If you believe the EMH you shouldn't compare stocks to lottery tickets. It sounds like you just don't want to look too closely.
Let's try differently. What evidence would you require to conclude "EMH is false"?
Edit: I have to make this edit because someone will point it out. YES I realize I didn't actually answer your question but the thing is this has been discussed ao thoroughly that I don't think i have anything new to add.
The only thing I can think of that would disprove EMH would be an arbitrage opportunity that doesn’t go away by using it. If you can arbitrage continuously and without limit and the difference you’re arbitraging isn’t decreasing, that would contradict EMH. Since that’s pretty much the only claim of EMH, multiplying your money by taking high risks doesn’t really contradict it.
The EMH says that you can't predict a stocks price in the future give the past data.
HFT just reacts to price changes, it doesn't really predict what it will do in the future so it really has no relevance to the EMH as they are only reacting to what prices did in the past, albiet the very recent past:)
They do go away, that’s why you have to be the fastest. They also are limited, you can’t arbitrage them with an arbitrary amount at once because this makes the difference disappear.
By "go away" I thought you meant over time by people exploiting it it would disappear. If you have two exchanges trading the same instrument, whenever the instrument is priced differently you can buy one and sell the other. This will "nerve go away" because it will still be true 20 years from now. Of course that every time such an opportunity occurs itself it has finite capacity.
So, I misunderstood what you meant, but what you meant is even dumber than I thought. What you're saying is a source of free money. That has nothing to do with EMH whatsoever.
There's various versions, usually named weak version, strong and strongest. I don't remember which one is which, but the one I find interesting is "all publicly[1] available information is already incorporated into the prices". This is not a statement of absolute certainty but a statement on expected values. The reason I said your claim is dumb is that it's equivalent to "EMH says there's no infinite free money". I'm pretty sure everyone agrees there's no infinite free money, that's so obvious we don't even give a name to that hypothesis.
[1] how to define what publicly means exactly is also a question on itself which is important but not theain point here.
But „all publicly available information is already incorporated into the prices“ is exactly the reason why there’s no free money. It means that any difference between expected value based on new information is immediately arbitrated away and the actual value adjusts.
> and the difference you’re arbitraging isn’t decreasing
You literally said this, which means _infinite_ capacity. But now you're omitting that.
So what I'm reading is that your position is "EMH can only be falsified if someone finds infinite free money". Alright, this is what I call the church of the Efficient Market.
I don't know if you're trolling or just ignorant. I'm leaning towards trolling. Either way I've lost interest the conversation.
I am seriously not trolling, I’m just not sure how EMH is even controversial.
I also don’t get what I’m omitting. If you have an arbitrage opportunity, EMH means that this opportunity will disappear over time because the information that the opportunity exists spreads around and the opportunity is used up. That’s why EMH would mean that you can’t make infinite free money by arbitrating the differences. That’s what I meant and I still stand by it.
> So what I'm reading is that your position is "EMH can only be falsified if someone finds infinite free money"
Basically yes, and I’m not expecting EMH to be disproven because it’s pretty obvious.
What else would contradict the pretty basic claims of EMH?
Because it’s one of the biggest tech companies and its results foreshadow earnings for other tech companies. Just look at the after hours price movements of most of the tech stocks.
Perhaps you are using the wrong language. You should probably just stick with python or javascript where they just have simple lists and maps and pretty much nothing else.
A Java programmer feeling superior? Who would have though the day will come.
In all seriousness, this is grade school BS.
(a) Literals are a syntax improvement. Much more serious languages than Java have them.
(b) What Python and JS have don't amount to "simple lists and maps". They have the full gamut (including constructor based instantiation of different types).
(c) Literals don't have to be a single ("simple" or not) type. They can be whatever, and in Java these could include different classes of lists and maps initialized with the same literal syntax based on the assigned variable's type.
(d) When Oracle gives literals, Java programmers not familiar with them in other languages will suddenly love them too, and they'd not just be "for Python and Javascript" anymore.
If you have a non trivial application, multiprocessing just takes a lot of memory. Every child process that you create duplicates the parent memory. There are some interesting hacks like gc.freeze that exploits the copy on write feature of forks to reduce memory, but ultimately you can just create a few hundred of processes compared to thousands of threads because of memory consumption.
>If you have a non trivial application, multiprocessing just takes a lot of memory. Every child process that you create duplicates the parent memory.
