> the rule changes which would allow SpaceX to be auto bought by those funds has been blocked
Nothing was blocked. S&P 500 never adopted them. Influencers misunderstood what a consultation document is and presented a question as a fait accompli.
NASDAQ 100 changed its rules, as did S&P and Russell's total-market funds. But for NASDAQ 100 I'm going to go ahead and say this was a brilliant market move, since nobody ever talked about that index before this.
> But for NASDAQ 100 I'm going to go ahead and say this was a brilliant market move, since nobody ever talked about that index before this.
Most people know the NASDAQ100 as its ticker QQQ. Also known as the high risk - high reward investment.
After reading how Nasdaq changed the rules in order to court all the mega IPOs to list with them, I will never ever consider a Nasdaq fund again. The rule change about the available float is especially shocking.
> After reading how Nasdaq changed the rules in order to court all the mega IPOs to list with them, I will never ever consider a Nasdaq fund again
We have zero evidence for that chain of causation. And we have zero evidence of significant outflows for NASDAQ 100 since this rule change. (There is early evidence of inflows, but I suspect that's just because nobody talked about the NASDAQ 100 before and this turned out to be a brilliant marketing move.)
I agree with you that this might be a good marketing move overall.
And I don't really care about the chain of causation. The change of rules for the available float and the fact those funds will buy based on the market cap and not the float makes it a completely irresponsible investment at this point.
> fact those funds will buy based on the market cap and not the float makes it a completely irresponsible investment at this point
It's an index. The conventional way to market weight is to use market cap. The float rules are mostly for technical reasons around transaction costs for very large indices. There is a theoretical argument for float weighting, inasmuch as if you bought the stock market you'd be buying the float, not all of all of the companies. But I haven't seen research to say one way is definitively better than the other.
I agree they should have probably paired the float-rule change with a gradual onramp. But again, NASDAQ 100 isn't big enough to really need to care about this. (Half a trillion is obviously a lot of money. But not relative to the equity markets, and not when spread across a hundred of the largest names.)
> It's an index. The conventional way to market weight is to use market cap. The float rules are mostly for technical reasons around transaction costs for very large indices.
No the float rule is to avoid having to buy so much stock compared to the available stock that it would create irrational prices. This is probably going to happen with those IPOs. It's pure offer and demand!
To put it differently: Imagine a company is valued at 100B$ but only released 1% of its stock for sale (1B$). The NASDAQ100 includes it in its index based on the market cap only and because of that now needs to own about 100m$ of that stock. You are now trying to buy 100m$ out of only 1B$ available stocks. Prices are going to skyrocket artificially.
If it was weighted on the float, it would only have been required to buy 1m$, which would make way more sense.
And an index can be whatever the company behind it wants it to be. The SP500 can decide absolutely whatever they want and every index fund will just have to agree and comply and buy based on those decisions.
But as everything if they do something stupid they lose credibility and customers. This is one of those instances in which they changed the rules in a way that made no clear sense and they will be remembered for that.
> No the float rule is to avoid having to buy so much stock compared to the available stock that it would create irrational prices
Correct.
> this is probably going to happen with those IPOs
Not due to any index-following investor.
> SP500 can decide absolutely whatever they want
Yup, S&P 500 is a committee-based index.
> one of those instances in which they changed the rules in a way that made no clear sense and they will be remembered for that
S&P never changed the S&P 500's rules.
NASDAQ 100 did. But from what I can tell, that was a brilliant piece of marketing. Nobody talked about them before. (QQQQ doesn't appear to have gained or lost net assets in that time, which isn't unexpected, it's a volatile fund.)
Yes. For their total-market fund. That makes sense. (CRSP is probably the most-significant index to make the change. But even then, it won't be a significant source of demand. Total market means lots of components.)
Article says,this is a software issue. Where GPU'S are unable to get to be fully utilized due to scaling issues. I dont know how hardware that scale works, but it could very well be that they still need all of their hardware to get their current compute
cool to see you in the wild, for me, it does work out of the box however, some sites will break or have too complex of a navigation, especially with iframes. and will have to swap to a mouse which is a bummer, which I understand is an inherent limitation of the tech, since web is not built today to do that.
That's a clever and intriguing idea. I have to think through the security implications a bit though - I don't actually know much about how git operates with regards to hooks etc.
I'd imagine you lose the ability to have the coding agent do the commits for you? E.g. if you just mount the code directory, then an agent running on the remote side can't commit anything, right?
So you'd have to mount the .git directory from the remote side to then push?
git will check the .git folder, find a hook, and run it where it is applicable. If you are cloning a remote repository may inherit you with malicious hooks. These hooks run before you git operations, for example it is useful if you want lint the code a certain way before pushing, it does it automatically.
You can disable this behavior globally.
Yes, the agent should have no git access this way, however you could always do a local sub repository if you want to. You track your changes twice, but should work
Most people who spend time in front of a keyboard should without effort should attain 60 words per minute naturally. With decent techniques, you can go up to 80 wpm. Now there are speed typers who can do 250 wpm. Can you really think meaningfully at that speeds, in a way that it can be understood and is useful ?
At that point one could argue that running your own server to get instant responses from your llm matters, while we are at it, compile times, tests, search queries, could always use be shaved some milliseconds per.
With speed reader tools I can comfortably read and understand 500 wpm, should we now switch to speed readers since we read code more often than we write it ?
No, in reality, you create software faster when the code you write the first time doesn't result in errors, which requires knowledge of your stack.
Even if you are not looking to read your code, LLMs also benefit from good programming practices, some of these programming practices should produce code which is clear, changeable and extendable
okay that is kinda funny and much less legally problematic (because they didn't actively hack back and depending on what that virus did in detail could be seen more like how money bags can spray color on the bills if forcefully opened making them useless but not quite destroying them)
reply