps me focused at times without a single Alt+Tab for most of the day. Far from ideal or healthy and I wouldn't recommend this to anyone however truth be told there's also a perennial race against time, if I'd be to stop the company would probably grind to a halt.

Never talked about this with anyone and would never even dare interacting with people in public in an altered state of mind but luckily we're a decentralized team. I'm also conscious about the bad part of this being gradual social retreat/isolation and inability of engaging with people at chit-chat/informal level. In my case though satisfaction from seeing an algorithm flying is just too great - but I'm also lucky of having a really supportive (non-smoker) partner, life without this aspect would most probably look much much different.

<comment><USER3> Which Strain do you use / is it available on Eaze or downtown SF?

<comment><USER4> Please say Blue Dream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well i use marijuana for a lot of reasons i would say.

Sure there always is a recreational factor. But i also suffer from way less migraines in stress situations, my depression is "smoothed" out as well as it helps my focus and creativity.

When i started smoking it may was all for being baked, but these days its more like a coffee. Its a habbit that helps in several parts of my private and work life. I can easily go without, and regularly do, however i don't see much of a reason to do so as it just helps without any worrysome side effects.

<comment><USER6> I'm in a very similar situation. I started using marijuana to easy my migraines... Then I found out I enjoy it whether I have a migraine or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Focus+Creativity

I can play things on my guitar when I'm stoned that I am completely unable to play when straight.

RPGing is quite amusing when stoned, as long as I don't become fascinated with the sparkly dice and drift off into a fugue state.

I also find that menial tasks such as cleaning, painting, yardwork, etc., become much more bearable/enjoyable.

Keep it clean, keep it green. GYO

</comment><comment><USER8> I use it for: \- Insomnia \- Migraines \- Focus/Creativity (studio art hobby) \- Anxiety (mostly generalized anxiety disorder)

also recreationally, but not as often as I used to.

In general I've found that semi micro-dosing has helped with non-recreational use. Rather than smoke a joint/bowl worth all at once, I take a couple hits scattered throughout the day. Helps prevent getting the come-down sleepiness and lack of focus that comes with getting toasted early in the day.

Vaping over combustion also seems to help curb stoner side effects (sleepiness, laziness, munchies, paranoia) but YMMV.

<comment><USER9> I think some people are mistaken here what weed consumnption is about. It's the oxygen deficiency, the sleepiness that makes some people feel irrationally happy, or otherwise a placebo effect triggered by very strong stimuli like the taste/smell and the heat and a lot of positive marketing.

The anxiety is, by definition, the problem that you should be most anxious about. Live is random and you need to stay alert, and self conscious. Bringing a bit of randomness into art can help with an organic look, but organisms decay, you likely want to design structures built to last. Migrain can be a consequence of malnourishment, vascular stress or other circulatory issues, certainly not something that can be helped by a pill or any of that sort. And if your doctor doesn't know where it comes from either, and your medical history doesn't indicate any reason, go see a chiropractor. And ask about sleeping pills, if you really cannot get any sleep at all. Which I doubt.

<comment><USER10> Chiropractors are quacks [https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-evidence-shows- that-chiro...](https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-evidence-shows-that- chiropractors-do-more-harm-than-good/)

Sleeping pills are extremely dangerous [https://www.everydayhealth.com/news/risks-taking-sleeping- pi...](https://www.everydayhealth.com/news/risks-taking-sleeping-pills/)

You have no medical knowledge, please stop trying to give people medical advice.

<comment><USER11> If you're having headaches you need to see a neurologist. Anything having to do with your brain or head is generally going to be neurology. Rule out aneurysm, tumor and other potential 'game changers'.

<comment><USER9> I said it, because I believe nerves and vessels can become lodged in between the spine, and block them somehow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Used to enjoy it recreationally a decade ago at age ~30. Now it makes me paranoid, more depressed, lethargic, and definitely dumber if I partake. So I don't anymore.

<comment><USER13> Makes you feel dumber. It can't actually make you dumber lol.

Now alcohol can actually make you dumber. Stay away from the booze.

<comment><USER14> You guys are always so confident about these marijuana harnlessness claims. You love acting like logic driven scientists so show us the science.