Not really, unless you want to alter it. The OS uses copy on write behind the scenes for forked processes, so will use the same memory locations already loaded until/if you modify that. So parent memory isn't really duplicated.
As for any new memory allocated by each child process, that's its own.
Unfortunately the generational GC modifies bits all over the heap, so you have to use some tricks to really leverage copy on write (as the commenter alludes to).
The situation is a bit more complicated than this. While it's usually not the case that child processes always duplicate parent memory, that does happen on certain platforms (MacOS and Windows) on some Pythons. Additionally, the situation regarding unexpected page dirtying of copy-on-write memory is nuanced as well, which some of the sibling comments allude to.
I'll copy the tl;dr from another comment I've made nearby:
There are three main ways to share data into your multiprocessing processes:
1. By sending that data to them with IPC/pickling/copying, e.g. via "multiprocessing.Pool.apply_async()", "multiprocessing.Queue.put()" or "concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor.submit()".
2. Copy-on-write via fork(2). In this mode, globally-visible data structures in Python that were created before your Pool/ProcessPoolExecutor are made accessible to code in child processes for (nearly) free, with no pickling, and no copying unless they are mutated in the child process. Two caveats here, which I've discussed in other comments on this thread: mutation may occur via garbage collection even if you don't explicitly change fork-shared data in Python[1]; and fork(2) is not used by default in multiprocessing on MacOS or Windows[2].
3. Using explicit shared memory data structures provided by Multiprocessing[3][4].
Blind is even worse than Glassdoor. Last I checked, it had some kind of weird restriction about if you are not in a big tech or a well known startup, you can’t see any reviews.
I know there are already guns that have fingerprint unlock feature. I wonder if the US constitution allows states to require such fingerprint unlock on all new guns.
Going a step further, I think google should stop crawling websites that are paywalled. When I search for something, I want to see results that I can click on. Not some snippets from NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg and others which are heavily paywalled.
The open web has deteriorated to such an extent that either information is paywalled or free but has commercial motivations behind it (affiliate links, sponsorships). It turns out there's little free, non-commercial, high quality content on the web.
It turns out there's little free, non-commercial, high quality content on the web.
I disagree. I think there's a lot of it out there, in the form of blogs and small forums. It's just really hard to find, like mining for gold in the Super Pit [1]. You need to sift through mountains of rubble to find tiny amounts of gold.
True. There is some great content (blogs, OS software, books, p2p networks, public libraries, academia, government), but by and large that wasn't created with monetary incentives.
Could there be a way to sustainably make enough money from visitors without making it all suck?
There have been a lot of ridiculous things in cryptocurrency land, but what's wrong with Basic Attention Token? It has been around for six years and seems to solve the problem of paying content creators via microtransactions. The only wrinkle is that finance laws force everyone to verify their identity with a government-issued ID before transacting BAT.[1] This is a problem for all microtransactions, not just cryptocurrency.
...And then we're back with the underlying conflicting interests surrounding governments guarding their citizen's privacy. Yes absolutely we want all our citizens to always use unbreakable and untraceble communication channels. Except when law enforcement needs to surveil and pry on the bad guys.
And where it's impossible to tell difference from a (pseudo) random stream of numbers.
At a certain point, if you want a subscription service, why wouldn't you just do something like suscribe to Bloomberg News, then get all your news by going directly to their site rather than going through a search engine or aggregator. If you're looking at an aggregator, inherently you want to see many possible sources, including ones you may only read once a year. Nobody is going to subscribe to hundreds of separate sources individually just to read them once in a blue moon.
Ironically, the predatory and terrible academic journal industry is probably the only thing out there right now that comes close to getting this right. Rather than expecting anyone to subscribe to each journal individually, they give a bulk subscription to an entire publishing service that then grants access to many journals.
If someone out there offered a $20 a month service that granted access to Bloomberg, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, WaPost, Financial Times, all in one, I'd gladly buy that. But there is no way in hell I'm subscribing to all of those separately. Even if the aggregate price was cheaper, I wouldn't want to do that.
1. There is much paywalled information online that is not in the form of a subscription, but instead one-time fees.
2. Just because you paid at the paywall, doesn't mean you have to subscribe for life. You can pay to get the information you need and then instantly cancel any subscription.
