Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Long Jin, Tsinghua mathematician who trained under the same master as Semyon Dyatlov and then proved a theorem beside him: "my school spent years proving that chaos hides your signal. I proved the limit on that. watch a small enough slice of a chaotic system and it cannot hide...

Rossst_03's profile picture

Rossst.03

6,489 subscribers

40,626 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

14 Yorum

Roan profil fotoğrafı
Roan8 gün önce

another alpha from rossst, this is probably best thing i'll watch on weekend bro

Rossst.03 profil fotoğrafı
Rossst.038 gün önce

thanks, bro!

Voltex profil fotoğrafı
Voltex8 gün önce

the wild part is that all this randomness runs on one dial. a single parameter, kappa, takes you from a smooth curve to space filling chaos. the market has that dial too, it is called volatility, and most people trade as if it is fixed.

Rossst.03 profil fotoğrafı
Rossst.038 gün önce

exactly. move the regime and the same strategy is suddenly drawing a completely different curve. you did not get unlucky, the kappa changed under you.

MAX profil fotoğrafı
MAX8 gün önce

Thanks for the video man Watching rn

Loran profil fotoğrafı
Loran8 gün önce

the practical version: stop asking is this a pattern, and start asking how many coins would i have to flip to see this by accident. if the answer is not many, it is not a signal, it is Tuesday.

Rossst.03 profil fotoğrafı
Rossst.038 gün önce

rarity is the entire test. a pattern that randomness reproduces easily carries zero information, no matter how clean it looks on the chart.

Soloway profil fotoğrafı
Soloway8 gün önce

crazy alpha, saved!

0x_Ito profil fotoğrafı
0x_Ito8 gün önce

thanks for great story!

Rossst.03 profil fotoğrafı
Rossst.038 gün önce

Cheers!

codila profil fotoğrafı
codila8 gün önce

looks super alpha man, will check ty

Carbonyx profil fotoğrafı
Carbonyx7 gün önce

even chaos leaves measurable structure.

LEX profil fotoğrafı
LEX7 gün önce

Simons hired Chern's geometers into Renaissance from the early 1980s. Same lineage as Dyatlov and Jin. The math was inside the fund 40 years before the trader class heard the word eigenfunction.

Beaver profil fotoğrafı
Beaver7 gün önce

Proving that chaos can't fully hide information is the ultimate mathematical alpha.

Benzer Videolar

Yilin Wang, MIT mathematician and one of the leading minds on the geometry of randomness: "there is a precise number for how far a shape is from pure chance. Citadel pays $500,000 to people who compute it instead of guessing it." her field is the mathematics of random curves. flip enough coins and the path they trace is not shapeless. it has a precise geometry, and a number, the Loewner energy, that measures how far a curve sits from pure chance. a circle scores zero. it is the most natural thing randomness can draw. almost every shape you see on a chart scores near zero too. it is noise wearing a costume. this is the entire quant problem in one idea. the market draws millions of random curves, and only a vanishing few carry real structure. the edge is a rigorous way to tell the costume from the signal. Citadel pay $500,000 a year for people who can measure that difference instead of feeling it. the trader who falls in love with a pattern is admiring a curve that randomness would have drawn anyway. the shape was never the edge. the odds that randomness did not draw it were.
1:50:26

Yilin Wang, MIT mathematician and one of the leading minds on the geometry of randomness: "there is a precise number for how far a shape is from pure chance. Citadel pays $500,000 to people who compute it instead of guessing it." her field is the mathematics of random curves. flip enough coins and the path they trace is not shapeless. it has a precise geometry, and a number, the Loewner energy, that measures how far a curve sits from pure chance. a circle scores zero. it is the most natural thing randomness can draw. almost every shape you see on a chart scores near zero too. it is noise wearing a costume. this is the entire quant problem in one idea. the market draws millions of random curves, and only a vanishing few carry real structure. the edge is a rigorous way to tell the costume from the signal. Citadel pay $500,000 a year for people who can measure that difference instead of feeling it. the trader who falls in love with a pattern is admiring a curve that randomness would have drawn anyway. the shape was never the edge. the odds that randomness did not draw it were.

