mkinitcpio's comments

>anti-intellectual culture

I agree- I really wish there wasn't such a stigma against, as you phrased it, "five-dollar words". I love reading older writing because (maybe without the internet and things like /r/iamverysmart?) they seem drastically less afraid to say exactly what they want to, in the way they want to.

There's also an anachronistic charm to them I guess, but I think the word-choice-freedom is still a big factor.

>“These studies were based on really hyperactive young white boys who were taken to clinics,” Littman says.

I don't really get what lines like this are supposed to be getting at. Why is race mentioned here at all? I'm now left wondering if there is also some effect of race on ADHD symptoms, in which case I feel like the quote was not really used honestly (used partly out of context- how much of this is due to gender and how much to race?) or whoever said the quote spoke incorrectly because they felt that the young boys also being white would drive home their point more.

Ah, I read that but didn't parse it as the author trying to make the distinction between (misnamed) "front-running" and actual front-running.

Probably still worth pointing out, since one of the activities is illegal and harmful (uses non-public information) and the other is just reacting quickly to the public market information.

Disclaimer: I work in HFT

The article uses the term "front-running" incorrectly. Front-running is where a firm places their own trades ahead of trades they're placing for a client, to capitalize on the price movement that client order might generate. This is illegal.

What the market makers in the article are doing isn't front-running. It's just being smart with their orders.

And that's generally why HFTs cancel orders- they're reacting to market conditions that exist on the span of microseconds and will want to change their market positions very quickly- including canceling orders that they no longer think are suitable.

Are you worried about parts of the TLS handshake being intercepted, or something? Because even then that's non-sensitive information like public keys and cipher lists and stuff, no? Or are we worried about side-channel attacks, or weak ciphers being chosen?

Just curious about your reasoning for why TLS alone isn't sufficient.

LCS stands for "Longest Common Subsequence". I don't know why their docs say "substring". Maybe they just made a mistake?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_common_subsequence_pro...