> If someone out there offered a $20 a month service that granted access to Bloomberg, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, WaPost, Financial Times, all in one, I'd gladly buy that.
PressReader is pretty much this, although the price is $30 and not $20.
The obvious problem to this armchair expert "solution" is that Google doesn't know what I am already paying. I pay NYT for a subscription, but Google doesn't know that. For obvious privacy reasons users don't want to tell Google what sites they already have subscriptions with. And I don't even log in to Google to do a search so there's no place to store that information even if I actively wanted to provide that to Google.
I wasn't presenting it as a perfect solution. I was observing that many people don't want to see paywalled results, some may want to see all of them because they may choose to pay, some may want to see them because they plan to use a paywall bypass, and some as you pointed out may want to see the subset they already pay for but not others. As a first pass, a binary approach seems better than nothing, and is simpler to provide than a more complex user-subscription-specific solution.
I'd pay a little if we could get rid of the pop ups and cookie banners, advertisements and click bait content. But after 30 years we're still missing the infrastructure for micro payments.
For news sites and netflix we now have subscriptions shielded by paywals, which really is incompatible with hyperlinked sites or search engines. Even if you subscribed to 1000 services, the experience would probably be horrible. The internet was designed to be free, but evidently that's not a good business model if you want to make a living.
Micro payments only make sense if the intrinsic transaction costs are (near) zero. Like reaching for your wallet to pick a coin to give to a homeless person.
With trusted third parties or block chains, the transaction costs are unfortunately much, much higher, especially initially without proper scales economics.
It could be as simple for the user as a button in your web browser to donate or pay for the site currently open in your tab. And a third party intermediary that once a month collects payment/donations and distributes. The problem with Visa/MC is the minimum transaction fee of 10-25c
But a lot of work and planning would be needed to get anywhere with such an idea.
If I ask you what is the best restaurant in town, will you answer that it's your mommas house because there you always eat for free?
Cost has nothing to do with determining the quality of a search result, and search engines shouldn't discriminate against paywalled content. But I think it's a good idea to let users like you check a box to hide paywalled results.
There are millions of websites out there that are free for anyone to read, including this one! Restaurants that serve free meals are not the norm, so this analogy doesn't make a lot of sense. If every website was paywalled and required a subscription, like cable TV channels, then you might have a point.
People use search engines professionally and not only for entertainment. There is an icebergs worth of important and valuable information online behind paywalls, not only articles or news. Information workers use a search engine to find the information they need, pay the cost if it's paywalled, and then cancel any subscription after getting what they needed.
Long gone are the days of "surfing the web", when most of us spent our time online just randomly browsing around.
I don't see why there couldn't also be a professional search engine. Academics have Google Scholar which is an amazing resource for them. A search engine that brought up high quality resources for professionals would seem to be pretty useful. It could potentially even have a single subscription to unlock all of the sites in a network, rather than individual paywalls at every site.
We already have professional search engines, since they don't discriminate against paywalls. No need to change that. And there are so many fields of professionals, that you'd need a ton of different specialized search engines for that.
I've come to learn that many people on hacker news have an ethos of never paying for digital content or services. Most people here make an hourly salary of $20 or more in my estimate, yet they will spend days and days of their time to avoid paying $5 for something. So you spend $100-$200 of your time to save $5. What's the rationale?
It reminds me of my travels around the world, where I'd hang out with backpackers that would spend a long time in the supermarket looking for the cheapest noodles, instead of spending their time enjoying the exotic location they were in. Or spent half the day walking along the highway to a bus stop instead of taking a taxi that would cost $5.
I think it is fair that a search engine by default should be unbiased and look for the best result for the query, and not account for price or such.
No, I won't answer my mommas house because you can't just show up and eat there as a restauraunt. It doesn't fit the search criteria you asked for.
If you ask what the best restauraunt in town is, I'll give you a restauraunt.
If you ask what the best restauruant in town is, I won't send you to a place where you can buy a "best restauraunts in town guide" for 5 bucks, because that's not what you're asking for.
I wonder why Canadians always look at housing from the demand perspective. What about supply? Canada is big. Unless everyone is trying to live in Vancouver and Toronto, there is more than enough space to build houses. Do you not have enough construction workers to build houses?
The truth of the matter is they're fighting very hard to not build anything. In Vancouver, they tried to suppress First Nations people's rights to build apartment blocks because they didn't want anyone to build homes. It's the same story as in California, and they have the same explanations: starting with the foreigners and techies, and then going down the list.