Rossst.03

58,891 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

YuanYuan Xu, one of the sharpest young Chinese mathematicians working in probability: "PDT Partners pays a math PhD $500,000 a year for one skill: proving when a winning streak is real edge and when it is just luck. that proof is the exact thing this mathematician writes on a chalkboard, and it costs nothing" this free lecture is the math that tells you whether your edge is real or you are fooling yourself. strip away the P&L screenshots and one question decides everything. after N bets, how far can your results drift from your true win rate by pure chance. there is a precise answer. it is called a concentration inequality, and it puts a hard bound on how much luck can flatter you or wreck you over a run. it is why 10 wins prove nothing and 10,000 prove almost everything. Xu builds it from zero, on a chalkboard in Brazil, in notation a beginner can follow. a Chinese mathematician handing out the exact tool funds use to tell skill from noise. Wall Street rents this out as a $500,000 edge. a mathematician at a chalkboard hands you the proof in English for free.
1:26:25

YuanYuan Xu, one of the sharpest young Chinese mathematicians working in probability: "PDT Partners pays a math PhD $500,000 a year for one skill: proving when a winning streak is real edge and when it is just luck. that proof is the exact thing this mathematician writes on a chalkboard, and it costs nothing" this free lecture is the math that tells you whether your edge is real or you are fooling yourself. strip away the P&L screenshots and one question decides everything. after N bets, how far can your results drift from your true win rate by pure chance. there is a precise answer. it is called a concentration inequality, and it puts a hard bound on how much luck can flatter you or wreck you over a run. it is why 10 wins prove nothing and 10,000 prove almost everything. Xu builds it from zero, on a chalkboard in Brazil, in notation a beginner can follow. a Chinese mathematician handing out the exact tool funds use to tell skill from noise. Wall Street rents this out as a $500,000 edge. a mathematician at a chalkboard hands you the proof in English for free.

Rossst.03

16,333 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

In 2008 a Stanford professor stood at a podium and proved, for free, that information and money grow by the exact same equation. it was filmed. it has been free for 18 years. 7,000 people watched it. Thomas Cover died four years later and took the fame with him. his life's work: Shannon's information theory and Kelly's betting formula are one thing. how much to bet is just how much you know. every quant sizing a trade in 2026 is standing on Cover, whether they know the name or not. he wrote the book every information theorist trains on. the lecture that ties it all to money sits on YouTube with fewer views than a cat clip. skip to where he turns a horse race into a stock market. same math. a bit of information, a fraction of your bankroll, one growth rate. no fund. no signal. one professor and one equation. a quant I know says this hour is the missing chapter behind every book on position sizing he owns. you are 18 years late. it is still free.
57:26

In 2008 a Stanford professor stood at a podium and proved, for free, that information and money grow by the exact same equation. it was filmed. it has been free for 18 years. 7,000 people watched it. Thomas Cover died four years later and took the fame with him. his life's work: Shannon's information theory and Kelly's betting formula are one thing. how much to bet is just how much you know. every quant sizing a trade in 2026 is standing on Cover, whether they know the name or not. he wrote the book every information theorist trains on. the lecture that ties it all to money sits on YouTube with fewer views than a cat clip. skip to where he turns a horse race into a stock market. same math. a bit of information, a fraction of your bankroll, one growth rate. no fund. no signal. one professor and one equation. a quant I know says this hour is the missing chapter behind every book on position sizing he owns. you are 18 years late. it is still free.

