We just finally got pretty much everyone who matters to use a USB connector, now you want to go back to the Walled Garden of proprietary connectors, or even worse, try to get everyone to agree on a new standard?

Hell yes. I've wanted a standard for power for years. USB is pretty stupid way to standardize, because it's 5V @ 0.5A. But that's an issue because to charge you need 5V @ 1A (then 5V @2A) so instead of coming up with a new connector, now they negotiate rates, and suddenly you have to ask if it's a USB connection that supports 2A, etc, etc. etc. and you cannot tell by looking at it.

Also, USB has USB micro and USB mini and just regular USB A, so don't pretend it's totally unambigous. And only one of those is at all resilient to being flipped upside down when being inserted upside-down. Which is find if you need four pins, but we don't for power.

So, we should have a standard, which can propagate the same way USB did (the EU makes a law). Universal barrel plugs, if it fits, it works. (That is, each combination of inner/outer diameters is ties Also, step up the voltage/amperage into standard steps, so there's a finite number of possibilities. Maybe a couple of standard sizes for each combination.

But yes, I've often used proprietary power plugs as the example for where a stupid government regulation can make for great efficiencies.

that there are problems that would have to be worked out before it'd be practical for a phone battery.

Or we could separate power from data and do away with "all approx. 5V connections must use a USB adapter." Bonus, it solves the charging station hacks.

You seem to be the first person who is actually trying to explain something instead of just opaquely insisting "HFT adds liquidity'. So, since I don't understand that position at all, allow me to ask a series of questions that hopefully help me out.

You're saying when there are 500k being offered at 35.2 (split into 100k across 5 exchanges), in reality there is only 100k being offered on any of 5 exchanges, because as soon as 100k are snapped up, they'll withdraw their offer on the other 4 exchanges an up them to 35.4. And that this is expected and ethical, because otherwise they would have started at 35.4?

But even HFT seek to make money, so why wouldn't they start at 35.4 if they thought they could get it?

Do we have any evidence that this actually lowers the spreads? I mean, I understand there is a correlation, but electronic trading in general lowers the spread, plus it seems timed to the switch to decimal. Has anyone controlled for those factors?

You mention market making. But isn't that factor only for thinly traded stocks? Wouldn't widely traded stocks already have a market.

How does this "extra liquidity" occur? I thought HFT was arbitrage. Arbitrage, pretty much by definition, can only occur when you already have both parties lined up for you to transact with.

Why do you say that he's the only one at that price. Presentably, there could be infinite people offering at that price, all of whom withdraw their offer and up it. I mean, that may be a different example, but it seems like otherwise you're picking on a poorly constructed example instead of a proper point.

To defend the GP's point:

What information is major enough to allow immediate sales of stock, and who gets to choose?

Well, on one side we have information about disasters involving the company (factories exploding, recalls, CEO death). That clearly is major enough.

On the other side we have information about how the rest of the market values that company, taken to its extreme with HFT. That clearly is not major enough and what is trying to be blocked.

I think we can all agree that there is a lot of grey in between the two extremes. But the difficulty of arriving at a solid point does not abrogate the concept, any more than sorites paradox prevents a heap of sand from existing.

But, I put forth, that although this is a way of reviving the GP's point, it is not the only solution.

We could easily, and perhaps profitably, allow no information to reset the counter. What would the advantage be?

You see, I'm not a dumbass. I don't work for free. Artificial scarcity is stupid.... I ask for the money to do my work or research or create things UP FRONT, and I ask for enough to cover the work and the profit I need for it, then I "give it away for free" since the work has been paid for.

You didn't come up with some brilliant system. You just shifted the onus on participating in a system you dislike to your employer.

Sweet! Sounds like a great deal

I get the convenience of the transactions being helpfully reported to the government making my taxes easier

I get the joy of paying middlemen.

I get the reliability and stability of bitcoin.

Statistically, HFT lowers spreads and thus the long term investor pays less when he buys and gives up less when he sells. This actually improves (very marginally) the return for the long term investor.

Any evidence? I mean, logically, the spreads probably decrease, but since there are 2x as many of them, the total spread probably increases (Non-HFT->HFT->Non-HFT).

Or if you mean HFT happened to start around when the market switched from fractions to decimal, I think you're overreading into a correlation.

There seemed to be a lot of silly things you said. I just want to focus on:

You want your 401K to execute as accurately-priced trades as possible.

Except, I really don't. For one thing, I'm selfish and want to buy things for the lowest price and sell them for the highest. For another, I dispute the very concept of an "accurately-priced trade". Or rather, that you can define a trade as being precise down to a cent. I mean, I know that we pragmatically have to define a price-point, but it doesn't seem to be some holy thing that must be discovered. It seems to be a compromise, and both parties often would have executed the trade at 1 cent higher or lower.

how exactly is this rigged for the longer term investor?

Well, it leads to greater price variability, meaning that margin calls are more likely to occur, if you trade on margin. And harder to have pre-programmed sell orders at certain thresholds.

But at a more macro level, the total profit from the trades remain the same. The HFTs are making more money. Therefore, the long-term trader is making less.

No taxpayer-funded bailouts for that kind of informed, free, but stupid choice.

Yeah, there are two independent issues. To use flood insurance as an example. One example is vacation/luxury homes in Florida. I am sick of subsidizing those homes. The other is in flood-prone areas like New Orleans. For some reason, low-lying areas that are more likely to flood are cheaper to live in and filled with poorer people. So, we end up in this area where what is essentially supposed to be support for the poor (can live in a more dangerous area, and save money, without as much of the risk) turning into a giant give away to well off individuals.

What if a prisoner wants to program in a VC-funded tech startup?

Look, I don't like the idea of removing their books, but being in prison does prevent you from doing other things. And non-prison jobs are usually one thing it prevents.

Also, access to a computer.

So, your proposal is that they reduce the Education budget by 95% or so?

A quick Google shows that the UK Education budget is ~88 billion Pounds, their Prison budget is ~4 billion Pounds.

It only works because most everyone is ignorant, and most everyone likes to exaggerate for effect, and it gets old real fast once you start googling the numbers....

You are either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreting the point you are refuting. There is an (ofttimes implicit) assumption that the budget is per capita. Since there are 120 students per prisoner in the UK (122 if we count University students), the amount spent per prisoner is drastically more than the amount spent per student.

Carmack has already tweeted that he is not leaving.

Of course he's not. He's probably locked in for 3 years as a term of the sale.

Certain shades of green (...) are almost certainly protected within the fields of agricultural tractors and landscaping equipment.

If you mean John Deere colored green, it's not. They actually lost a suit that it was functional.