Google has agreed to acquire cybersecurity startup Wiz for a reported $32 billion. This deal, expected to close in 2025, marks a significant investment by Google in cloud security and will bolster its Google Cloud Platform offerings. Wiz specializes in agentless cloud security, offering vulnerability assessment and other protective measures. The acquisition price tag represents a substantial premium over Wiz's previous valuation, highlighting the growing importance of cloud security in the tech industry.
The original poster asks how other B2C SaaS businesses handle VAT/sales tax accounting, specifically mentioning the complexity of varying rates and rules based on customer location. They're looking for automated solutions and wondering if incorporating in a specific tax-friendly jurisdiction would simplify things. Essentially, the poster is seeking advice on streamlining their sales tax compliance for a global customer base.
The Hacker News comments discuss various approaches to handling VAT/sales tax for B2C SaaS. Several recommend using services like Quaderno, Paddle, or FastSpring, which automate tax calculation and compliance. Some users suggest thresholds for registering in different jurisdictions, while others emphasize the importance of consulting with a tax advisor, especially as businesses scale and cross-border transactions increase. A few commenters detail their own experiences, highlighting the complexity of managing tax rules across different regions and advocating for simplified, global tax solutions. Some discuss the nuances of the EU's VAT Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) system. Finally, some users suggest calculating taxes based on the customer's billing address rather than payment method location for more accuracy.
Inherited wealth is increasingly rivaling earned income in importance, especially in advanced economies. As populations age and accumulated wealth grows, inheritances are becoming larger and more frequent, flowing disproportionately to the already wealthy. This exacerbates inequality, entrenches existing class structures, and potentially undermines the meritocratic ideal of social mobility based on hard work. The article argues that governments need to address this trend through policies like inheritance taxes, not just to raise revenue, but to promote fairness and opportunity across generations.
HN commenters largely agree with the premise that inherited wealth is increasingly important for financial success. Several highlight the difficulty of accumulating wealth through work alone, especially given rising housing costs and stagnant wages. Some discuss the societal implications, expressing concern over decreased social mobility and the potential for inherited wealth to exacerbate inequality. Others offer personal anecdotes illustrating the impact of inheritance, both positive and negative. The role of luck and privilege is a recurring theme, with some arguing that meritocracy is a myth and that inherited advantages play a larger role than often acknowledged. A few commenters point out potential flaws in the Economist's analysis, questioning the data or suggesting alternative interpretations.
The SEC has announced that it will not regulate memecoins, citing their inherent lack of intrinsic value and purpose other than speculation. The commission argues that attempting to oversee these volatile assets, often driven by social media trends, would be an inefficient use of resources and potentially ineffective. This decision leaves memecoin investors with less protection and increases the risk of market manipulation and fraud. While some established cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum fall under SEC scrutiny, memecoins will remain outside their regulatory purview, solidifying their status as a largely speculative and high-risk investment.
The Hacker News comments express skepticism about the title's accuracy, arguing it misrepresents the NYT article. Commenters point out the SEC is pursuing enforcement actions against memecoins, specifically citing the ongoing Ripple/XRP lawsuit as evidence. They highlight that the SEC's position isn't a blanket declaration of non-oversight, but rather a nuanced approach based on the specific characteristics and distribution of each token. Some suggest the title is clickbait and warn against taking it at face value. Several commenters also discuss the complexities of regulating cryptocurrencies, with some arguing for clearer regulatory frameworks and others advocating for a more hands-off approach. A few users also mention potential legal challenges to the SEC's authority in this space.
This post provides a gentle introduction to stochastic calculus, focusing on the Ito integral. It explains the motivation behind needing a new type of calculus for random processes like Brownian motion, highlighting its non-differentiable nature. The post defines the Ito integral, emphasizing its difference from the Riemann integral due to the non-zero quadratic variation of Brownian motion. It then introduces Ito's Lemma, a crucial tool for manipulating functions of stochastic processes, and illustrates its application with examples like geometric Brownian motion, a common model in finance. Finally, the post briefly touches on stochastic differential equations (SDEs) and their connection to partial differential equations (PDEs) through the Feynman-Kac formula.