Loran

33,982 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

David MacKay, Cambridge professor: "Citadel and Jane Street pay $900K for people who get one idea I taught free at Cambridge: information is measurable, and whoever measures it best wins. the casino knew it first. the machines know it now." this free lecture holds the entire "secret alpha" the funds and the AI gurus sell, and the man teaching it put his whole course and his whole book online for free and never locked a single page. at the board it's simple. information is just how much a signal cuts your uncertainty, and you can measure it in exact bits. the more an edge shrinks what you don't know, the more it is worth, and Shannon proved there is a hard ceiling on how fast you can compound it into money. that is the whole "edge", and the whole "AI magic", minus the marketing. MacKay taught it at Cambridge and gave the book away free in 2003. it has been free ever since. same point as the casino piece above: the house wins with a small, measurable edge, repeated and sized right, not with a secret. the theory is free and every fund and every model already runs on it. what they cannot sell you is the data to feed the machine and the discipline to size the bet. that is the part that actually compounds, and no course can put it in a formula.
1:00:58

David MacKay, Cambridge professor: "Citadel and Jane Street pay $900K for people who get one idea I taught free at Cambridge: information is measurable, and whoever measures it best wins. the casino knew it first. the machines know it now." this free lecture holds the entire "secret alpha" the funds and the AI gurus sell, and the man teaching it put his whole course and his whole book online for free and never locked a single page. at the board it's simple. information is just how much a signal cuts your uncertainty, and you can measure it in exact bits. the more an edge shrinks what you don't know, the more it is worth, and Shannon proved there is a hard ceiling on how fast you can compound it into money. that is the whole "edge", and the whole "AI magic", minus the marketing. MacKay taught it at Cambridge and gave the book away free in 2003. it has been free ever since. same point as the casino piece above: the house wins with a small, measurable edge, repeated and sized right, not with a secret. the theory is free and every fund and every model already runs on it. what they cannot sell you is the data to feed the machine and the discipline to size the bet. that is the part that actually compounds, and no course can put it in a formula.

Rossst.03

24,939 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Leonard Susskind, the physicist who proved that uncertainty itself has a measurable size, and gave it a precise mathematical definition: "Most people assume randomness is chaos with no rules at all. I proved it obeys laws just as strict and unbreakable as anything in physics, you just have to stop asking it the wrong question." randomness has a law. this quantity turns it from a mystery into a number, and until now, only the students sitting in that room ever heard it explained this way. strip the jargon. you can't predict one coin flip. flip it a billion times, though, and you can nail the exact odds of a thousand heads in a row. that's the wrong question people keep throwing at randomness. they chase what happens next. ask how often instead, and randomness hands you an exact answer every time. nobody calls a market "unpredictable" and admits they asked it the wrong question. zoom out to risk models today. a model doesn't fail by missing the next move, nothing predicts that. it fails when it can't tell you the real odds of an outlier. the industry chases sharper forecasts and calls that skill. but the real skill was never predicting the flip. it was pricing exactly how rare the next surprise really is. randomness was never lawless. it just answers a different question than the one everyone keeps asking. The answer is in this video.
1:37:17

Leonard Susskind, the physicist who proved that uncertainty itself has a measurable size, and gave it a precise mathematical definition: "Most people assume randomness is chaos with no rules at all. I proved it obeys laws just as strict and unbreakable as anything in physics, you just have to stop asking it the wrong question." randomness has a law. this quantity turns it from a mystery into a number, and until now, only the students sitting in that room ever heard it explained this way. strip the jargon. you can't predict one coin flip. flip it a billion times, though, and you can nail the exact odds of a thousand heads in a row. that's the wrong question people keep throwing at randomness. they chase what happens next. ask how often instead, and randomness hands you an exact answer every time. nobody calls a market "unpredictable" and admits they asked it the wrong question. zoom out to risk models today. a model doesn't fail by missing the next move, nothing predicts that. it fails when it can't tell you the real odds of an outlier. the industry chases sharper forecasts and calls that skill. but the real skill was never predicting the flip. it was pricing exactly how rare the next surprise really is. randomness was never lawless. it just answers a different question than the one everyone keeps asking. The answer is in this video.

