No thank you, Box.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    A customer needed to get some files to me. He created a box.com account and shared it to me via email.

    To use this (that is, to be able to download a file), Box required me to create an account with my work email. I just got an email from them titled "It's time to upload some files to Box." No it's the fuck not.



  • Re: No thank you, Box.

    Uh, Box has the "share the link" option from what I see. And while I don't use them, on Dropbox the same option allows you to download a file without having an account.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Uh, Box has the "share the link" option from what I see. And while I don't use them, on Dropbox the same option allows you to download a file without having an account.

    Seems too much like work, on my end. Maybe the other guy could've perhaps done a better job in the way he shared the link?. All I wanted was to download a file, but it asked me to create an account. And then sent me the stupid email, which was what I was actually bitching about. I only created the account because I assumed the share wasn't public, since it was a log file he didn't want to send via plaintext email, and he apparently ignored my suggestion of zipping it, and thus I figured I wouldn't be able to download it anonymously.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Maybe the other guy could've perhaps done a better job in the way he shared the link?.

    Kinda what I was implying. On Dropbox (and I presume Box too) the share is visible to people who have the link, and you can pass the link through any secure enough communication channel.



  • Re: No thank you, Box.

    I share files, usually images (not sure if file type matters), with people who don't have Box accounts every now and then and they've never said anything about it. Pretty shitty if that's a new "feature", though. Sneaky fuckers.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    @FrostCat said:
    Maybe the other guy could've perhaps done a better job in the way he shared the link?.

    Kinda what I was implying. On Dropbox (and I presume Box too) the share is visible to people who have the link, and you can pass the link through any secure enough communication channel.

    Ah. Well, it's moot because he didn't manage to share the file I wanted--he gave me an empty zip file. I was just annoyed by the obnoxious email Box sent.

    Maybe I should just upload a file to the share and comment "Box wanted me to upload a file so here's a picture of a bunny wearing a pancake," although I guess using the "why would yo do that?" meme would be funnier.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Well, it's moot because he didn't manage to share the file I wanted--he gave me an empty zip file.

    I used to work at a place that had a shared DropBox for sharing files. The annoying thing is that DB: 1) syncs automatically; and 2) doesn't allow you to exclude sub-folders. A number of jackass users would drop 100GB files into the DB and I'd be sitting there, wondering why Netflix suddenly stopping playing smoothly, only to discover DB was using up all of my Internets Power.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I used to work at a place ... and I'd be sitting there, wondering why Netflix suddenly stopping playing smoothly....

    Interesting job that involves watching NetFlix! 



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I used to work at a place ... and I'd be sitting there, wondering why Netflix suddenly stopping playing smoothly....

    Interesting job that involves watching NetFlix! 

    Any job can involve watching Netflix, if you're sneaky about it.



  • Re: No thank you, Box.

    @FrostCat said:

    A customer needed to get some files to me. He created a box.com account and shared it to me via email.

    To use this (that is, to be able to download a file), Box required me to create an account with my work email. I just got an email from them titled "It's time to upload some files to Box." No it's the fuck not.



    So, you signed for an account with a service and are surprised that they sent you solicitation?

    BTW, I'm almost 100% certain you didn't need your actual work email to sign up. A free hotmail/yahoo/gmail account would have worked just as well. I actually have a yahoo account that I use as a burner for these sorts of things. And I assumed that everyone else did the same.



  • @morbs said:

    A number of jackass users would drop 100GB files into the DB and I'd be sitting there, wondering why Netflix suddenly stopping playing smoothly, only to discover DB was using up all of my Internets Power.

    You can right-click the tray icon and pause syncing or limit bandwidth it can use in preferences. But yeah, Dbox in an office instead of a proper network drive is kinda dopey.



  • Re: No thank you, Box.