HN users generally praised the clarity and accessibility of the introduction to stochastic calculus. Several appreciated the focus on intuition and the gentle progression of concepts, making it easier to grasp than other resources. Some pointed out its relevance to fields like finance and machine learning, while others suggested supplementary resources for deeper dives into specific areas like Ito's Lemma. One commenter highlighted the importance of understanding the underlying measure theory, while another offered a perspective on how stochastic calculus can be viewed as a generalization of ordinary calculus. A few mentioned the author's background, suggesting it contributed to the clear explanations. The discussion remained focused on the quality of the introductory post, with no significant dissenting opinions.
Microsoft has reportedly canceled leases for data center space in Silicon Valley previously intended for artificial intelligence development. Analyst Matthew Ball suggests this move signals a shift in Microsoft's AI infrastructure strategy, possibly consolidating resources into larger, more efficient locations like its existing Azure data centers. This comes amid increasing demand for AI computing power and as Microsoft heavily invests in AI technologies like OpenAI. While the canceled leases represent a relatively small portion of Microsoft's overall data center footprint, the decision offers a glimpse into the company's evolving approach to AI infrastructure management.
Hacker News users discuss the potential implications of Microsoft canceling data center leases, primarily focusing on the balance between current AI hype and actual demand. Some speculate that Microsoft overestimated the immediate need for AI-specific infrastructure, potentially due to inflated expectations or a strategic shift towards prioritizing existing resources. Others suggest the move reflects a broader industry trend of reevaluating data center needs amidst economic uncertainty. A few commenters question the accuracy of the reporting, emphasizing the lack of official confirmation from Microsoft and the possibility of misinterpreting standard lease adjustments as a significant pullback. The overall sentiment seems to be cautious optimism about AI's future while acknowledging the potential for a market correction.
Paul Graham argues that the primary way people get rich now is by creating wealth, specifically through starting or joining early-stage startups. This contrasts with older models of wealth acquisition like inheritance or rent-seeking. Building a successful company, particularly in technology, allows founders and early employees to own equity that appreciates significantly as the company grows. This wealth creation is driven by building things people want, leveraging technology for scale, and operating within a relatively open market where new companies can compete with established ones. This model is distinct from merely getting a high-paying job, which provides a good income but rarely leads to substantial wealth creation in the same way equity ownership can.
Hacker News users discussed Paul Graham's essay on contemporary wealth creation, largely agreeing with his premise that starting a startup is the most likely path to significant riches. Some commenters pointed out nuances, like the importance of equity versus salary, and the role of luck and timing. Several highlighted the increasing difficulty of bootstrapping due to the prevalence of venture capital, while others debated the societal implications of wealth concentration through startups. A few challenged Graham's focus on tech, suggesting alternative routes like real estate or skilled trades, albeit with potentially lower ceilings. The thread also explored the tension between pursuing wealth and other life goals, with some arguing that focusing solely on riches can be counterproductive.
The small town of Seneca, Kansas, was ripped apart by a cryptocurrency scam orchestrated by local banker Ashley McFarland. McFarland convinced numerous residents, many elderly and financially vulnerable, to invest in her purportedly lucrative cryptocurrency mining operation, promising astronomical returns. Instead, she siphoned off millions, funding a lavish lifestyle and covering previous losses. As the scheme unraveled, trust eroded within the community, friendships fractured, and families faced financial ruin. The scam exposed the allure of get-rich-quick schemes in struggling rural areas and the devastating consequences of misplaced trust, leaving Seneca grappling with its aftermath.
HN commenters largely discuss the social dynamics of the scam described in the NYT article, with some focusing on the technical aspects. Several express sympathy for the victims, highlighting the deceptive nature of the scam and the difficulty of recognizing it. Some commenters debate the role of greed and the allure of "easy money" in making people vulnerable. Others analyze the technical mechanics of the scam, pointing out the usage of shell corporations and the movement of funds through different accounts to obfuscate the trail. A few commenters criticize the NYT article for its length and writing style, suggesting it could have been more concise. There's also discussion about the broader implications for cryptocurrency regulation and the need for better investor education. Finally, some skepticism is expressed towards the victims' claims of innocence, with some commenters speculating about their potential complicity.