MindArch

24,894 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of artificial intelligence: "Anthropic pays engineers $900K to build multi-agent AI systems. The blueprint is 40 years old, from an MIT professor who proved intelligence is just a swarm of dumb specialists." the thread above shows you how to turn one AI into a team of specialized agents, each with its own job and memory, all managed by a boss. brilliant. it is also marvin minsky's 1986 theory of how your own mind works. minsky's whole idea was that intelligence is not one smart thing. it is a society of tiny, mindless agents, each doing a single dumb job, none of them intelligent alone. put enough of them together under a few managers and intelligence emerges. that is not a metaphor for the claude trick. it is the claude trick. so when you spin up specialized sub-agents and delegate, you are not inventing a new hack. you are rebuilding the architecture minsky described forty years ago, the same one your brain has run your entire life. he co-founded the field, taught it at MIT, and left it all in this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the "new" AI trick is usually an old idea in a new wrapper. here is the part the thread skips, and minsky knew it. a society of agents is only as good as how you organize it. one dumb specialist is useless. a thousand, badly managed, is chaos. the edge was never spawning the agents. it is the orchestration, knowing which specialist to call, when, and how to combine their answers. the tool is free. the judgment is the whole game.
2:05:17

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of artificial intelligence: "Anthropic pays engineers $900K to build multi-agent AI systems. The blueprint is 40 years old, from an MIT professor who proved intelligence is just a swarm of dumb specialists." the thread above shows you how to turn one AI into a team of specialized agents, each with its own job and memory, all managed by a boss. brilliant. it is also marvin minsky's 1986 theory of how your own mind works. minsky's whole idea was that intelligence is not one smart thing. it is a society of tiny, mindless agents, each doing a single dumb job, none of them intelligent alone. put enough of them together under a few managers and intelligence emerges. that is not a metaphor for the claude trick. it is the claude trick. so when you spin up specialized sub-agents and delegate, you are not inventing a new hack. you are rebuilding the architecture minsky described forty years ago, the same one your brain has run your entire life. he co-founded the field, taught it at MIT, and left it all in this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the "new" AI trick is usually an old idea in a new wrapper. here is the part the thread skips, and minsky knew it. a society of agents is only as good as how you organize it. one dumb specialist is useless. a thousand, badly managed, is chaos. the edge was never spawning the agents. it is the orchestration, knowing which specialist to call, when, and how to combine their answers. the tool is free. the judgment is the whole game.

Rossst.03

148,991 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

1,000,000 PEOPLE BUILD QUANT BOTS THAT CANT BEAT RANDOM MIT proved why in one theorem. If your strategy is a fair game, no exit rule wins. The edge has to come from real signal - not the loop. Bookmark this before you deploy.
1:17:19

1,000,000 PEOPLE BUILD QUANT BOTS THAT CANT BEAT RANDOM MIT proved why in one theorem. If your strategy is a fair game, no exit rule wins. The edge has to come from real signal - not the loop. Bookmark this before you deploy.

BuBBliK

27,322 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

An MIT professor solved the equation Wall Street pays $500K for, in a lecture about how to find the top of a hill. MIT put the whole thing online. it has been free for years. almost nobody finishes it. his point: finding the best possible answer to almost anything is one move. write down what you want to grow, take the derivative, and find the exact spot where it stops climbing. that spot is the answer. he is Denis Auroux, and his 18.02 lectures have taught more people calculus than most universities have students. now the equation from the post above, the one that tells you exactly how much to bet. it is not a secret formula. it is this. the growth of your money is a curve. bet too little and you are low on the hill. bet too much and you have gone over the top and started falling. Kelly's number is just the peak. no magic. no fund. one hill, and the single point where it stops going up. a quant I know rewatches this exact lecture before he sizes a single position. you were handed the formula and told to trust it. Auroux shows you where it actually comes from, for free, and it has been sitting there the whole time.
38:17

An MIT professor solved the equation Wall Street pays $500K for, in a lecture about how to find the top of a hill. MIT put the whole thing online. it has been free for years. almost nobody finishes it. his point: finding the best possible answer to almost anything is one move. write down what you want to grow, take the derivative, and find the exact spot where it stops climbing. that spot is the answer. he is Denis Auroux, and his 18.02 lectures have taught more people calculus than most universities have students. now the equation from the post above, the one that tells you exactly how much to bet. it is not a secret formula. it is this. the growth of your money is a curve. bet too little and you are low on the hill. bet too much and you have gone over the top and started falling. Kelly's number is just the peak. no magic. no fund. one hill, and the single point where it stops going up. a quant I know rewatches this exact lecture before he sizes a single position. you were handed the formula and told to trust it. Auroux shows you where it actually comes from, for free, and it has been sitting there the whole time.

