"There are only about 1,500 “medallions” (essentially permits) that allow taxis to operate in San Francisco. To put that in context, NYC has over 13,000."
Wow, intentional abuse of statistics used without context, while claiming to provide context. NYC is 10x the population of SF, so has fewer per capita mediallions than SF.
That may be, but most of NYC is devoid of hailable medallion cabs. Manhattan, where an overwhelming majority of cabs are to be found, has a population only 2x that of SF.
That said, there are parts of SF without hailable medallion cabs too, so... :)
Zamfi nailed it - NYC is 10x the population, but Manhattan is not. If you've ever tried to get a cab in both NYC and SF, you know that difference in medallions is very real.
I think I maybe once saw a cab in Brooklyn, but it turns out it was just a yellow car driving like a maniac.
(99% of taxi trips in NYC start or end in Manhattan. There are no cabs in the outer boroughs and they will only take you there if you get in, close the door, and get out your phone to call 311 if they refuse to take you. I don't even try anymore.)
It varies by state. She has a track record of employment, and her most recent termination was involuntary and not for cause, which is generally enough to qualify.
keep distinct news items, but merge into a parent item that links both, much like the way this polling story work.
The parent item gets the combined vote total of child items, and any summary screen that shows the parent item would then remove all children of that parent item, showing the parent instead.
> The Goldmanite trails off. “What do they do? No, seriously. Do you know?”
So not even Goldman Sachs knows what they do? Goldman is also incredibly secretive, so kind of funny to see one of theirs being surprised by that behavior elsewhere.
One of the key things that Goldman has (as a hedge fund) is the ability to see what all their clients are doing. Because they really are a sell-side shop. Hedge Funds, OTOH, are used to being spokes, rather than hubs, and so don't expect to know what everyone else is doing.
Goldman's prop days are numbered (theoretically) with the new legislation that inhibits banks trading their capital so vigorously.
One of the key things that Goldman has (as a hedge fund) is the ability to see what all their clients are doing.
If you have evidence of this, please notify the SEC so they can permanently shut down Goldman's brokerage operation and file criminal charges against the people involved.
If you buy a stock from me, and I talk to 1000 more people just like you, who all buy more shares of the same stock, I will have a view that this stock is getting a lot of interest. Nothing illegal or criminal about that.
If you buy a stock from me, and I talk to 1000 more people just like you, who all buy more shares of the same stock, I will have a view that this stock is getting a lot of interest. Nothing illegal or criminal about that.
If you are in this position, you work in brokerage. You have this view, but since you don't work on the prop desk, you have no ability to act on it [1].
It is highly illegal for you to reveal this information to anyone working the prop desk.
[1] You could trade on your own personal account, but that is highly regulated also.
No. You don't necessarily work in a brokerage. You work as a market maker. You are obligated to constantly show a price at which you will buy and a price at which you will sell. Inherent to being a market maker is using the information the market tells you to take views (which influence the buy/sell prices you show to the market - which of course influences your profitability). Do not confuse this information with "insider trading." This is very, very different. Knowing information about the company fundamentals that is non-public is highly illegal. Knowing that a lot of people want to buy stock from you and using that to influence your trading is not.
I was responding to this: "One of the key things that Goldman has (as a hedge fund) is the ability to see what all their clients are doing...Hedge Funds, OTOH, are used to being spokes, rather than hubs, and so don't expect to know what everyone else is doing."
A market maker is merely a prop desk running a particulra strategy. They have no information on Goldman's clients. They behave exactly like any hedge fund.
Insider trading is a red herring, I don't know why you bring it up. Mdda claims Goldman is breaching their fiduciary duty to their clients.
"A market maker is merely a prop desk running a particulra strategy. They have no information on Goldman's clients. They behave exactly like any hedge fund."
The common understanding is that a market maker is not exactly a prop desk. The clients of a market maker are the counterparties who take the other side of the market maker's markets. (These counterparties are Goldman clients). Market makers are not hedge funds and don't fundamentally behave like hedge funds, though I suppose both during their line of work take views on markets, so there are some similarities.
My point was, market makers, by definition, know what (their) clients are doing and take market views based on this. The major value in being a market maker (which is a huge part of Goldman's capital markets business) is seeing client flow.
Actually, Goldman repeatedly claimed in their defense of their actions on the Fab CDO that they had no fiduciary responsibility to their clients.
Also as a market maker, it's difficult to ignore what's going on if all the smart money is selling, and all the dumb money is buying.
FWIW, the vast majority of market-making is taking place outside of the stock exchange : End-users are at a natural disadvantage, since they can't see all the flows.
"But there’s always the risk of winding up afoul of Arrington’s rules of the road. That’s what GroupMe did last month with news of a major acquisition. Arrington’s response was classic Tony Soprano. Speaking at a CEO summit in New York, he berated a GroupMe executive in the audience. “You fucked me over,” Mike said from the podium. He told everyone GroupMe was now cut off from his site, and threatened to do the same to anyone else who doesn’t let him dictate their press coverage."
This is a repost. The headline is appropriate for the stanford daily, but it becomes misleading when it gets copied verbatim to a site with a much wider audience. NYC is soliciting bids, and Stanford is one of the universities that applied. Stanford is not independently looking to build an NYC campus, as the headline implies.
Hi Pvodsevhcm, Thanks for your feedback. This actually wasn't my headline when I first put this link on HN. I guess the moderators changed the headline. I originally posted to HN with the headline: Attn. East Coast Hackers: Stanford May Soon Be Coming To NYC. Or something close to this wording.
Why does the author pick 2012, as opposed to 2011 or 2013? There's no explanation on the timeline, which is so prominent in the headline, just two pictures. This is a pretty pointless article to make it onto HN's front page.
It's just two pictures, and it ignores the rest of the Blackberry line-up, which includes touch-only devices and slide-outs. I was expecting some announcement from RIM based on the title, and was disappointed to find this content-free article by an iPhone platform-bigot. (Disclaimer: I'm not using or a fan of either device.)
Yes, that's what I recall happening in the valley from 2001-2004. Other startups just swarmed over the hundreds of thousands of developers out of work.
That extended far beyond early stage employees. Hundreds of thousands of folks (nationwide) lost their jobs at established companies in the wake of that mess. I don't see how early stage employees faced any greater risk.
> Hundreds of thousands of folks (nationwide) lost their jobs at established companies in the wake of that mess.
False. If you went to the east coast, people were largely unaffected by the dot-bomb in the valley. The most significant impact was seeing various stock market indexes drop, which hit people in the pocketbook, but it did not result in layoffs.
Wow, intentional abuse of statistics used without context, while claiming to provide context. NYC is 10x the population of SF, so has fewer per capita mediallions than SF.