    Box is awful anyways. The maximum file size for free accounts is 250 MB, and when I tried to sync 120 files there using the windows client, it just stood there for hours doing nothing. Had to do it manually from the web interface.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @joemck said:

    But yeah, Dbox in an office instead of a proper network drive is kinda dopey.
    The problem with a network drive is if you're in an environment where people need some access while out on the road (and, especially, on long-haul flights) and everyone's using a mix of different clients anyway. Dropbox works better in those situations, as it is much less insistent on having the network up (I think it is basically rsync-based, but wouldn't swear to that). Network drives get "very funny" when networking is tricky, and often require dicking around with a VPN to work at all well (with AFS being a notable exception, but one that has its own considerable implications).



  • @Snooder said:


    BTW, I'm almost 100% certain you didn't need your actual work email to sign up. A free hotmail/yahoo/gmail account would have worked just as well. I actually have a yahoo account that I use as a burner for these sorts of things. And I assumed that everyone else did the same.

    You probably do if the guy who sent you a file typed in that email address.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I used to work at a place that had a shared DropBox for sharing files. The annoying thing is that DB: 1) syncs automatically; and 2) doesn't allow you to exclude sub-folders.

    You can turn off syncing, and/or use a clue bat on people until they copy only the files they need to. I still like them, mostly due to free 20GB I got on some student event or stuff.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    A number of jackass users would drop 100GB files into the DB and I'd be sitting there, wondering why Netflix suddenly stopping playing smoothly, only to discover DB was using up all of my Internets Power.

    If that's the case, your internet connection is crap. You can throttle dropbox bandwidth.



  • @dkf said:

    The problem with a network drive is if you're in an environment where people need some access while out on the road (and, especially, on long-haul flights) and everyone's using a mix of different clients anyway.

    I have been pleasantly surprised by how well BittorentSync works as an alternative for this. Essentially a *box service where the data goes over whatever network is between you and the other end and only in (presumably) rare cases through a proxy if it cannot punch through your firewall. Of course, that too has the problem where it is excruciatingly difficult to only sync a sub-folder of whatever share you add. OTOH, at least I am no longer encumbered by file-size limits.



  • @Soviut said:

    If that's the case, your internet connection is crap.

    Um, not really. But streaming HD while DB is using up all of the bandwidth is kind of difficult.

    @Soviut said:

    You can throttle dropbox bandwidth.

    I never had a tray icon. I don't even recall it having a GUI.



  • @FragFrog said:

    I have been pleasantly surprised by how well BittorentSync works as an alternative for this. Essentially a *box service where the data goes over whatever network is between you and the other end and only in (presumably) rare cases through a proxy if it cannot punch through your firewall. Of course, that too has the problem where it is excruciatingly difficult to only sync a sub-folder of whatever share you add. OTOH, at least I am no longer encumbered by file-size limits.

    I don't get this thing. I mean, isn't the point of *box services to put your data in the actual cloud (i.e. some remote, well maintained server infrastructure), so that if your PC blows up, you still have access to them? Honestly, I haven't even realized I could share data with Dropbox until fairly recently, all that I've used it for was to keep my assignments and stuff and eventually download them somewhere else without having to have my PC on.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    I don't get this thing. I mean, isn't the point of *box services to put your data in the actual cloud (i.e. some remote, well maintained server infrastructure), so that if your PC blows up, you still have access to them? Honestly, I haven't even realized I could share data with Dropbox until fairly recently, all that I've used it for was to keep my assignments and stuff and eventually download them somewhere else without having to have my PC on.

    There is no particular reason why that "cloud" should be organized by an external company, rather than your own. In a semi-professional environment, having your data local means much quicker access (because everything only needs to pass through the internal network) and less chance of an overseas government organization patriot-acting its way into your data. At the same time, you save some of the hassle normally associated with network shares (e.g., having to go through a VPN to access it remotely), plus your data is also available on your phone, tablet, etc., not all of which support the more tricky networking setups.

