|
dwarf74 posted:Wait wait wait And they were! Until they weren't.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
aware of dog posted:Uber’s stock lockup expires tomorrow, so that should be interesting lol https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1192101103002886146 https://twitter.com/eliotwb/status/1192136867841376256 https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1192152166347051008 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
its double verified, its like 2FA but 2VA. - some marketer that got a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Development that will go into the new Airbnb verification method: several hundred man hours and tens of thousands of dollars. Workaround to game the system: Five minutes and one bottle of vodka.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
I missed that article. What was the scam? People using fake pictures to make their properties seem nicer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
No, it was a bait and switch at the last minute and taking advantage of a refund policy that favors the landlord over the aggrieved renter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
https://wapo.st/2PTZJjW Rare crossover from USPol I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:I missed that article. What was the scam? People using fake pictures to make their properties seem nicer? More like properties that don't exist. Congrats to Air BnB for reinventing the Bait and Switch
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Wait wait wait “Well, I'm not saying it wasn't verified; it's just perhaps not quite as verified as some of the other ones.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
I would hope this time they get an official blue checkmark or some other seal of quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:More like properties that don't exist. Ahem, I think you mean, "Disrupting the transactional paradigm"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:its double verified, its like 2FA but 2VA. - some marketer that got a bonus. Introducing Double Verfied, Double Authentic. to give our customers the best possible experience. or DVDA for short.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUsp_sruTc They sold calls, not puts. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUsp_sruTc Explain that in layman's terms for someone that will never invest in anymore more risky than a GIC/RRSP. My knowledge of options is less than beginner level Which is kind of ironic, considering how many books I own by Michael Lewis Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Explain that in layman's terms for someone that will never invest in anymore more risky than a GIC/RRSP. My knowledge of options is less than beginner level It’s not anything to do with arcane stock trading. It’s a flaw in how Robinhood understands assets. It’s like if I put down my watch as collateral to borrow your car, then offered you your own car as collateral to borrow your yacht. You might be comfortable lending me something with twice the value of the thing I put down, but that’s your limit. I’m borrowing from you against your own money. Real people generally aren’t dumb enough to allow that to be done openly. Robinhood’s code didn’t care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Explain that in layman's terms for someone that will never invest in anymore more risky than a GIC/RRSP. My knowledge of options is less than beginner level Robin Hood allowed its users to make trades with downside potential they could never even dream of covering because their mechanism for determining an investor's capital included the money that Robin Hood was already fronting. Imagine a bank giving you a mortgage loan and then letting you use that cash as a down payment on a mansion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
No, I understand that part/leverage. I want to know what a "call" and a "put" is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:No, it was a bait and switch at the last minute and taking advantage of a refund policy that favors the landlord over the aggrieved renter. Also the ones running the scam were pretending to be just normal people when they were shady companies that had no clear owners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
So, going off of some aging Econ knowledge, the Wall Street trading game I played as a kid and refreshing myself on Investopedia... A call is a contract you can buy, that gives you the option to buy something between now and a later date. You pay me $1 today for the right to buy a hamburger for $5 next week. If burgers go up to $7, you're happy and can make me get one for you for $5. If they stay below $5.99 I'm happy, since I got "free" money for taking on risk. The Robinhood glitch guys were selling calls, meaning they were taking in cash and selling that promise. A put is basically the opposite. If you buy a put you have the right to make the person who sold it buy from you for a price. You pay me $1 for the right to make me buy a hamburger for $5 next week. If burgers go down below $4, you make money because you can buy a cheap one and sell it to me. The distinction in this case is important, because it shows that the guy speaking maybe didn't really even get the glitch. Since there's a huge difference between puts and calls. AMD guy used $2,000 to buy 100 shares for a total of $3,800. They let him do a 2x margin, which is gross but not bad business. They loaned him $1,800 against the stock itself. If it falls below half of the value, then he has to sell all the stock immediately to cover the loan and he ends up with nothing. Once he owned the shares, he sold calls with a $2 strike price. If I'm following him right, if AMD went above $40 a share he had to let the other person buy them for $38. The thing is that these are covered calls. Since he's holding the