<comment><USER15> I have a friend who used to smoke like an ounce/week. He was always high. He has scoliosis and is often in extreme pain, so the weed helped-- but apart from that, I have never seen a lazier, more depressing person than he was when he smoked that much. He wouldn't move, his appetite wasn't increased with marijuana so he was so skinny, and he'd just sit there and lazily preach about its benefits. All he did was talk about weed and smoke weed. He'd wake up, smoke a bowl, smoke another bowl, sleep, wake up and smoke a bowl, stay up all night listening to music and smoking bowls, and then fall asleep again. It scares me to think that people don't take marijuana seriously. It's a mind- altering substance that needs to be respected and monitored in one's own body just like anything else. It may not kill you, but it can fuck you up nonetheless.

I know there are so many positive stories about it, which is great, but I wish people would be more responsible and reasonable about what they take, how much they take, when, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I smoke before cycling/running basically as a performance enhancing drug. It enables me to nearly instantly "get into the zone". I noted every run/ride that I smoked prior to in my tracker and anectodally found I performed better.

Also 25 miles into a ride, a quick puff on the pen feels excellent.

I assume it both gets me into a good mindset, but also raises my heart rate quickly.

</comment><comment><USER17> Ganja is a significant part of many Yoga traditions.

I have a good friend who was introduced to its use in this context.

The lineage he was exposed to uses the enhanced attention in very specific way. No yoga teacher or class I've ever experienced has ever hinted to these techniques which makes me think they are not known outside of this lineage.

With that being said, one can always explore yoga practice in the presence of sativas, with attention toward the body and slowing down everything.

A typical augmented yoga session is 6+ hours.

<comment><USER18> Erlich, is that you?

<comment><USER17> No. The western yoga industrial complex does not possess this knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I use it at the end of my day in a vaporized form so I can inhale less carcinogenic chemicals. It really helps to regulate my mood since I tend to have a really "jumping" mood when I'm tired. I take a dose small enough (currently 0.2g) to feel a little high and being functional for creative activities (music, walk in the woods). This forces me to take time to wrap up and integrate what happened during the day. I found marijuana really helpful to reduce anxiety. I never used weed as a miracle substance but more as a supplement to physical activity and meditation. Weed, despite what people say can trigger mental addictions and sometimes body withdrawals this is why I like to keep a tight control over it.

</comment><comment><USER20> I was taking Tramadol for years for chronic pain. It worked great and allowed me to function. Then a couple years ago, some scientist said it was 'opioid- like', and now it's impossible to get from doctors. The state where I live is clamping down on opioids and tramadol is now tied in with actual opioids.

Ibuprofen + Tylenol every 4 hours works OK, but the nausea and withdrawal from Tramadol led me to try cannabis. It works great for keeping me off opiods, since it fills that 'any narcotic'-need people feel even years later.

It's better, safer than heroin, which many turn to when their cruel doctors cut them off. The only thing that worries me now is a hospital stay. Can you imagine surgery without painkillers? Ouch, that's only for the rich!

<comment><USER21> > Can you imagine surgery without painkillers? Ouch, that's only for the rich!

I'm reminded of this article about not being given pain killers after surgery: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/sunday/surgery- ge...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/sunday/surgery-germany- vicodin.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I use it to help ease various symptoms of my cystic fibrosis(I take it in a pill form), It's been really life changing.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have Irritable Bowel Syndrome and I find that a good Sativa will really help with it and calm my stomach, Indica not so much.

Some times when I want to work on something I find my self depressed and apathetic. A nice bowl of Girl Scout Cookies will fix that, once I'm started I will be less critical of myself and more pleased with my progress, allowing me to get into it and enjoy my work. If I have something more Indica I will just sit and watch tv :(

I feel it increases my creativity while stoned, but when I look at the work sober its not as good as my sober standard. I have anxiety problems it doesn't help with that.

<comment><USER23> I find that eating canned tuna will significantly reduce the impact of irb. Instead of 6 trips to the bathroom, I get down to 3-4.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I use it for focus when writing software. I'm a fairly heavy user, and it allows me to block out anything that would take me out of flow. I write scientific security software, often under deadline, and my typical day is an integrated coding, working out, and smoking bongs. I prefer indica, and tend to smoke about an 1 oz. per week - these days about $120. Each day I do a hard cardio, which seems to balance out the smoking and coding from (seriously) 6am till 10pm with a few 1 hour breaks to eat or do that cardio workout.