Struggling electric truck manufacturer Nikola has filed for bankruptcy after years of financial difficulties and broken promises. The company, once touted as a Tesla rival, faced numerous setbacks including production delays, fraud allegations against its founder, and dwindling investor confidence. This bankruptcy filing marks the end of the road for the troubled startup, which was unable to overcome its challenges and deliver on its ambitious vision for zero-emission trucking.
Hacker News commenters on Nikola's bankruptcy expressed little surprise, with many citing the company's history of dubious claims and questionable leadership as the root cause. Several pointed to Trevor Milton's fraud conviction as a pivotal moment, highlighting the erosion of trust and investor confidence. Some discussed the challenges of the electric vehicle market, particularly for startups attempting to compete with established players. A few commenters questioned the viability of hydrogen fuel cells in the trucking industry, suggesting that battery-electric technology is the more practical path. Overall, the sentiment reflects skepticism towards Nikola's long-term prospects, even before the bankruptcy filing.
The blog post details the author's experience market making on Kalshi, a prediction market platform. They outline their automated strategy, which involves setting bid and ask prices around a predicted probability, adjusting spreads based on liquidity and event volatility. The author focuses on "Will the Fed cut interest rates before 2024?", highlighting the challenges of predicting this complex event and managing risk. Despite facing difficulties like thin markets and the need for continuous model refinement, they achieved a small profit, demonstrating the potential, albeit challenging, nature of algorithmic market making on these platforms. The post emphasizes the importance of careful risk management, constant monitoring, and adapting to market conditions.
HN commenters discuss the intricacies and challenges of market making on Kalshi, particularly regarding the platform's fee structure. Some highlight the difficulty of profiting given the 0.5% fee per trade and the need for substantial volume to overcome it. Others point out that Kalshi contracts are generally illiquid, making sustained profitability challenging even without fees. The discussion touches on the complexities of predicting probabilities and the potential for exploitation by insiders with privileged information. Some users express skepticism about the viability of retail market making on Kalshi, while others suggest potential strategies involving statistical arbitrage or focusing on less efficient, smaller markets. The conversation also briefly explores the regulatory landscape and Kalshi's unique position as a CFTC-regulated exchange.
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is establishing a new trading floor in Arlington, Texas, called NYSE Texas. Scheduled to open in 2027, this facility will serve as a disaster recovery and backup site for the NYSE's existing operations. It will also house a physical trading floor mirroring the iconic NYSE in New York City, offering a venue for in-person trading and important corporate events like IPO ceremonies. This expansion aims to increase the exchange's resiliency and geographical diversity.
Hacker News commenters were generally cynical about the announcement of NYSE Texas. Many saw it as a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent regulations, potentially relating to taxes or data sovereignty, with some speculating about connections to Texas's lax regulatory environment. Several pointed out the irony of a New York institution establishing a Texas branch for supposed advantages, while others questioned the practical implications and whether any significant trading activity would actually relocate. Some suggested the move was more about optics and public relations than genuine operational needs, especially given the existing electronic nature of trading. A few commenters expressed curiosity about the specifics of the "cutting edge financial technology" mentioned in the press release, but overall the sentiment was skeptical.
Due to sanctions and trade restrictions, a two-tiered gold market has emerged, with gold priced significantly higher in New York than in London or Shanghai. This price difference reflects the increased difficulty and risk associated with moving gold between these markets. While previously small price discrepancies were quickly arbitraged away, the current geopolitical climate has created persistent price differentials, highlighting the fragmentation of the global gold market and diminished fungibility of the precious metal.
HN commenters discuss potential explanations for the gold price differential between London and New York, focusing on logistical challenges and costs associated with physically moving gold. Several suggest that increased demand in New York, perhaps driven by perceived risks in the financial system or changing geopolitical landscapes, is the primary driver. The conversation also touches on the possibility of differing assaying standards, insurance costs, and the practicality of transporting large quantities of gold, questioning whether the price difference truly reflects an arbitrage opportunity or rather represents the real cost of moving physical gold. Some express skepticism about the Bloomberg article's claims, suggesting the price difference could be ephemeral or due to temporary market fluctuations. A few comments also mention the historical context of gold prices and transportation challenges.