shares, this heavily limits his risk. If the price hit $40 and they triggered, he'd just hand the shares over at the discounted price. So, normally this is an alright plan. It's basically a bet on the stock price to stay stable. Usually it'd be used to limit risk as part of a larger strategy. If I'm still following, the problem is that the dumb system let him sell the calls, because they were covered, but instead just gave him the money back as if he had no obligations and didn't track any of it. It acted like he just had more money free and clear in his account and proceeded to let him buy more shares. And so on and so forth. So with $2,000 real dollars he now owns ~1,300 shares of AMD with a borrowed ~$48,000. Their value fell to $36 a share already so assuming that they didn't reverse it all, he's already in the hole. Also he doesn't even "own" the shares because they're covering calls. If he's forced to sell the shares to cover the loan from Robinhood, then he magically picked up a shitload of liability. Since if the shares go above $40, he still owes those people the shares. It's a loving mess if the stock price moves at all. This is why it's a horrible idea to apparently let people "buy" the right to trade on margin for $5. Or gently caress around with options when they don't realize what they're really doing. There's a reason that stuff at least used to be really regulated. Parakeet vs. Phone fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Trading on margin never had any negative consequences in the past, I'm not sure what the problem is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Robinhood allowing this reminds me of Hatreon, the nazi Pateon, was so poorly coded that putting in a negative number took money from them and gave it to you. (also I think I made this post before) Also also putting in a imaginary or complex number opened a spacetime hole that sucked you into the hyperreals fin dimension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
The one thing that gets me about the people cheerfully taking advantage of the glitch is that, as a few articles pointed out, it's not like you magically wouldn't owe the money just because Robinhood hosed up and let you do something stupid. You'd almost certainly get a judgement against you, if they asked. Supposedly that one guy who took advantage of a previous version of this glitch (because this has apparently happened before) just quietly had his account closed and they never contacted him about the $50,000 loss, so maybe they'd just eat it over the bad press or possible regulation. You could also declare bankruptcy and leave them holding the bag, but that's hardly one weird trick to get rich. And as the articles covered, doing something this bad faith could maybe even wind up as criminal fraud. Still hilarious that Robinhood is this loving broken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
Laterite posted:Trading on margin never had any negative consequences in the past, I'm not sure what the problem is? The problem is when the margins get too big. There's also regulations on what you can get away with with that sort of thing; in particular speculation was massively regulated. Speculation in and of itself has had some deregulation which has had some disastrous effects on the prices of some things. One of the biggest snags is that it ends up creating a gently caress ton of artificial demand. Futures trading basically means speculating on speculation. So anyway, having to keep a certain margin means you can't speculate too much nor can you short or make too many promises. What they ended up doing was letting you use your margin to make your margin bigger. You can only make so many promises to buy something in the future based on your margins. The fuckery is pretty complex but basically he was using the promises as extra padding on his margin to get to make further promises. If his bet was correct then he would be set to make a ton of money. If his bet was incorrect he'd lose a gently caress ton; this might chuck him into the negative which is very, very bad and the broker would have to clean up the mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:https://wapo.st/2PTZJjW For those without a WaPo sub: https://twitter.com/cfarivar/status/1192208594772480000
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem is when the margins get too big. There's also regulations on what you can get away with with that sort of thing; in particular speculation was massively regulated. Speculation in and of itself has had some deregulation which has had some disastrous effects on the prices of some things. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Doesn't take into account that jaywalkers exist What's also worrying is that is seems the car's programmed to ignore anyone crossing the road except at places where it has been told there are crossings. So, if you're standing at a new crossing or one that's not in the car's programming, or they've just got the location wrong, then there's a good chance it's going to plough right into you. How do you even get a self driving system with "there will only be pedestrians <here> and <here>. Ignore anything else" and think that's something that's mature enough to be allowed on a public road? Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:What really worrying is that is seems the car's programmed to ignore anyone crossing the road except at places where it has been told there are crossings. Have you ever seen temporary pedestrian crossings created by construction? Uber doesn’t.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
What about when construction has blocked off a sidewalk and pedestrians have to walk on the road "protected" by barriers? Will the car plough through that, too? EDIT: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