    For a private user, it means that if you have some NAS at home (for example, connected to your media-center) you can very easily back-up your data without actually having to upload / download anything and again, local access is much faster. Plus of course the fact that you do not have to pay for it, there's no file size limits, and you can sync terabytes of data if you are so inclined. Of course, if you only have one PC, there is not much point, but with media-centers, tablets, laptops and smartphones, that should not be the case for the vast majority of people.



  • I have a cloud in my pocket. It's called a 128 GB flash drive and it continues to work when the Internet is out, there are no bandwidth caps, and it's reasonably secure.



  • @mott555 said:

    I have a cloud in my pocket. It's called a 128 GB flash drive and it continues to work when the Internet is out, there are no bandwidth caps, and it's reasonably secure.
    Yes, but it's a lot harder to leave the cloud in your pocket when you throw your pants in the laundry.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @FragFrog said:

    There is no particular reason why that "cloud" should be organized by an external company, rather than your own.
    It's a clbuttic problem of whether to outsource something or not. Of course, if storage is what your primary competence is, outsourcing makes little sense, and there's a whole raft of risks buttociated with outsourcing too (including the whole problem with exposure to someone else's bonus risks). Yet there's a lot of people who don't want to deal with the constant low-level hbuttle of looking after storage; they want a service that Just Works™ so they can focus on things that actually matter to them.

    Instead of saying nay all the time, turn it on its head and try to sell the service to those who obviously want to buy it. As an expert in the storage business, you should be able to work out what it costs to provide a particular level of service (together with all the backups and insurance required so that things going horribly wrong doesn't shaft you personally). It wouldn't even be close to the sketchiest outline for a business that I've seen come off…



  • @dkf said:

    clbuttic
    @dkf said:
    buttociated
    @dkf said:
    hbuttle

    I hate you. 😨


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I hate you.

    That's what she said.



  • @FragFrog said:

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    I don't get this thing. I mean, isn't the point of *box services to put your data in the actual cloud (i.e. some remote, well maintained server infrastructure), so that if your PC blows up, you still have access to them? Honestly, I haven't even realized I could share data with Dropbox until fairly recently, all that I've used it for was to keep my assignments and stuff and eventually download them somewhere else without having to have my PC on.

    There is no particular reason why that "cloud" should be organized by an external company, rather than your own. In a semi-professional environment, having your data local means much quicker access (because everything only needs to pass through the internal network) and less chance of an overseas government organization patriot-acting its way into your data. At the same time, you save some of the hassle normally associated with network shares (e.g., having to go through a VPN to access it remotely), plus your data is also available on your phone, tablet, etc., not all of which support the more tricky networking setups.

    For a private user, it means that if you have some NAS at home (for example, connected to your media-center) you can very easily back-up your data without actually having to upload / download anything and again, local access is much faster. Plus of course the fact that you do not have to pay for it, there's no file size limits, and you can sync terabytes of data if you are so inclined. Of course, if you only have one PC, there is not much point, but with media-centers, tablets, laptops and smartphones, that should not be the case for the vast majority of people.

    How many people have a file server at home? Despite what Microsoft says, it's neither common nor a reasonable investment.

    For the semi-professional environment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there aren't any solutions specifically tailored for local cloud. But for a private user, who doesn't really want to invest in a file server and just wants to make sure that when his house blows up, he still has access to his furry porn gifs and Ayn Rand fanfiction? A *box service is way less hassle for me.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…



  • @dkf said:

    @FragFrog said:
    There is no particular reason why that "cloud" should be organized by an external company, rather than your own.
    It's a clbuttic problem of whether to outsource something or not. Of course, if storage is what your primary competence is, outsourcing makes little sense, and there's a whole raft of risks buttociated with outsourcing too (including the whole problem with exposure to someone else's bonus risks). Yet there's a lot of people who don't want to deal with the constant low-level hbuttle of looking after storage; they want a service that Just Works™ so they can focus on things that actually matter to them.