Court documents reveal that the US Treasury Department has engaged with Dogecoin, specifically accessing and analyzing Dogecoin blockchain data. While the extent of this activity remains unclear, the documents confirm the Treasury's interest in understanding and potentially monitoring Dogecoin transactions. This involvement stems from a 2021 forfeiture case involving illicit funds allegedly laundered through Dogecoin. The Treasury utilized blockchain explorer tools to trace these transactions, demonstrating the government's growing capability to track cryptocurrency activity.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of the linked article detailing Dogecoin activity at the Treasury Department, primarily focusing on the potential for insider trading and the surprisingly lax security practices revealed. Some commenters questioned the significance of the Dogecoin transactions, suggesting they might be related to testing or training rather than malicious activity. Others expressed concern over the apparent ease with which an employee could access sensitive systems from a personal device, highlighting the risk of both intentional and accidental data breaches. The overall sentiment reflects skepticism about the official explanation and a desire for more transparency regarding the incident. Several users also pointed out the irony of using Dogecoin, often seen as a "meme" cryptocurrency, in such a sensitive context.
Talks of a potential $60 billion merger between Nissan and Honda, aimed at creating an automotive powerhouse to rival Toyota, ultimately collapsed due to a clash of corporate cultures and control issues. Nissan, still grappling with internal turmoil following the Carlos Ghosn scandal, was wary of Honda's proposal which would have effectively put Honda in the dominant position. Key disagreements arose concerning leadership structure, operational control, and the future of Nissan's existing alliance with Renault. These irreconcilable differences, coupled with differing views on future technology development strategies, led to the abandonment of the merger discussions.
HN commenters generally agree that cultural clashes were the primary downfall of the Nissan/Honda merger talks. Several pointed to Nissan's internal struggles and legacy issues as a major impediment, suggesting Honda was wise to walk away. Some speculated that Nissan's desire for a more dominant role in the merged entity, despite its weaker position, further complicated negotiations. A few commenters questioned the overall strategic rationale of the merger, particularly given the differing strengths and market focuses of the two companies. Finally, there's some skepticism about the "leak" of the breakdown, with suggestions it might be a strategic move by one or both parties.
ExpenseOwl is a straightforward, self-hosted expense tracking application built with Python and Flask. It allows users to easily input and categorize expenses, generate reports visualizing spending habits, and export data in CSV format. Designed for simplicity and privacy, ExpenseOwl stores data in a local SQLite database, offering a lightweight alternative to complex commercial expense trackers. It's easily deployable via Docker and provides a clean, user-friendly web interface for managing personal finances.
Hacker News users generally praised ExpenseOwl for its simplicity and self-hosted nature, aligning with the common desire for more control over personal data. Several commenters appreciated the clean UI and ease of use, while others suggested potential improvements like multi-user support, recurring transactions, and more detailed reporting/charting features. Some users questioned the choice of Python/Flask given the relatively simple functionality, suggesting lighter-weight alternatives might be more suitable. There was also discussion about the database choice (SQLite) and the potential limitations it might impose for larger datasets or more complex queries. A few commenters mentioned similar projects, offering alternative self-hosted expense tracking solutions for comparison.
The FDIC released 175 internal documents in response to FOIA requests concerning alleged government pressure on banks to limit or sever ties with cryptocurrency firms, often referred to as "Operation Chokepoint 2.0". The documents, consisting of emails and internal communications, detail the agency's interactions with banks, other regulators, and government entities on matters related to crypto-asset activities. While some communications show regulators' concerns about the safety and soundness of banks engaging with crypto firms, the released documents do not offer conclusive evidence of a coordinated effort to debank the crypto industry. Instead, they largely reflect ongoing discussions and information sharing among regulators navigating the novel and evolving crypto landscape.
Hacker News users discuss the FDIC's released documents, questioning whether they truly reveal a coordinated effort to "choke off" crypto. Some argue the documents primarily show regulators grappling with the novel and rapidly evolving nature of crypto, focusing on risk mitigation within existing banking frameworks rather than outright suppression. Others express skepticism, suggesting the released information is incomplete and that more damning evidence may exist. A few highlight the inherent tension between fostering innovation and maintaining financial stability, with regulators seemingly erring on the side of caution. The discussion also touches on the potential chilling effect of regulatory scrutiny on crypto innovation within the US banking system.