</comment><comment><USER25> My father uses it since he got stomach cancer: \- while in chimiotherapy, it reduced the nausea and pain by a great deal \- for the past 10 years, he has used it to reduce stomach spams and nausea caused by removing the cancer tissues In a few minutes, he goes from being white-sick, sweating, vomiting, trembling to being almost normal, it's quite magical actually!

</comment><comment><USER26> I use it for muscle spasms, when CRPS is bad.

It's quite amazing how much has come to light with THC et al. recently. I vape CBD daily (never smoked, or vaped nicotine). I can't help but feel that the last 100 years has been lost (in the west at least), feels as though it's now being rediscovered.

</comment><comment><USER27> To sleep every night

Also great for some of my migranes (can be worse when it doesnt work so i try the usual meds first)

Good for hangovers too

</comment><comment><USER28> A close friend uses it to medicate against her seizures.

</comment><comment><USER29> It helps some people focus, but not me. For me its good to relax every few months, but not to get anything done.

</comment><comment><USER30> I used to be addicted stoner. Does it count as non-recreational?

</comment><comment><USER31> Hello, I'm currently trialing it to treat epilepsy. AMA.

</comment><comment><USER11> You didn't specifically mention topical use, although anyone who dislikes sunburn, 3rd degree burns, bug bites, eczema, or mysterious rashes will appreciate this one. Cannabis Oil (THC/CBD ratio of 1:1) mixed into Aquaphor can be applied topically to effectively make anything topical caused by inflammation disappear. 3rd degree burns go from severe pain to no pain in a few hours, and the wild thing is that the burns heal without blistering. From what I've heard/read it may be possible to cure skin cancer and melanoma the same way.

<comment> King-Aaron > From what I've heard/read it may be possible to cure skin cancer and > melanoma the same way.

Citation definitely needed.

<comment><USER11> From The endocannabinoid system of the skin in health and disease: novel perspectives and therapeutic opportunities

"...cannabinoids were also reported to inhibit the in vivo growth of melanomas that express CB1 and CB2 by decreasing growth, proliferation, angiogenesis and metastasis formation, while increasing apoptosis." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757311/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757311/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > non-recreational

So, destructive?

> Specifically I'm interested in those that take it for depression, focus, > creativity, sleep, etc.

So, creational? I am confused by ''rec'', it's a bullshit term, especially if that means getting blunted which does at least not recreate braincells.

<comment><USER32> rec·re·a·tion·al/ˌrekrēˈāSH(ə)n(ə)l/ adjective

        relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.

The opposite of that doesn't necessarily sound "destructive" to me. I mean sure, that's one possibility, but not the only one. "medicinal" could be another one. I'm sure there's more.

<comment><USER9> As I was trying to say, I didn't grow up using this term to mean a big break or yard time or whatever it is. Neither do I find relaxing an apt description of the literally mind numbing activity.

<comment><USER4> Smoking is dumb and deadening.

Vaporizing is for the gods.

Level up, friend.

<comment><USER9> numbs the senses all the same, maybe less or differently, but it's certainly ... well, uncertain. Point in case, nobody in this thread was talking about the method of intake.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Syndicalism: a replacement for Capitalism  - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

<comment><USER2> Sounds an awful lot like this, which is probably what it would evolve into.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Medieval_guild](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Medieval_guild)

</comment><comment><USER3> This may actually predate capitalism. I know it was quite popular at least in some communist countries. For that reason alone I tend to oppose it outright. Communism was awful, at least for individuals and individual liberty. Capitalism may be far from perfect, but I don't think I'd prefer anything close to communism. You think the excuse "to protect you from terrorists" is being abused right now? You should've seen how much the "in the name of the people" excuse was being abused during communism. The terrorism excuse pales in comparison.

<comment><USER2> Exactly, it's always the same type of individuals in power, the question is whether you want those people to have more power over you or less.

Capitalism just limits the damage they can do, and turns their greed against one another.</comment></comment>


Facebook plans June 18th cryptocurrency debut - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/06/facebook-libra-launch/ <comment><USER2> Other than for marketing purposes and PR spin, why is there any use of a blockchain here? Facebook is a single entity... whom I assume trusts itself to keep a private ledger in a database.

So... what's the point of any blockchain? I imagine any widespread adoption would just be dominated by facebook's own servers

</comment><comment><USER3> Calling it Libra (if they do) would generate a whole world of memes.</comment>