The issue has less to do with intelligence silliness, and more to do with the fact that the overall geopolitical objectives of the US can not be trusted, and that rift has grown to a point where self-reliance on critical infrastructure may be in Europe’s best interest.
I’m a tad late to the party, but it’s worth providing a little context to the technical conversation.
Of the many thing trading platforms are attempting to do, the two most relevant here are the overall latency and more importantly where serialization occurs on the system.
Latency itself is only relevant as it applies to the “uncertainty” period where capital is tied up before the result of the instruction is acknowledged. Firms can only have so much capital risk, and so these moments end up being little dead periods. So long as the latency is reasonably deterministic though it’s mostly inconsequential if a platform takes 25us or 25ms to return an order acknowledgement (this is slightly more relevant in environments where there are potentially multiple venues to trade a product on, but in terms of global financial systems these environments are exceptions and not the norm). Latency is really only important when factored alongside some metric indicating a failure of business logic (failures to execute on aggressive orders or failures to cancel in time are two typical metrics)
The most important to many participants is where serialization occurs on the trading venue (what the initial portion of this blog is about; determining who was “first”). Usually this is to the tune of 1-2ns (in some cases lower). There are diminishing returns however to making this absolute in physical terms. A small handful of venues have attempted to address serialization at the very edge of their systems, but the net result is just a change in how firms that are extremely sensitive to being first apply technical expertise to the problem.
Most “good” venues permit an amount of slop in their systems (usually to the tune of 5-10% of the overall latency) which reduces the benefits of playing the sorts of ridiculous games to be “first”. There ends up being a hard limit to the economic benefit of throwing man hours and infrastructure at the problem.
The issue here for me has always been about the difference between treating a symptom and treating the illness.
Excessive surveillance is necessary when you cannot convince people of the merits of your politics or morals on their own and need to use the power of the State to intimidate and control their access.
For the issue on minors, if you have a child (guilty here) you are obligated to actively raise and educate them on the nature of the world. For access to online interactions this doesn’t necessarily only mean active limits (as one might judge appropriate for the child), but also teaching them that people do not always have positive intent, and anonymity leads to lack of consequence, and consequently potentially antisocial behavior.
A person’s exposure to these issues are not limited to interactions online. We are taught to be suspicious of strangers offering candy from the back of panel vans. We are taught to look both ways when entering a roadway.
The people demanding the right to limit what people can say and who they can talk to do so under the guise of protecting children, but these tools are too prone to the potential for abuse. In the market of ideas it’s better (and arguably safer, if not significantly more challenging) to simply outcompete with your own.
For what it’s worth I went through the upgrade last weekend. There is a compatibility check script and, frankly, the whole process proxmox had described on their site worked precisely as advertised.
5 host cluster; rebooted them all at completion and all of the containers came back up without issue (combination of VMs and LXC)
In fact, it won’t be. Which is why NYSE was so quick to rebrand NYSE Chicago as NYSE Texas when TXSE made the announcement they were launching in Equinix NY4 in Secaucus. The only real differentiator these guys would have had (outside of listings rules) would have been location, but they opted for the lower resistance of locating with all the other markets.
I completely agree with you. 21 years ago when it was released it was simply “yet another competitor” to the sort of overlay systems that gamespy and the like were trying to implement. You installed it because Half-Life 2 (and the litany of mods that became empires into themselves) required it, but it took years for it to develop in a direction that pointed to where we are now.
The first time I did a rebuild and now no longer needed the installation media for games, or the license keys in the manual/game jacket, and I was fully sold.
I don’t fully grasp the hatred, because almost every aspect of it is a vast improvement over what existed 20 years ago. But fortunately there are alternatives.
A long time ago I had a colleague turn me on to Sidney Dekker’s “Drift Into Failure”, which in many ways covers system design taking into account the “human” element. You could think of it as the “realists” approach to system safety.
At the time we operated some industry specific, but national scale, critical systems and were discussing the balance of the crucial business importance of agility and rapid release cycles (in our industry) against system fragility and reliability.