El Salvador has repealed the Bitcoin Law, ending Bitcoin's status as legal tender after a two-and-a-half-year experiment. Citing the cryptocurrency's failure to attract foreign investment and stimulate the economy as promised, the government officially reversed course. While the law initially aimed to modernize financial services and lower transaction costs, it ultimately resulted in significant financial losses for the country. The move effectively removes the requirement for businesses to accept Bitcoin as payment.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed a lack of surprise at El Salvador abandoning Bitcoin as legal tender. Many saw the initial adoption as a publicity stunt driven by Nayib Bukele, and predicted its failure from the start due to Bitcoin's volatility and unsuitability for everyday transactions. Some pointed out the lack of infrastructure and technical understanding within the country as contributing factors. A few questioned the veracity of the "failed experiment" narrative, suggesting the move might be politically motivated or that Bitcoin adoption continues despite the official change. Several criticized Bukele's authoritarian tendencies and questioned the overall impact on the Salvadoran economy.
Postmake.io/revenue offers a simple calculator to help businesses quickly estimate their annual recurring revenue (ARR). Users input their number of customers, average revenue per customer (ARPU), and customer churn rate to calculate current ARR, ARR growth potential, and potential revenue loss due to churn. The tool aims to provide a straightforward way to understand these key metrics and their impact on overall revenue, facilitating better financial planning.
Hacker News users generally reacted positively to Postmake's revenue calculator. Several commenters praised its simplicity and ease of use, finding it a helpful tool for quick calculations. Some suggested potential improvements, like adding more sophisticated features for calculating recurring revenue or including churn rate. One commenter pointed out the importance of considering customer lifetime value (CLTV) alongside revenue. A few expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of relying on a third-party tool for such calculations, suggesting spreadsheets or custom-built solutions as alternatives. Overall, the comments reflected an appreciation for a simple, accessible tool while also highlighting the need for more robust solutions for complex revenue modeling.
Nvidia experienced the largest single-day market capitalization loss in US history, plummeting nearly $600 billion. This unprecedented drop followed the company's shocking earnings report revealing a 95% year-over-year profit decline, driven primarily by collapsing demand for its gaming GPUs and a slower-than-anticipated rollout of its AI data center products. Investors, who had previously propelled Nvidia to record highs, reacted strongly to the news, triggering a massive sell-off. The drastic downturn underscores the volatile nature of the tech market and the high expectations placed on companies at the forefront of rapidly evolving sectors like artificial intelligence.
Hacker News commenters generally agree that Nvidia's massive market cap drop, while substantial, isn't as catastrophic as the headline suggests. Several point out that the drop represents a percentage decrease, not a direct loss of real money, emphasizing that Nvidia's valuation remains high. Some suggest the drop is a correction after a period of overvaluation fueled by AI hype. Others discuss the volatility of the tech market and the potential for future rebounds. A few commenters speculate on the causes, including profit-taking and broader market trends, while some criticize CNBC's sensationalist reporting style. Several also highlight that market cap is a theoretical value, distinct from actual cash reserves.
Wall Street banks are preparing to sell off up to $3 billion in loans they provided to finance Elon Musk's acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), likely next week. The sale, which could involve a loss for the banks, aims to reduce their exposure to the debt and comes as concerns linger about X's advertising revenue and ability to repay the massive loans.
HN commenters express skepticism about the purported $3B in X loans being sold off, questioning the actual value and whether it's a true fire sale or a strategic move by banks to offload risk. Some suggest the sale is a sign of the weakening loan market and impending defaults, particularly in the tech sector. Others point to the opaque nature of these loan packages, making it difficult to assess their true worth and the potential losses involved. A few discuss the implications for Twitter, given Elon Musk's reliance on such loans, and the potential domino effect on other companies with similar debt structures. The overall sentiment leans towards caution and a belief that this sale represents a deeper issue within the leveraged loan market.