Uber are acutely poo poo, but it seems in general like autonomous cars are much, much further away from actually being viable than the the industry would admit for a long time. Unless you're Tesla and just release it to the market if it works or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Uber are acutely poo poo, but it seems in general like autonomous cars are much, much further away from actually being viable than the the industry would admit for a long time. Unless you're Tesla and just release it to the market if it works or not. the industry is quietly admitting it, to a degree. at least the large vehicle manufacturers are. there's a ton of people who have interest in hyping the technology though, both uber and tesla depend on it to varying degrees for survival, and then you've got this guy quote:Einstein’s Twins Paradox And How Self-Driving Cars Will Change Our Sense Of Time
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
That article is so bad I ought to edit my preceding post to warn about it. tl;dr: Author is paid by the He’s never heard of public transit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Uber are acutely poo poo, but it seems in general like autonomous cars are much, much further away from actually being viable than the the industry would admit for a long time. So you're gonna see SDC's become viable for a larger set of variables over a relatively long period of time as companies gradually solve different problems, not some instantaneous "okay they're good everywhere now".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/isosteph/status/1192166184763871232?s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Jesus I want to dump the guy who wrote that article's books in a toilet. Especially for how blase he is about the issue that running 'experiments' on the real roads will inevitably kill people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:The one thing that gets me about the people cheerfully taking advantage of the glitch is that, as a few articles pointed out, it's not like you magically wouldn't owe the money just because Robinhood hosed up and let you do something stupid. You'd almost certainly get a judgement against you, if they asked. Supposedly that one guy who took advantage of a previous version of this glitch (because this has apparently happened before) just quietly had his account closed and they never contacted him about the $50,000 loss, so maybe they'd just eat it over the bad press or possible regulation. You could also declare bankruptcy and leave them holding the bag, but that's hardly one weird trick to get rich. And as the articles covered, doing something this bad faith could maybe even wind up as criminal fraud. Robinhood can sue you but it would be expensive for them to do so. The end user is theoretically liable for this: in practice robinhood is going to be holding the bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
quote:Uber said it “will likely” have to strike a licensing deal with Waymo or opt for costly changes to its autonomous driving software, after an expert found the ride-hailing giant still used technology from the Alphabet Inc unit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
uber's self driving car thing was always an obvious hail mary to me. like it makes sense for alphabet, who has a broad portfolio of tech products and even manufactures hardware - their end goal would be to develop a licensable technology which would be sold to the actual vehicle manufacturers, or at least explore this space to see what you can do to work your existing products into the self-driving car space like ensuring every manufacturer uses google's geographic provisioning system for navigation because it's just more streamlined and convenient than any other solution meanwhile, the only thing uber has is a fairly simple middleman app that leads to endless competition, as well as the brand they've so expensively forged. uber is more of a holding company for the term 'uber' than a tech company at this point, and it's not clear what they could feasibly produce that other firms would be interested in buying. let alone the absurd idea that uber would get into manufacturing electric helicopters or whatever
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:meanwhile, the only thing uber has is a fairly simple middleman app that leads to endless competition, as well as the brand they've so expensively forged. uber is more of a holding company for the term 'uber' than a tech company at this point, and it's not clear what they could feasibly produce that other firms would be interested in buying. let alone the absurd idea that uber would get into manufacturing electric helicopters or whatever uber already has a horde of slave drivers though, the next step is to figure out how to combine cars and drivers into wheeled cyborgs. the step after that is to remove the cyborgs' urge to rape customers
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:uber's self driving car thing was always an obvious hail mary to me. like it makes sense for alphabet, who has a broad portfolio of tech products and even manufactures hardware - their end goal would be to develop a licensable technology which would be sold to the actual vehicle manufacturers, or at least explore this space to see what you can do to work your existing products into the self-driving car space like ensuring every manufacturer uses google's geographic provisioning system for navigation because it's just more streamlined and convenient than any other solution yeah uber's self-driving car is basically a way to get investors to keep pouring money into them as a "startup" where you expect to lose money while they scale up, instead of a company whose business is mature - and still loses money hand over fist
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
I’m sure UberBank will be what finally turns things arouhahahaha
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:43
|
|