Loran

95,530 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.
40:58

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath. that is all it is, and it is the bluntest one there is. the same math gives you filters that lag less and cut more noise, and that gap is a real edge. this is the second half of what Simons was doing. first you accept the market is a signal buried in noise. then you build the filter that reads it, and the moving average on your chart is the crudest possible version. Oppenheim builds the real ones at the board in this lecture. here is the catch. a filter only helps if there is a real signal under the noise. smooth pure randomness and you will see a beautiful trend that means nothing. the filter is free. knowing there is a real signal worth filtering is the edge.

Rossst.03

214,907 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

An Indian physicist put the entire secret behind Renaissance's $100 billion on one chalkboard: a coin that barely beats 50/50. he is V. Balakrishnan, and his lecture went viral years after he recorded it. it has been free the whole time. almost nobody who trades has watched it. lecture one is the humblest thing in all of finance. a coin that lands your way a little more than half the time. that is the entire edge. that is all Renaissance ever had. the post above is the one equation for what to do with that coin. not what to bet. how much. bet too little and you die of old age. bet too much and one flip ends you. that same coin is every trade, every hand, every prediction market. a tiny edge, flipped a million times. the whole machine fits on his board, and he charged nothing for it. no slides. no notes. one coin and a stick of chalk. a quant I know says this old Indian lecture taught him probability better than his entire degree. the coin is free. the equation is free. the discipline to size it is the only thing left to earn.
1:01:55

An Indian physicist put the entire secret behind Renaissance's $100 billion on one chalkboard: a coin that barely beats 50/50. he is V. Balakrishnan, and his lecture went viral years after he recorded it. it has been free the whole time. almost nobody who trades has watched it. lecture one is the humblest thing in all of finance. a coin that lands your way a little more than half the time. that is the entire edge. that is all Renaissance ever had. the post above is the one equation for what to do with that coin. not what to bet. how much. bet too little and you die of old age. bet too much and one flip ends you. that same coin is every trade, every hand, every prediction market. a tiny edge, flipped a million times. the whole machine fits on his board, and he charged nothing for it. no slides. no notes. one coin and a stick of chalk. a quant I know says this old Indian lecture taught him probability better than his entire degree. the coin is free. the equation is free. the discipline to size it is the only thing left to earn.

Rossst.03

159,548 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Quantum theory may be the most successful theory in history — and Renato Renner has proved it can't consistently describe itself. This is not a philosophical objection. It's a theorem. From there it spirals into black holes, reference frames, and why some of his students refused to continue working on the subject. This one is a quiet storm, blending the foundations of physics with something uncomfortably personal: the question of what you are.
3:13

Quantum theory may be the most successful theory in history — and Renato Renner has proved it can't consistently describe itself. This is not a philosophical objection. It's a theorem. From there it spirals into black holes, reference frames, and why some of his students refused to continue working on the subject. This one is a quiet storm, blending the foundations of physics with something uncomfortably personal: the question of what you are.

Curt Jaimungal

15,453 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A Stanford mathematician who spent 10 years as a professional magician just described the market in one sentence: "I've spent my life on two tricks: making a rigged deck look random, and making a random one look rigged. The market is the first trick, and almost nobody catches it." That's Persi Diaconis. He has a free lecture that asks one question: does anything actually happen at random? The answer is: far less than you think. The market is his first trick in the wild. It looks like pure chance. Buried inside is a faint rig, a 50.75% tilt no eye can see. Your gut reads a losing week as a broken system and a hot streak as skill. Wrong both times. The tilt is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why funds hand the decision to the math. None of it is hidden. Diaconis has taught it for decades. The probability goes back to 1713. The lecture is free. Here's the trap: you feel every win and every loss, but you cannot feel the average. And the average is the only thing that pays. It takes thousands of trades for a 51% edge to separate from luck, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free. The patience to trust it past your own eyes is the edge.
1:23:57