The blog post argues that Nvidia's current high valuation is unjustified due to increasing competition and the potential disruption posed by open-source models like DeepSeek. While acknowledging Nvidia's strong position and impressive growth, the author contends that competitors are rapidly developing comparable hardware, and that the open-source movement, exemplified by DeepSeek, is making advanced AI models more accessible, reducing reliance on proprietary solutions. This combination of factors is predicted to erode Nvidia's dominance and consequently its stock price, making the current valuation unsustainable in the long term.
Hacker News users discuss the potential impact of competition and open-source models like DeepSeek on Nvidia's dominance. Some argue that while open source is gaining traction, Nvidia's hardware/software ecosystem and established developer network provide a significant moat. Others point to the rapid pace of AI development, suggesting that Nvidia's current advantage might not be sustainable in the long term, particularly if open-source models achieve comparable performance. The high cost of Nvidia's hardware is also a recurring theme, with commenters speculating that cheaper alternatives could disrupt the market. Finally, several users express skepticism about DeepSeek's ability to pose a serious threat to Nvidia in the near future.
Chicago is offering an unusual investment opportunity tied to the future revenue of its first casino, the Bally's Chicago casino. Investors can buy a "Chicago Casino Bond" that pays a variable rate based on a percentage of the casino's adjusted gross receipts. While offering potentially high returns, the investment carries significant risk as casino revenue is unpredictable. Factors like competition, economic downturns, and the casino's management could impact payouts, and there's no guarantee of principal return. Essentially, it's a bet on the long-term success of the casino itself.
HN commenters are skeptical of the investment opportunity presented, questioning the projected 16% IRR. Several point out the inherent risks in casino ventures, citing competition, changing regulations, and the reliance on optimistic revenue projections. Some highlight the unusual nature of the offering and the lack of transparency surrounding the investor's identity. The overall sentiment leans towards caution, with commenters advising a thorough due diligence process and expressing doubts about the viability of such a high return in a saturated market like Chicago. Some also suggest exploring publicly traded casino companies as a potentially safer alternative investment in the sector.
KrebsOnSecurity reports on a scheme where sanctioned Russian banks are using cryptocurrency to access the international financial system. These banks partner with over-the-counter (OTC) cryptocurrency desks, which facilitate large transactions outside of traditional exchanges. Russian businesses deposit rubles into the sanctioned banks, which are then used to purchase cryptocurrency from the OTC desks. These desks, often operating in countries with lax regulations, then sell the cryptocurrency on international exchanges for foreign currencies like dollars and euros. Finally, the foreign currency is transferred back to accounts controlled by the Russian businesses, effectively circumventing sanctions. The process involves layers of obfuscation and shell companies to hide the true beneficiaries.
HN commenters discuss the complexities of Russia's relationship with cryptocurrency, particularly given sanctions. Some highlight the irony of Russia seemingly embracing crypto after initially condemning it, attributing this shift to the need to circumvent sanctions. Others delve into the technicalities of moving money through crypto, emphasizing the role of over-the-counter (OTC) desks and the difficulty of truly anonymizing transactions. Several express skepticism about the article's claims of widespread crypto usage in Russia, citing the limited liquidity of ruble-crypto pairs and suggesting alternative methods, like hawala networks, might be more prevalent. There's debate about the effectiveness of sanctions and the extent to which crypto actually helps Russia evade them. Finally, some comments point out the inherent risks for individuals using crypto in such a volatile and heavily monitored environment.
The website "WTF Happened In 1971?" presents a series of graphs suggesting a significant societal shift around that year. Many economic indicators, like productivity, real wages, housing affordability, and the gold-dollar relationship, appear to diverge from their post-WWII trends around 1971. The site implies a correlation between these changes and the Nixon administration's decision to end the Bretton Woods system, taking the US dollar off the gold standard, but doesn't explicitly claim causation. It serves primarily as a visual compilation of data points prompting further investigation into the potential causes and consequences of these economic and societal shifts.