    Instead of saying nay all the time, turn it on its head and try to sell the service to those who obviously want to buy it. As an expert in the storage business, you should be able to work out what it costs to provide a particular level of service (together with all the backups and insurance required so that things going horribly wrong doesn't shaft you personally). It wouldn't even be close to the sketchiest outline for a business that I've seen come off…

    This is very clbutty post with an buttortment of impbuttioned buttessments though it seemed a bit pbuttive and lacks the normal TDWTF sbuttiness. But I find it rebutturing to see this clbuttic meme still lives on despite being surpbutted by many newer memes. Perhaps, by working together (and to all other TDWTF-ers, please buttist if you wish to buttociate with us wisebuttes), we can start a new grbuttroots movement and rebuttert this with a rapid buttault of ambutted and buttorted text, canvbutting TDWTF with this meme. I buttume that my buttociates here will butturedly disbuttemble the English language in search of new words we can mbuttage to fit our noble needs. In any case, I butture you this will help to pass the hourglbutt until it's time to remove yourself from your office buttembly and return home where you can safely remove the ol' brbttiere and eyeglbuttes, and legally mbuttacre buttaulting trespbutters (or perhaps we should call them ambbuttadors of evil, buttailants of freedom, or even harbutting bbuttoonists) in your property encompbutting your immediate landmbutt of dwelling.

     



  • @dkf said:

    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…

    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @dkf said:
    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…

    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.

    I haven't read any, but I've heard from many and varied sources that I shouldn't bother; and from none that say it would be worthwhile. There are so many good books, why should I waste time on one that everyone seems to regard as trash?

    Now, if you have a contrasting opinion, I may reconsider, but you'll need to present that case.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dkf said:
    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…

    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.

    I tried reading "Atlas Shrugged", got about a quarter through. While I find her philosophy interesting, she really sucks as a writer.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I haven't read any, but I've heard from many and varied sources that I shouldn't bother; and from none that say it would be worthwhile. There are so many good books, why should I waste time on one that everyone seems to regard as trash?

    I think you're kind of missing my point. Did those people actually read the books? This has become sort of a pass-time for me, asking people who trash (or praise) Rand if they have actually read her books, any of them. The answer, 95% of the time, is "No, but somebody told me they were bad. Besides, I don't agree with her so why would I read her books?"

    Also, I've heard people praise her work, too, so I can't say my experience has been everybody trashing. Regardless: it's fine if you don't want to read her books because people you trust (who actually read them) said they sucked. That's totally reasonable. What's asinine is going around saying "Yeah, those books are so boring" when you haven't read them. That just makes you look like a bigoted fool.

    For the record, I have never read her books, nor do I intend to. Having not read them, I have no opinion to offer. I've had people (who actually read them) tell me they sucked and that they were good. I know the vague outlines of Objectivism and it seems reasonable and I'd probably agree with most of it, but I have no interest in reading the books.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @dkf said:
    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…

    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.

    I tried reading "Atlas Shrugged", got about a quarter through. While I find her philosophy interesting, she really sucks as a writer.

    That's perfectly fair. I don't object to people disliking Rand, I just hate people blathering on (either criticizing or praising) without having even read a single word she wrote. Rand seems to get that treatment more than any other author I can think of. How many people are like "P.G. Wodehouse is absolute garbage! I've never read him, but still: garbage!" Even political philosophers rarely get that treatment: how often do people hold a strong opinion on Animal Farm without having read it?



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @dkf said:
    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…

    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.

    I tried reading "Atlas Shrugged", got about a quarter through. While I find her philosophy interesting, she really sucks as a writer.



    Oddly, I had the opposite reaction. I found her philosophy interesting but deeply flawed. Kinda of the reverse of Communism in that it fails to take into account certain fundamentals of human behavior, but in the opposite direction. The story though, I thought was entertaining as hell. But I'm the kind of guy who really enjoys authors like Wilbur Smith and Jeffery Archer.

