I do not like the word “my” anywhere in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Putting on my autistic , very factual, and methodologically empathetic hat on, I prefer a clear line of separation—machines should act as machines, not as personalized companions. I prefer “your” everywhere.
I wanted to do research in HCI a while back, but funding in this area is limited. To me, HCI research felt overly focused on making computer interaction more personable by adding layers of so-called "personalization." Let interaction with machines remain objective, straightforward, and friendly—especially for older people.
I applied for two separate roles around 2–3 years ago. I’ve always really liked your product, and I enjoyed talking to one of your developers. However, since your team was primarily used Ruby at the time and that’s not my main language it wasn't the best fit back then.
That said, I’m still very interested and was wondering if there might be any opportunities for a technically hybrid roles (Developer Advocate, Customer Success Engineering, Support Engineering) on a part-time basis.
To be upfront: I currently have a full-time position, but I’m looking to contribute during weekends and around 2–3 hours on weekdays, totaling around 20–25 hours per week.
That’s such a STEM thing to say. In finance, this is considered a badge of honor.
Your genius physicist hedge fund operator who "broke the game" in the investment world ended up paying $7 billion in a tax settlement [0]. There’s no algorithm—it’s all about regulations and manipulation. In the investment world, fines, "bureaucratic investments," and similar costs are just operating expenses. Guess what? Everything is a line item in a financial report.
You hire STEM researchers from Ivy League schools—why? You hire these guys, not just because they’re smart, but because they come with "back home connections" —maybe a multi-millionaire businessman for a father or a politician for an uncle. Nobody makes it to these colleges or financial institutions by merit alone. You need those connections. That’s entirely how finance works.
I’d say that those claiming it’s a simple or classic strategy have very little idea of how stock exchanges operate in second and third-world countries. Getting permission to trade as a foreign institutional investor requires a significant amount of legal work and, umm, bureaucratic investment. Almost all stock exchanges out there use off-the-shelf trade surveillance software, which means the exchange will flag this, and so will the SEC-equivalents, on every trade they make. There’s also a proactive element to this in the form of writing reports and asking for explanations regarding the trades. There’s no way these trades happen without someone noticing.
The thing is, Jane Street still consists of some of the smartest people in the room. Getting into markets like this and making large-volume trades is no easy feat. We often equate algorithmic prowess with investment intelligence, but in reality, navigating the legal and regulatory requirements is the only edge you have in trading these days. It’s very hard to figure this out as an international firm. Jane Street did it, and they deserve kudos for it. Trust me, if it were an Indian firm making the same moves, you wouldn’t have heard about it.
You’ll see Jane Street will pay a fine and come out on top. This is because they plan for these things with the expectation that regulators will make a scene about it.
I wanted to do research in HCI a while back, but funding in this area is limited. To me, HCI research felt overly focused on making computer interaction more personable by adding layers of so-called "personalization." Let interaction with machines remain objective, straightforward, and friendly—especially for older people.