Hacker News users discuss potential causes for the economic shift highlighted in the linked article, "WTF Happened in 1971?". Several commenters point to the Nixon Shock, the end of the Bretton Woods system, and the decoupling of the US dollar from gold as the primary driver, leading to increased inflation and wage stagnation. Others suggest it's an oversimplification, citing factors like the oil crisis, increased competition from Japan and Germany, and the peak of US manufacturing dominance as contributing factors. Some argue against a singular cause, proposing a combination of these elements along with demographic shifts and the end of the post-WWII economic boom as a more holistic explanation. A few more skeptical commenters question the premise entirely, arguing the presented correlations don't equal causation and that the chosen metrics are cherry-picked. Finally, some discuss the complexities of measuring productivity and the role of technological advancements in influencing economic trends.
The blog post "Kelly Can't Fail" argues against the common misconception that the Kelly criterion is dangerous due to its potential for large drawdowns. It demonstrates that, under specific idealized conditions (including continuous trading and accurate knowledge of the true probability distribution), the Kelly strategy cannot go bankrupt, even when facing adverse short-term outcomes. This "can't fail" property stems from Kelly's logarithmic growth nature, which ensures eventual recovery from any finite loss. While acknowledging that real-world scenarios deviate from these ideal conditions, the post emphasizes the theoretical robustness of Kelly betting as a foundation for understanding and applying leveraged betting strategies. It concludes that the perceived risk of Kelly is often due to misapplication or misunderstanding, rather than an inherent flaw in the criterion itself.
The Hacker News comments discuss the limitations and practical challenges of applying the Kelly criterion. Several commenters point out that the Kelly criterion assumes perfect knowledge of the probability distribution of outcomes, which is rarely the case in real-world scenarios. Others emphasize the difficulty of estimating the "edge" accurately, and how even small errors can lead to substantial drawdowns. The emotional toll of large swings, even if theoretically optimal, is also discussed, with some suggesting fractional Kelly strategies as a more palatable approach. Finally, the computational complexity of Kelly for portfolios of correlated assets is brought up, making its implementation challenging beyond simple examples. A few commenters defend Kelly, arguing that its supposed failures often stem from misapplication or overlooking its long-term nature.
Summary of Comments ( 582 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43398518
Hacker News users discuss the high acquisition price of Wiz, especially considering its relatively short existence and the current market downturn. Some speculate about the strategic value Google sees in Wiz, suggesting it might be related to cloud security competition with Microsoft, or a desire to bolster Google Cloud Platform's security offerings. Others question the due diligence process, wondering if Google overpaid. A few commenters note the significant payout for Wiz's founders and investors, and contemplate the broader implications for the cybersecurity market and startup valuations. There's also skepticism about the reported valuation, with some suggesting it might be inflated.
The Hacker News post "Google to buy Wiz for $32B" has generated several comments discussing the acquisition. A recurring theme is the sheer size of the deal, with many commenters expressing surprise at the $32 billion price tag, especially given Wiz's relatively young age and the recent downturn in the cybersecurity market. Some speculate about the motivations behind such a massive acquisition, suggesting Google might be playing catch-up in the cloud security space or aiming to integrate Wiz's technology deeply into Google Cloud Platform (GCP).
Several comments highlight the competitive landscape, comparing Wiz to other cloud security companies like Orca Security, Palo Alto Networks, and CrowdStrike. Some suggest that Google might have overpaid, while others argue that the acquisition price reflects the increasing importance of cloud security and Wiz's potential for growth.
Some commenters question the long-term implications of the acquisition, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest given Google's dominant position in the cloud market. They discuss the possibility of Wiz's technology becoming exclusive to GCP, which could limit its reach and potentially stifle innovation. Others express skepticism about Google's ability to successfully integrate such a large acquisition, citing past examples of acquisitions that haven't panned out as expected.
A few comments delve into the technical aspects of Wiz's technology, praising its agentless approach and its ability to provide comprehensive cloud security posture management. They compare Wiz's capabilities to other solutions and discuss the potential benefits of integrating it with existing Google Cloud services.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of surprise, skepticism, and cautious optimism about the Google-Wiz deal. Many acknowledge the strategic importance of cloud security but question the price tag and the long-term implications for the market. There's also a healthy dose of speculation about Google's motivations and the potential impact on the competitive landscape.