     



  • @Snooder said:

    Kinda of the reverse of Communism in that it fails to take into account certain fundamentals of human behavior

    Socialism doesn't take into account any fundamentals of human behavior. It's a philosophy for robots, or at least dictators who never have to live under the systems they force on others.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Snooder said:
    Kinda of the reverse of Communism in that it fails to take into account certain fundamentals of human behavior

    Socialism doesn't take into account any fundamentals of human behavior. It's a philosophy for robots, or at least dictators who never have to live under the systems they force on others.


    Have you read the Communist manifesto? While I do disagree with it, I can see how someone who doesn't really understand management could ascribe to it.

    Keep in mind, Communism, at least the Marxist version of it, is simply an idea that companies are better off being owned by the workers themselves in equal share. If you look around at a lot of companies where the boss seems to just sit around and all the "real work" is done by the people on the factory floor, it's not a stretch to say that (A) the workers will eventually figure out they can do without the idiot in the corner office, and (B) the company doesn't need that guy sucking down wages anyway. Extrapolate that from a single company to an entire industry, and eventually to the whole economy and you have Communism.

    Where it breaks is in not understanding WHY that guy in the corner office got there in the first place.



  • @Snooder said:

    Have you read the Communist manifesto?

    No, but I've read tons of analysis of and theorizing over Marxism, so I'm well-versed in it.

    @Snooder said:

    Keep in mind, Communism, at least the Marxist version of it, is simply an idea that companies are better off being owned by the workers themselves in equal share.

    What? No, that's not really it at all. Marxism encompasses everything from the labor theory of value (bullshit) to historical materialism (sometimes useful, although often taken to an extreme which overshadows all else.. also not nearly the revolutionary idea Marxians want people to think it is.) Then there's dialectical materialism, which was sorta formulated by Marx, but which was also largely defined by others later on, however it's still considered part of the Marxist school of thought.

    @Snooder said:

    Where it breaks is in not understanding WHY that guy in the corner office got there in the first place.

    No, it breaks long before there. For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product. In fact, that's really the key flaw that a lot of Marxist bullshit is built on.

    In fact, my point about the robots isn't even really disputed by Marxism itself; most Communists thought that once Communism was in place a New Man would emerge whose relationship to other men, to society and to nature was vastly different than our own. The usual thinking is that a period of dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to mould humanity and prepare us to be New Men or New Women. That this moulding always involves poverty, slavery, murder and torture is actually more of a feature than a bug for most Marxists..


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @morbiuswilters said:

    For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product.
    Oh, so like Bitcoin.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product.
    Oh, so like Bitcoin.

    Technically, no. Bitcoin has subjective value because people think it has subjective value. In theory, people are giving money in exchange for Bitcoins.

    I know you were being facetious, but I just wanted to point that out. Bitcoin is an investment. It's a highly-speculative investment, and if you ask me, it's a terrible investment, but in theory it is an investment. Honestly, you'd probably get less inflation from investing in Zimbabwean Dollars.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dkf said:
    @Maciejasjmj said:
    Ayn Rand fanfiction
    People write that sort of thing? How on earth do they manage to be more turgid than the original? Or are we talking Ayn Rand slash fiction, in which case I really don't want to know…

    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.

     

    I've never met anyone like that, but I know they're real assholes.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Here's a serious question: have you actually read any of her work, and if so which and how much? I only ask because Rand is one of those authors that everybody has an opinion on but almost nobody has actually read, which tells you a lot about people.

    I've never met anyone like that, but I know they're real assholes.

    Actually, I am one of those people (a reader, not a fan-fic writer), and you're absolutely right.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Snooder said:
    Where it breaks is in not understanding WHY that guy in the corner office got there in the first place.

    No, it breaks long before there. For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product. In fact, that's really the key flaw that a lot of Marxist bullshit is built on.



    We're saying the same thing. See, the reason why the guy in corner office is there is because not all labor has the same value. The corner office guy's "labor" is worth more than the guys on the factory floor. Even if he only spends 2 hours in the office he's producing more value than a janitor spending 16 hours a day cleaning up the floors.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product.
    Oh, so like Bitcoin.