A Stanford mathematician who spent 10 years as a professional magician just described the market in one sentence: "I've spent my life on two tricks: making a rigged deck look random, and making a random one look rigged. The market is the first trick, and almost nobody catches it." That's Persi Diaconis. He has a free lecture that asks one question: does anything actually happen at random? The answer is: far less than you think. The market is his first trick in the wild. It looks like pure chance. Buried inside is a faint rig, a 50.75% tilt no eye can see. Your gut reads a losing week as a broken system and a hot streak as skill. Wrong both times. The tilt is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why funds hand the decision to the math. None of it is hidden. Diaconis has taught it for decades. The probability goes back to 1713. The lecture is free. Here's the trap: you feel every win and every loss, but you cannot feel the average. And the average is the only thing that pays. It takes thousands of trades for a 51% edge to separate from luck, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free. The patience to trust it past your own eyes is the edge.

Veles

2,188,032 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.
29:44

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Rossst.03

281,905 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE CLASSES YOU WRITE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLASSES AT ALL 27 minutes from Jack Diederich, a Python core developer, on how much of your code is just a function wearing a costume. -> The moment it lands, the rule is brutal: if a class has two methods and one is __init__, you meant to write a function. Most people add structure to feel like real engineers. It just adds weight no one ever needed. Writing more code was never the skill -> writing less of it is. And when an AI agent happily generates ten classes for a job that needed three lines, the person who knows what to delete is the one who ships something clean. Anyone can add abstraction. Knowing when not to is the whole job. Bookmark it and Watch ↓
27:10

A DEVELOPER PROVED THAT MOST OF THE CLASSES YOU WRITE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLASSES AT ALL 27 minutes from Jack Diederich, a Python core developer, on how much of your code is just a function wearing a costume. -> The moment it lands, the rule is brutal: if a class has two methods and one is __init__, you meant to write a function. Most people add structure to feel like real engineers. It just adds weight no one ever needed. Writing more code was never the skill -> writing less of it is. And when an AI agent happily generates ten classes for a job that needed three lines, the person who knows what to delete is the one who ships something clean. Anyone can add abstraction. Knowing when not to is the whole job. Bookmark it and Watch ↓

slash1s

269,515 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A woman who spent nine years gluing paper models in a print shop just told a room of physicists their whole field stands on a mistake, one line, no hedging: "Every theory we have takes space and time for granted, like a bagel that forgot it was once a flat sheet of paper." That's Bianca Dittrich. She has a free lecture course that asks one question: what is left of geometry once you quantize it? The answer is: far less than you can picture. Quantum gravity looks like one more field theory. Buried inside is something stranger. Every quantum theory we have puts fields on a fixed stage, flat or curved, and does the physics on top of it. Here the stage itself is the thing being quantized. Your gut reads an atom of spacetime as a tiny grain sitting somewhere. Wrong. It cannot sit anywhere, because it is the somewhere. The move is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why the people who get anywhere stop asking where the pieces are and start asking what a measurement even means. In 3D the whole thing collapses in a way that should scare you. No matter, no cosmological constant, and gravity is locally flat everywhere. Six degrees of freedom per point, all of them eaten by diffeomorphism symmetry. A field theory that ends up with finitely many real degrees of freedom, sometimes zero. None of it is hidden. Cut a parallelogram out of paper, glue the edges, and you have a torus. Flat everywhere, and yet two numbers survive that no local measurement can see. The lecture is free. Here is the trap: you feel every equation you can solve, every geometry you can draw, as progress. What you cannot feel is the gap you have to cross. Ten to the forty-one, from the Planck scale back up to the world you live in. And crossing it is the only thing that pays. Almost every approach still cannot show it recovers ordinary physics at the far end, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free to learn. The nerve to stop trusting your picture of space, that part you still have to bring yourself.
1:02:52

