Kyle

@alz_zyd_ I can't speak for Vanguard, but you can pay bills out of Fidelity and many other brokerages with MMFs. There is no grand scheme here. You are just stupid.

- Vanguard is both safer and higher-interest than the bank, so it's obviously the better option - However, the bank deposits can be used to e.g. pay your credit card, and Vanguard can't, so you hold higher-risk, lower-interest deposits to pay your credit card

Here is how banking in the US works - If you put $1 in a bank, you get 0.5% interest, and you lose some $$ (if over $250k) if the bank makes stupid loans and fails - If you put $1 in a Vanguard money market fund, you get 3.5% interest, and it's safer than the bank

@JimiFabrizio @larpcapitalwc Really less since you know bro is getting cooked on his execution.

@larpcapitalwc the PnL from theta decay will exactly equal your expected (convexity) losses from delta hedging if the vol is priced appropriately

I’ve spent 3 full days trying to get Claude to explain to me why theta decay isn’t an arbitrage and I still haven’t gotten a straight answer Might have discovered the holy grail here boys

@annanay @sama This entire post loses credibility when you posit that Dutch MMs originate from ABT Amro being Dutch rather than EU options trading simply being concentrated in Amsterdam. Such a simple misunderstanding is a pretty good signal the entire post is complete slop.

SV knows very little about trading. Jane Street will be fine. Joining now is akin to working at a bank in the early 00’s. Probably too late to make superyacht money, but still a good opportunity that most college grads would kill for. There was a big boost when @sama announced that they were recruiting quants; quite a few of the ‘MIT’ school of quant firms have been losing staff to the AI shops recently, particularly HRT. Anecdotally, Jane Street has the most brand recognition, at least amongst YC partners. Different types of trading firm One of the least discussed (and therefore most misunderstood) points is that ‘quant’ firms have extremely different modus operandi. The Chicago School Chicago is home to CME: the biggest futures exchange in the world. When CME released their first API, some of the smart floor traders saw the writing on the wall and hired programmers to automate their deep trading intuition. They were called the ‘upstairs traders’, because they worked from offices on the floor above the pit. These firms view trading from a game-theoretic lens. Juniors are trained on poker and chess games, and the culture is that software is a tool to automate and speed up what is fundamentally a financial game. Traders sit in front of big screens with dashboards (and sometimes Bloomberg terminals) and aren’t afraid to intervene if they see something the models don’t. Quants work for traders. Traders can, and do, put on discretionary trades. Interviews are full of mind-bending brainteasers, but probably not any ML questions. SIG (and its offspring, like Jane Street) and DRW are the big examples here. Jump started out in Chicago, but now operates more like an ‘MIT School’ shop. The MIT School On the other side are the nerds who see the markets as a big stats and engineering problem. They solely hire people with backgrounds in hard science, and shun finance grads. Strategies are tested and deployed in a rigorous manner akin more to the software lifecycle at big tech. Quants find alpha, and ‘traders’ simply monitor and deploy their strategies without a risk mandate. Citadel Securities, HRT and Tower are firmly in this school. Which is Best? Here’s the best part: all of these firms are VERY profitable. Many ways to skin a cat. The MIT School works best when on efficient, liquid markets, where the models have a lot of data to train on and sudden changes in regime are rare. Think US equities, CME futures, and so on. The Chicago school works best on the rest: when markets are thin, prone to sudden shocks, or have a heavy broker-drive OTC element. Think EU equity options, rare commodities like palladium, frontier equities. Misc There are an unlikely number of Dutch HFTs (IMC, Optiver, and its offspring like Flow and Akuna). Most are in the Chicago School style, and have their US offices in Chicago. The most convincing argument I’ve heard for this is that one of the only banks that would clear HFT firms when it was a new industry was ABN Amro: a Dutch bank. If someone has a better idea, feel free to correct me. If you want to get inside the mind of someone trained at Jane Street, @AgustinLebron3 book ‘The Laws of Trading’ is a great read. And fwiw, I do think the allure of quant firms is dying - working at a bank in the 00's was certainly lucrative, but I don't hear anyone bragging about it now.

@REDavidson3 @BarneyFlames Jeff Bezos, son of a single mom who married a poor Cuban immigrant was UMC growing up?

@BarneyFlames Upper middle class. I know the upper class likes to pretend that's them too but Bezos was actually UMC.

An interesting distinction among self made billionaires is that those that grew up middle class (Bezos) are much more likely to be right wing than the ones with aristocratic pedigree (think Bill Gates).