    Technically, no. Bitcoin has subjective value because people think it has subjective value. In theory, people are giving money in exchange for Bitcoins.

    I know you were being facetious, but I just wanted to point that out. Bitcoin is an investment. It's a highly-speculative investment, and if you ask me, it's a terrible investment, but in theory it is an investment. Honestly, you'd probably get less inflation from investing in Zimbabwean Dollars.



    Actually, Bitcoins are a (deliberately) deflationary currency.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Snooder said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product.
    Oh, so like Bitcoin.

    Technically, no. Bitcoin has subjective value because people think it has subjective value. In theory, people are giving money in exchange for Bitcoins.

    I know you were being facetious, but I just wanted to point that out. Bitcoin is an investment. It's a highly-speculative investment, and if you ask me, it's a terrible investment, but in theory it is an investment. Honestly, you'd probably get less inflation from investing in Zimbabwean Dollars.



    Actually, Bitcoins are a (deliberately) deflationary currency.


    Could one of you aspiring economists explain where the value is in something like high-frequency stock market trading?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Snooder said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product.
    Oh, so like Bitcoin.

    Technically, no. Bitcoin has subjective value because people think it has subjective value. In theory, people are giving money in exchange for Bitcoins.

    I know you were being facetious, but I just wanted to point that out. Bitcoin is an investment. It's a highly-speculative investment, and if you ask me, it's a terrible investment, but in theory it is an investment. Honestly, you'd probably get less inflation from investing in Zimbabwean Dollars.



    Actually, Bitcoins are a (deliberately) deflationary currency.


    Could one of you aspiring economists explain where the value is in something like high-frequency stock market trading?


    Increased liquidity. Which (theoretically) means better access to credit. What a lot of high-frequency trading is supposed to do is make the market more efficient. Stock prices reflect the last trade on that stock. When there are very frequent trades, this theoretically increases the accuracy of the stock price. Accurate pricing is integral to the proper functioning of the market and it's ability to move capital from one person to another.

    Basically, the stock market as a whole is a mechanism for moving capital. The value created is the same as the value created when you pay someone to carry your goods from one state to another. High-frequency trading is one facet of making that movement of capital more efficient. Efficient in this sense meaning moving to the places with a deficit of capital and away from places with a surplus of capital as quickly as possible.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Snooder said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    @Snooder said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    For example, in saying that all labor has value because it is labor, regardless of the subjective value of the product.
    Oh, so like Bitcoin.

    Technically, no. Bitcoin has subjective value because people think it has subjective value. In theory, people are giving money in exchange for Bitcoins.

    I know you were being facetious, but I just wanted to point that out. Bitcoin is an investment. It's a highly-speculative investment, and if you ask me, it's a terrible investment, but in theory it is an investment. Honestly, you'd probably get less inflation from investing in Zimbabwean Dollars.



    Actually, Bitcoins are a (deliberately) deflationary currency.


    Could one of you aspiring economists explain where the value is in something like high-frequency stock market trading?


    Increased liquidity. Which (theoretically) means better access to credit. What a lot of high-frequency trading is supposed to do is make the market more efficient. Stock prices reflect the last trade on that stock. When there are very frequent trades, this theoretically increases the accuracy of the stock price. Accurate pricing is integral to the proper functioning of the market and it's ability to move capital from one person to another.

    Basically, the stock market as a whole is a mechanism for moving capital. The value created is the same as the value created when you pay
    someone to carry your goods from one state to another. High-frequency trading is one facet of making that movement of capital more efficient. Efficient in this sense meaning moving to the places with a deficit of capital and away from places with a surplus of capital as quickly as possible.