Turns out (and I take no credit for the underlying architecture of this specific system, though I’ve been a strong advocate for this model of operating) if you design systems around humans who can rapidly identify and diagnose what has failed, and what the up stream and down stream impacts are, and you make these failures predictable in their scope and nature, and the recovery method simple, with a solid technical operations group you can limit the mean-time-to-resolution of incidents to <60s without having to invest significant development effort into software that provides automated system recovery.
The issue with both methods (human or technical recovery) is that both are dependent on maintaining an organizational culture that fosters a deep understanding of how the system fails, and what the various predictable upstream and downstream impacts are. The more you permit the culture to decay the more you increase the likelihood that an outage will go from benign and “normal” to absolutely catastrophic and potentially company ending.
In my experience companies who operate under this model eventually sacrifice the flexibility of rapid deployment for an environment where no failure is acceptable, largely because of an lack of appreciation for how much of the system’s design is dependent on an expectation of the fostering of the “appropriate” human element.
(Which leads to further discussion about absolutely critical systems like aviation or nuclear where you absolutely cannot accept catastrophic failure because it results in loss of life)
Extremely long story short, I completely agree. Aviation (more accurately aerospace) disasters, nuclear disasters, medical failures (typically emergency care or surgical), power generation, and the military (especially aircraft carrier flight decks) are all phenomenal areas to look for examples of how systems can be designed to account for where people may fail in the critical path.
> We've been able to run order matching engines for entire exchanges on a single thread for over a decade by this point.
This is the bit that really gets me fired up. People (read: system “architects”) were so desperate to “prove their worth” and leave a mark that many of these systems have been over complicated, unleashing a litany of new issues. The original design would still satisfy 99% of use cases and these days, given local compute capacity, you could run an entire market on a single device.
I’m not sure I follow the logic here. Let’s say a person owns a Tesla outright, and purchased it ignorant to Elon’s behavior (esp if prior to the last year or two). How does selling it benefit some cause? Tesla already has that person’s money. It’s purely a performative action?
Teslas require constant maintenance (like all cars, plus the recalls) and many have a subscription, it's not performative. Each Tesla owner is an asset to them post-sale.
there is/was a meme going around "boston tesla party" and i think if people are serious they should dismantle the teslas they bought, and (freely) recycle all the parts. Just take the L; otherwise this is, in fact, performative.
In fact, i'll propose this to HN. You have your tesla that you can "no longer, in good faith, continue to own" delivered to a lot i specify, and i'll livestream a team of people taking it apart, sorting it, and sending the pieces off to recycling. I will not pay you for your tesla, and you must include the pink slip.
any takers? I am completely serious. I think it would be fun (for me to set up and watch), it would probably be a well-viewed stream and VoD for each car, you could share the links with friends and family to show the strength of your convictions. It's win-win-win; Tesla already got their money, recycling is good for the earth, and you get to make a statement. I also win because i will pay the team that dismantles the car with the proceeds from recycling, which makes me a job creator.
why don’t you use your money and go buy one and do this instead of someone else taking a loss for you? you can even get great deals on leases you can buy at the end. come on, it’s only $50k, what’s the big deal?
You may have misunderstood the coment you replied to.
It's directed at others that want to performatively demonstrate getting rid of their Tesla, there's no claim that genewitch wants to rid the world of Tesla's, just an offer to provide a team and a channel for those that are prepared to go the whole way.
Destroying the market for used Teslas and the brand harms Elon Musk's personal wealth which he uses to achieve his personal political goals. Now you may or may not agree with that as a method, but the logic is straightforward.
I can’t remember who first said it, but watching crypto evolve is like speedrunning why 150yr of securities laws, practices, and regulations exist.
Counterparty risk (including custodianship) is monstrous in crypto. It’s sort of amusingly ridiculous in the same way most tech trends that are trying to break the status quo stumble into the reasons certain rules and regulations exist.
there is some truth in that, but only some.. The adage that the media forms the message could hardly be more apt here. In the days of world sailing trade ships and financial arrangements, so many parts of the mechanisms were starkly different. The weaknesses and anti-patterns in the trade practice are very different then and now. right? Digital ledgers with public verification enable different weaknesses and anti-patterns, from the start.
The issue has less to do with intelligence silliness, and more to do with the fact that the overall geopolitical objectives of the US can not be trusted, and that rift has grown to a point where self-reliance on critical infrastructure may be in Europe’s best interest.
reply