@DeepDishEnjoyer I'm just a swe at a trading firm so I appreciate your posts a lot. For example, your discussion re: flow provided a clean intuition on why warehousing risk from benign flow is good. Obviously I knew this to be true, but I didn't have a solid mental model for why.

tbh idk why i even bother doing my little trading twitter teachins. the set of ppl that are curious enough+have the "technical" capacity to understand what i'm saying for whom this is also new information is tiny. most comments are just folks on the wrong part of dunning kruger

@ndrewpignanelli Lmfao. Want to make a bet on this? I can do 100k of size if you want to settle on some reasonable resolution criteria.

My predictions for 2026 "Everything works now and that's insane" Coding is, for all intents and purposes, solved in the next generation of models. Everything related to coding that isnt “solved” is more of a harness/context problem than anything else. This means everything from backend, reliability and deployment, security, and frontend is able to be handed off to an agent. The exception is actual business logic and user experience, which still doesn’t feel right till two more generations of visual and spatial reasoning improve. Browser agents become highly effective and are used for the long tail of problems that cant be solved by purpose built software. As a result of this, bot protection becomes a really big thing people have to fight/worry about to get this tooling to work and companies like browserbase make a shit ton of money doing so.Everything from booking a flight, getting a dinner reservation, to scraping leads on linkedin and applying to jobs for you is doable with a browser agent. The browser won’t be the place people access this - it’ll just be in a normal chatbot style interface that’s async. There’s a breakthrough in “continuous learning” in the first quarter, and a new paradigm labs call “learning models” (or something similar) start getting released every quarter. Anthropic gets there first, then openai follows. Continuous learning is a combined system of evolving context and continued finetuning on a model. This doesn’t solve the context engineering problem, but does effectively eliminate the need for finetuning entirely. Agents get really good at managing their own context and context of sub-agents around them. Because of this, multi-agent swarms start to work really well. Context expansion, context compression, and retrieval become a solved problem by the end of the year the same way structured output generation is now a solved problem. AI designing interfaces with things like the figma MCP or just writing straight to code get really good. We enter uncanny valley of design in early-to-mid 2026. AI assistants move to single threaded and away from having a ton of different chats. Single threaded is the way people interact with other people, and was a difficult problem pre-2025. But, since evolving context and memory became mainstream, single threaded experiences like Poke dominate. This is in prep for voice mode to become one of the default ways to interact with AI. Voice mode gets a big step up around the middle of the year. Pre-2026, voice modes were just odd and still feel like talking to a robot. Greatly improved voice modes make voice a default way of interacting with the models. “Her” is basically reality by fall. AGI, if defined as Samantha from the movie “Her” (my personal definition) is a reality by October 2026. It’s a single threaded experience but you can access context in a very clever and guided way. OpenAI claims they have it first, though for various legal reasons might not actually say its AGI, and it’s released as a consumer product. There is much debate over whether this is actually AGI. The ending of the movie where the OS’ all band together to make ASI is not happening in 2026. OpenAI IPOs cause they need the capital. They release “Chat-1” or whatever they wanna call it during the roadshow. Nano-Banana-67 and similar new tooling basically automates investment analysts out of their jobs; it still takes a long time to diffuse because of tooling and organizational lag. Google becomes the leader in AI for biology, and acquires some biotech companies to deploy it. Basically no human trials are seen, though the company wants to run trials on people in developing countries to accelerate time to market and this causes some PR issues for approximately 48 hours on twitter. Apple leads the way in proposing a new standard to verify images and videos are not AI generated, and starts requiring social media apps on the app store to follow this standard. It uses camera and microphone metadata to prove something came directly from a camera. They get buy in from Google, Tiktok, and Meta by the end of the year by basically forcing them to do it. We see some seriously insane game demos from the world simulation companies, but none of it is really playable until early 2027. Sim gaming exists, and kinda works, but its not great yet. Similar vibe to early VR. Cerebres or Groq gets acquired by one of the labs. Microsoft acquires Cursor for some absurdly high number. Govt gets scared of China, so they give OpenAI and Anthropic 100 billion dollars or something crazy like that (long shot but wanted to put this down anyways). Apple buys Thinking Machines after Anthropic turns them down. E2B or Daytona (the agent sandbox companies) gets acquired by Cursor. Waymos are in every major city except New York (they’ll never work in new york). Waymo has a problem with manufacturing enough cars to meet demand. A few founders go to jail for lying about ARR numbers. Seed round valuations decline from current levels but the AI hype doesn’t die down too hard. (Some of these are more thought through than others. also published to my personal blog)

@yrechtman @ArmandDoma It is a minor process and can be done laproscopically. I had an extremely severe case where I almost died pre surgery & my recovery consisted of me lying in the hospital for a few days shitting liquid and abdominal pain. I refused opiates and was fine.

