Honestly, programmers don't decide either. We build what we are told to build.
> Could it be made better? Of course! Most of it is terrible. There's an infinite amount of work to be done.
Of course, if our objective it to achieve perfection, then there will always be more things to do because we can never achieve perfection. But most of the time "good enough" is good enough.
But I agree with that AI won't be taking programming jobs anytime soon. But AI will certainly put pressure on the number of jobs and wages. As you said, "smart" compilers, debuggers, code analyzer, etc helps increase productivity. But sooner or later, it will eventually hit demand for programmers.
We are living in the golden age of tech. So it's hard to imagine it ever stopping. I think the biggest concern is the wages and prospects. As more and more people get into programming and as the profession gets more and more productive ( AI, tools ), it's inevitable that wages will stall and decline. Hopefully, just not in my lifetime.
By market, I was referring to the stock market. Also, are you claiming to be a market maker?
> About thirty minutes after CNBC said something about something, a tsunami of idiotic Charles Schwab and friends order flow would hit our systems. It absolutely moved prices.
It doesn't take 30 mins after the news breaks for stocks to move. And the move is usually orchestrated by the big boys and their algos. The herd can certainly follow the move of the big boys as they dump their shares on the late arriving retail investors. But the move is controlled by the big boys and of course the market makers as they tried to leech out as much off the spread as possible. Unless you are referring to lightly traded stocks or OTC stocks with no volume.
There isn't much retail trading derivatives. The derivative markets are almost exclusively dominated by hedge funds, banks, large investors.
There is a difference between trading and investing. Trading is short term gambling, investing isn't. You invest for the long term.
> Without insider knowledge I don't understand how I could beat the market short term.
Short term, you can't. You'll have to bank on luck. Hence why it is gambling. Especially if you go the options route. That's pure gambling as options are a zero sum game.
> The scariest WSJ headline the week prior to when volatility started was the following: "New account creation hits all time high at E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, etc".
The WSJ, marketwatch, cnbc, etc writes this every year. # of accounts, margin/debt exposure, etc. They also write how retail investors are missing out.
"As Dow Tops 25000, Individual Investors Sit It Out"
I wouldn't put too much stock in finance newspapers' headlines. They aren't there to give you advice. They exist to sell you ads.
> Historically they have been a catalyst of instability and trade solely based on the chart and trends.
This is not true. Retail investors don't move markets. Pension funds, hedge Funds, large investors do. And they do so when the FED decides to moves markets ( aka raise or lower interest rates ).
This isn't news. It happens all the time. During earnings season, whenever there is a news break about pharma,tech,commodity, etc, whenever there is a big political/environment/etc news, and when the market moves.
And 8600% isn't that impressive ( depending on the size of the bet ). Leveraged bets can turn $1K into $1M or $10M overnight.
If you want impressive, go look into the returns in currency trading when the swiss unpegged their franc a few years ago. If you had insider information, you could have turned a few thousands into tens of millions easily.
This is really only news if this tiny hedge fund had insider knowledge. There's nothing really newsworthy about this.
Honestly, programmers don't decide either. We build what we are told to build.
> Could it be made better? Of course! Most of it is terrible. There's an infinite amount of work to be done.
Of course, if our objective it to achieve perfection, then there will always be more things to do because we can never achieve perfection. But most of the time "good enough" is good enough.
But I agree with that AI won't be taking programming jobs anytime soon. But AI will certainly put pressure on the number of jobs and wages. As you said, "smart" compilers, debuggers, code analyzer, etc helps increase productivity. But sooner or later, it will eventually hit demand for programmers.
We are living in the golden age of tech. So it's hard to imagine it ever stopping. I think the biggest concern is the wages and prospects. As more and more people get into programming and as the profession gets more and more productive ( AI, tools ), it's inevitable that wages will stall and decline. Hopefully, just not in my lifetime.