People are moving from toronto and vancouver, selling their houses there for a million, and then going to other cities and overpaying for houses there. That brings up the cost across all of canada. On top of the excessive immigration that is putting a huge strain on housing and healthcare. It has provided a massive upwards pressure on housing prices across all of canada.
And no, canada does not have the capacity to build housing at the rate immigration is bringing people in. half a million per year is a small city each year, mostly going to areas where work is available.
Lots of people look from a supply perspective. There's significant and growing political appetite for broad rezones and liberalization of housing rules.
However regardless of near term future policy that would enable more home development, interest rate hikes have soured the lending environment and caused housing development to plunge.
It may well be that we don't have enough construction workers too.
As usual, there are many factors that contribute to the current housing situation. On the supply side, I feel a major issue is lack of qualified workers. And I am not sure immigration can solve this problem easily unless you are prepared to accept lower quality housing. It is not a coincidence that specialized trades like electrician, heavy machine operators, roofers are not immigrants. The standards are higher here. In the developing world, standards are much sloppier. So it isn't simply a "plug-and-play" situation. There are other issues though. I know that input prices have skyrocketed.
To me, the focus on the demand side is becuase it is easier to solve whereas the supply issues are more structural.
Are the standards for electricians, heavy machine operators, roofers somehow higher than software engineering, such that immigrants are more than capable of software engineering but apparently not trades?
There's layers of rot that have created an untenable situation. The past few years Canada has become all about taking shortcuts and juicing numbers as much as possible. Bad decisions and incompetence create a feedback loop where we dig even deeper. If we built more houses, it would devalue the rest of the housing market - just for a start, it would wipe out the retirement plans for millions. It's not going to happen. It's a depressing downwards spiral where there is no easy exit. Not to mention that Canada wouldn't be able to execute that kind of plan because different parts of the government are trying to do different things.
> Unless everyone is trying to live in Vancouver and Toronto
They are, pretty much.
> Do you not have enough construction workers to build houses?
I don't think most people understand what's going on with Canada. Relative to their population size, the number of immigrants they're bringing in is absolutely insane. 500K+ a year with no signs of slowing down. And those people all need housing TODAY. Canada needs to commit to an absolutely massive, never-ending nationwide construction project to keep up with demand.
As someone who recently moved back to Canada I echo this.
This is an existential issue.
I own two houses, both mortgages paid, make 150k as a family and would need to save for decades to put a down payment on a detached home in a far away suburb of Ottawa.
People who didn't own a house a few years ago bought too much house for fear of being priced out of the market and now their mortgages are coming up for renewal...can't pay it so the banks are doing 50-90 year mortgages!!
Canada’s economy runs on unrefined natural resources and housing. Without a domestic manufacturing sector all more consumers can do is keep the housing party going a while, that’s hardly a long term strategy. Might goose the numbers in advance of the next election though.
Yeah biggest misconception about Canada. It may be the second largest country by surface area but an enormous majority of all of that land is unsuitable for housing development due to either 1) literally being unbuildable ie. tundra or sheer mountain or bog 2) enormously more valuable for agriculture (ie. all the prairies).
There's places where sure yes it would be technically possible to build some new town but it's so cold and miserable that no one would want to and there's no local economic reason to put such a town in such a far flung place. Ultimately we probably will though if the population continues to increase at such a pace.
If you have travelled through the NJ portion of I-95, and stopped at any service stations, you quickly realize how stupid this law is. A single attendant trying to fill gas for 10 cars. Drivers just waiting in line for 20 minutes to fill their gas!
On the flip side, while on road trips, I've seen start the pump, then go into the store for 10 minutes to use the bathroom and buy a snack, hogging the pump spot for 8 extra minutes unnecessarily
I swear, I was the only person who would fill their tank and THEN park and go into the store.
There's a company called Yoshi that does this, only they come out to you with a pump on a van. One of my neighbors uses them. I guess it works, though I never go the appeal, not to mention I'm not 100% sure how it'd work with my car, since it auto locks the fuel cap unless the fob is nearby.
When I was working at Microsoft one of the parking garages had an auto detailing place in it so you could park your car and come back to it washed, waxed, cleaned, etc.
Was a nice perk and convenient since I was going to park my car there anyway.
