oddtarball's comments

Is it possible to do a different frequency, like twice per week? 26 times a year isn't much.

Good to know - thanks.

I was mostly just asking because of my own time constraints until the end of this month. Either way, I will definitely reach out to you by February!

I've read much of Matasano's work and would love to join. Are you truly "always hiring", or would you recommend starting a dialogue sooner rather than later?

I promised myself that I wouldn't apply/interview until I get the OSCP out of the way this month, but would hate to watch a good opportunity slip away.

What do you think a good portion of HFT algos do? Of course people are exploiting the order flow that comes as a result of generic "signals".

But my point is that technical ANALYSIS is the utilization of TOOLS. People apply tools in different ways. Especially with fibonacci, there is certainly not one way to trade using fibonacci retracements, extensions, time, harmonics, etc.. I know traders who use it completely differently than I do. What matters is how it's applied to a chart and how trading decisions are made based on how the trader interprets what they're seeing.

It sounds like you guys are describing things like MA crosses to be useless. How they're normally applied by new traders is "the red crossed the green, so I sold", then they get mad when they lose money on the trade (and blame technical analysis). Yet, a moving average is a tool which can be tweaked in numerous ways - how you tweak/apply/interpret/trade using that tool is an entirely other question. Nobody in the right mind should be trading using only one tool, or by applying an "out of the box" charting tool then just blindly making decisions based on that.

Liken this to a software context: "Sensitive data can get stolen, so software is BAD". Yet, it's really just how it's written, up/downsides that are inherent of the language it's written in, but mainly HOW it was designed and how businesses utilized or tweaked it. You can't generalize the entire software industry because of security holes.

If you reduce technical analysis to generic "super awesome signal, works every time!" marketing ploys, you'll miss one of the best edges you could possibly have in trading/investing.

Note: This disagreement is a perfect example of why volume exists on each side of the market.

Technical analysis is far from useless. As an active trader, it's the best tool I have come across. I'm sorry, but to say that it is useless is to admit pure ignorance, or to admit your failure to grasp the concepts and understand how to apply them visually and correctly.

People do apply techniques incorrectly, yes. They can get confirmation bias from it, yes. However, that does not invalidate successful traders who trade primarily on technicals. Keep in mind that a "tool" is just that - but not used the same way by everyone - and "this means that" isn't a blanket rule that always works as described. Everything is part of a larger structural puzzle. Also, HFT algos will eat your lunch if your hold period is too short. I don't hold a position for more than a week, MAYBE two, but never less than 45 minutes - and as a retail trader, that makes a huge difference in P/L ratios over time.

Through my trading experience I have continuously used less fundamentals and more wonky technical techniques I have come up with. It has given me a massive edge over whoever is on the other side of the trade, and has pulled me quite a long way out of debt and into making a nice living doing it on the side. The side of the story that you don't see in the endless "get rich quick" trading schemes that promise to teach you all of those super awesome secrets is that anyone who knows what they're doing isn't spending any time teaching it to the masses.

But, to get back on topic: Well done with this site! It's a great beginner guide to understand what a lot of the basics actually mean. Babypips falls very short.

I 100% agree. People think ADD/ADHD is "resolved" on meds, but it's not the case. They started me on 27mg of Concerta, then 54mg, then I was (thankfully) moved to Vyvanse and titrated my way up to 60mg. The story hasn't changed - it's still valuable to leverage the downsides into strength. An ADD/ADHD brain is certainly a chaotic one, but going on meds has enabled me to do better planning/execution and to actually complete tasks. Your wall of TVs analogy is great - I often describe my head as the similar murmur you hear from a crowd. Thoughts are like white noise where it's nearly impossible to pick the right one out, let alone stay with it for a while when it's so easy to hear everything else on top of it.

Not to sound skitzo, but I think the meds do a great job of quieting that noise. While medicated, I have the ability to plan a task or project, execute each step, and actually stick with it to the end. It's still possible to get off task, and perhaps worse if you do (since then you're REALLY focused on being off task), but the meds still help me think. But that is where it stops. They don't resolve problems - they provide most of the tools needed to change the way you think so you can work on resolving them yourself.

Now, to the popular point of diet and exercise; I'm sure it's a mix of improved medication delivery, the natural stress relief, and the endorphin benefit that comes with it - but eating well and regularly exercising seems to amplify the medication's benefit by 15-20%. Those two things are marginally helpful without meds, along with several other "natural remedies" that I have tried, but I think a combination of all of the above is key.

My original point was just that the article makes it sound like symptoms should be treated via introducing new parts to the equation which ultimate distract people from boring situations. Yet, ADD/ADHD in its TRUE FORM works 100% independent of one's desire to pay attention. The argument of "BUT VIDEO GAMES ARE FINE SO IT'S CLEARLY CHOICE" is 100% falsified by Dr. Thomas E Brown's research. He provides such excellent insight - I am so fortunate to have met him.

I'll close this novel of a post with an analogy made by Dr. Brown when we met:

"Picture a massive old wooden sailboat with dozens of crew frantically fighting to pull the sails, keep up with the demands of their job, etc. Non-ADD/ADHD folk can get a benefit from medication, but it just speeds up both the captain and crew. ADD/ADHD folk, on the other hand, are instead sailing through a terrible storm at a much faster pace than normal and can hardly see - but the crew still keep up with their jobs. The captain is the problem. In this case, the captain is the only one sped up by the meds, and suddenly, no matter how chaotic and messy that voyage is, it's all under control."

This article's premise is built on an incorrect understanding of "treating" or "fixing" or "losing" (symptoms).

If: baseline x is underwhelming to the point of painful boredom Else: baseline y is higher and therefore satisfyingly stimulating

Then the fundamental problem of a lacking reward system for "normal" (x) baseline activity remains unresolved.

I have ADHD and decided to try medication for the first time only a few years ago (in my 20's). Sure, keeping things "interesting" and "new" can trick one's mind into paying additional attention towards the daily grind, but not for one second does that mean that ADHD would be resolved.

To make a more clear point, let's apply this thinking to another context: Murderers would be cured if there weren't anyone to murder, right? No. You're supposed to solve problems, not symptoms.

The sign up page isn't even HTTPS.

Really guys? C'mon

Meh, interesting thought, but a few things come to mind:

- It could take multiple days to update the website for the entire world

- It would be very easy to spoof the entire site

- It would probably slow down the rest of the queries the DNS server would be responding to at the time.

Also, updating DNS can be a pain for sites that aren't managing their own records.

True. It absolutely depends on the specific contract each of them signed. If the contract were to say "Not satisfied? Full refund!" or anything like that, they technically are not under contract to NOT use the code.

They would literally have legal basis, in that case, to run a startup from the very code they refused to pay for. Albeit unethical, it would be legal.

Either way, the contract would clear this up. It's still bad press. With $2M in funding, just pay the dev and move on with a stable image of doing the right thing even if it isn't legally required to do so.

Have you seen the Forbes article about this? Sounds like you're dealing with an ex-con.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hollieslade/2014/08/21/how-this-...