     


    @Flash Boys said:


    “Liquidity” was one of those words Wall Street people threw around when they wanted the conversation to end, and for brains to go dead, and for all questioning to cease. A lot of people used it as a synonym for “activity” or “ volume of trading,” but it obviously needed to mean more than that, as activity could be manufactured in a market simply by adding more front-runners to it. To get at a useful understanding of liquidity and the likely effects of high-frequency trading on it, one might better begin by studying the effect on investors ’ willingness to trade once they sense that they are being front-run by this new front-running entity. Brad himself had felt the effect: When the market as displayed on his screens became illusory, he became less willing to take risk in that market — to provide liquidity. He could only assume that every other risk-taking intermediary — every other useful market participant — must have felt exactly the same way.

    The argument for HFT was that it provided liquidity, but what did this mean? “HFT firms go home flat every night,” said Brad. “They don’t take positions. They are bridging an amount of time between buyers and sellers that’s so small that no one even knows it exists.” After the market was computerized and decimalized, in 2000, spreads in the market had narrowed — that much was true. Part of that narrowing would have happened anyway, with the automation of the stock market, which made it easier to trade stocks priced in decimals rather than in fractions. Part of that narrowing was an illusion: What appeared to be the spread was not actually the spread. The minute you went to buy or sell at the stated market price, the price moved. What Scalpers Inc. did was to hide an entirely new sort of activity behind the mask of an old mental model — in which the guy who “makes markets” is necessarily taking market risk and providing “liquidity.” But Scalpers Inc. took no market risk.



  • I'm not sure what exactly your point is here. Are you disagreeing that the efficient movement of capital is a good thing, or trying to claim that HFT doesn't accomplish that goal? Because I don't think your quote actually means what you think it does. The quote you mentioned does not disagree with my point that market making is good. What it actually says is that the HFT firms are hiding illegal stock manipulation behind the relatively new and untested theory of HFT as a mechanism for market making.

    Which could be true. There is a reason I put the "theoretically" in my reply. Because sometimes people try things and only later figure out that it doesn't work the way they thought it would. That doesn't mean that what they wanted to do is completely worthless or lacking in value.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Snooder said:

    I'm not sure what exactly your point is here. Are you disagreeing that the efficient movement of capital is a good thing, or trying to claim that HFT doesn't accomplish that goal? Because I don't think your quote actually means what you think it does.


    I read it as: HFT theoretically adds value in the form of increased liquidity, except it does not increase liquidity and therefore adds no value.
    @Snooder said:

    The quote you mentioned does not disagree with my point that market making is good. What it actually says is that the HFT firms are hiding illegal stock manipulation behind the relatively new and untested theory of HFT as a mechanism for market making.


    Well, the question you were answering was, "what value does HFT contribute?" I don't think anyone disputes that market making is good, so it's not a very effectual point to make.
    @Snooder said:


    Which could be true. There is a reason I put the "theoretically" in my reply. Because sometimes people try things and only later figure out that it doesn't work the way they thought it would. That doesn't mean that what they wanted to do is completely worthless or lacking in value.

    This either needs to be fixed, or I need to finagle my way into profiting from it somehow.

    The book is interesting though, and a lot of the claims seem almost libelous (and the only reason I figure he hasn't been sued yet is they must be true claims).



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Could one of you aspiring economists explain where the value is in something like high-frequency stock market trading?
    A PhD dissertation in economics is not required to understand High Frequency Trading.  It's quite simple: If you are one of the people engaged in HFT, then it gives you the
    opportunity to game the system and makes lots of money.  If you are not
    engaged in HFT then there is no value.



  • @joe.edwards said:


    The book is interesting though, and a lot of the claims seem almost libelous (and the only reason I figure he hasn't been sued yet is they must be true claims).


    Yeah, I need to order that from Amazon. Thanks for letting me know about it.

     



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Flash Boys said:
    ...

    So it's good? I'm (slowly) working through the other recent highly praised econ book (that would be Capital in the 21st Century); but nothing in it seems to rate the praise that it's been getting so far as the concepts that it is going on about are pretty simple (though comparing theory to actuality is less common that it should be).


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.