@ArmandDoma Stuff like this feels like a pretty big communication and trust gap

My blackpill about medicine has been learning that doctors define the seriousness/intensity of a surgery according to what it means for THEM and not what it means for the PATIENT. Surgery is “minor” because it takes 45 minutes to perform, even if it’s a 6 month recovery.

@BorisBartlog @lilbabygandhi And to your original point... yes it actually is very common to have disdain for Gays who have unprotected sex and don't take PreP. They are putting themselves and others in danger and are rightfully shamed for it.

@BorisBartlog @lilbabygandhi There is also no accurate comparison here since the cause of AIDS transmission wasn't known for years, at which point it was too late & it had already spread like wildfire through the gay community.

they were right

@Rob_ThaBuilder @SaraForTexLege @bofrench Local twitter retard thinks xyz group of people only committed 400 crimes in Texas rather than it being a **rate** per 100,000 as is very standard.

@SaraForTexLege @bofrench Lol no it isnt, its quite clearly crime overall, as you can clearly see by the Y axis. You cant srsly be this dumb

That IS per capita you absolute door knob. 🤦🏻‍♀️

@BorisBartlog @lilbabygandhi Really? "maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments" From a conversation Reagan had with his biographer. Are you just willfully lying about the aids dialogue of the 80s?

@lilbabygandhi Yeah, sorta. Nonetheless the tone of the message is a little offputting. I don't recall any similar presidential messages directed at e.g. people who declined to properly protect themselves against AIDs in the 1990s.

@ControGorilla @escapefrommelos Its not sickeningly evil or evil at all to expirement on beagles. Do you live in a fantasy world where everything is testable in vitro and we go right to human testing before doing any animal model testing?

@escapefrommelos I think the sickeningly evil part is the experimentation - not the rescue - so calm the fuck down maybe.

I love how normies see moments like these as “cute” or “wholesome” when actually they are sickeningly evil

@24_7_notsure @itswithinme_ Maybe if you actually went to college you'd understand there are (smaller) December ceremonies at most schools.

@itswithinme_ I didn't know they held college graduation in mid December Cool story

> Brother graduated college yesterday > commencement speaker was CEO of a publicly traded company > brother got his email off Apollo > brother emailed him thanking him for the speech and expressed interest in working at his firm > CEO replied and said he’d forward to the right team > I bet my brother was the only one to do this > anyone who’s complaining about not getting a job is simply not trying hard enough

@TJiMTS You do realize that the intrinsic value in vested stock options of any meaningful amount is taxed as income, right? Lmfao

She takes this as salary and pays insane tax on it btw rather than some low tax stock options route

@MMM4699201609 @DrEmmaZang When a question is written pretty unambiguously to be computed at the limit & the solution to the question computes the answer at the limit, it's pretty clear that the intended interpretation of the question is to compute at the limit. Hope that helps bud!

@klayzerd @DrEmmaZang That only matters on tests, and then only if you can’t talk to the test setter. Anywhere else other things matter more.

It’s been surprising (and honestly a bit fun) to see how much interest this little math question generated on X. Since I’m not great at expressing thoughts in short posts, I wanted to write down one last clarification and then step back from the conversation. Among all the simulations people shared, this one (x.com/chlorophilosof…) is the clearest and most aligned with the underlying math (thank you to the person who ran it so thoughtfully). It captures the key point much better than my original quick explanation did. I also want to gently note: I’m not here to compete with anyone. I’m not interested in status games or in conversations rooted in arrogance. Those dynamics don’t help anyone understand the math better, and they only distract from what should be a simple, interesting problem. This will be my final comment on the topic. Thanks to everyone who engaged in good faith and contributed helpful insights.

@MMM4699201609 @DrEmmaZang You are so stupid I am surprised you can breathe without assistance.

@MMM4699201609 @DrEmmaZang Are you stupid? The question is FROM this book lmfao. The interpretation of the question by the AUTHOR of the question is what matters. There is no death of the author in test questions.

@DrEmmaZang If you aren't naming a finite stopping point in an EV question, the default assumption is that there isn't one. That is standard convention. You inventing an alternate reality so that you can smugpost on twitter is hilarious.

@DrEmmaZang Its obviously true in the limit & it's also obviously true that basically every probability question asking about the expected value of something is asking in the context of the limit. Your interpretation is absurd. Go open up a probability textbook & see how the Qs are phrased