A woman who spent nine years gluing paper models in a print shop just told a room of physicists their whole field stands on a mistake, one line, no hedging: "Every theory we have takes space and time for granted, like a bagel that forgot it was once a flat sheet of paper." That's Bianca Dittrich. She has a free lecture course that asks one question: what is left of geometry once you quantize it? The answer is: far less than you can picture. Quantum gravity looks like one more field theory. Buried inside is something stranger. Every quantum theory we have puts fields on a fixed stage, flat or curved, and does the physics on top of it. Here the stage itself is the thing being quantized. Your gut reads an atom of spacetime as a tiny grain sitting somewhere. Wrong. It cannot sit anywhere, because it is the somewhere. The move is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why the people who get anywhere stop asking where the pieces are and start asking what a measurement even means. In 3D the whole thing collapses in a way that should scare you. No matter, no cosmological constant, and gravity is locally flat everywhere. Six degrees of freedom per point, all of them eaten by diffeomorphism symmetry. A field theory that ends up with finitely many real degrees of freedom, sometimes zero. None of it is hidden. Cut a parallelogram out of paper, glue the edges, and you have a torus. Flat everywhere, and yet two numbers survive that no local measurement can see. The lecture is free. Here is the trap: you feel every equation you can solve, every geometry you can draw, as progress. What you cannot feel is the gap you have to cross. Ten to the forty-one, from the Planck scale back up to the world you live in. And crossing it is the only thing that pays. Almost every approach still cannot show it recovers ordinary physics at the far end, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free to learn. The nerve to stop trusting your picture of space, that part you still have to bring yourself.

Zyron

110,850 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Funds pay $750K to combine weak signals into one real edge. I proved the thing that makes it work and makes it dangerous: in any long enough sequence, hidden structure is unavoidable. it always accumulates. the whole job is telling the real structure from the noise that only looks like it." this free lecture is the most decorated mathematician alive on the exact problem sitting underneath every factor model, and it costs nothing. at the board it's simple. Tao's lifelong theme is the line between structure and randomness. The Erdős discrepancy problem asks a deceptively simple thing: can you write an endless string of plus-ones and minus-ones that stays perfectly balanced forever? Tao proved you cannot. No matter how cleverly you try, imbalance, hidden structure, is forced to accumulate as the sequence grows. There is no such thing as a long stream of pure, structureless noise. That's the whole idea, minus the jargon. Which is exactly why a multi-factor model can work, and exactly why it can kill you. Stack enough weak signals and real structure will appear, because at scale structure is unavoidable. But so will fake structure, patterns that exist only because the data is long enough to force them. Same point as the post above: finding structure is guaranteed. Knowing which structure is an edge is the rare and expensive part. the mathematics is free and public. what nobody can sell you is the judgment to tell the structure the market will pay you for from the structure that exists only because you looked hard enough. That judgment is the alpha, and it takes years to build.
51:34

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Funds pay $750K to combine weak signals into one real edge. I proved the thing that makes it work and makes it dangerous: in any long enough sequence, hidden structure is unavoidable. it always accumulates. the whole job is telling the real structure from the noise that only looks like it." this free lecture is the most decorated mathematician alive on the exact problem sitting underneath every factor model, and it costs nothing. at the board it's simple. Tao's lifelong theme is the line between structure and randomness. The Erdős discrepancy problem asks a deceptively simple thing: can you write an endless string of plus-ones and minus-ones that stays perfectly balanced forever? Tao proved you cannot. No matter how cleverly you try, imbalance, hidden structure, is forced to accumulate as the sequence grows. There is no such thing as a long stream of pure, structureless noise. That's the whole idea, minus the jargon. Which is exactly why a multi-factor model can work, and exactly why it can kill you. Stack enough weak signals and real structure will appear, because at scale structure is unavoidable. But so will fake structure, patterns that exist only because the data is long enough to force them. Same point as the post above: finding structure is guaranteed. Knowing which structure is an edge is the rare and expensive part. the mathematics is free and public. what nobody can sell you is the judgment to tell the structure the market will pay you for from the structure that exists only because you looked hard enough. That judgment is the alpha, and it takes years to build.

Rossst.03

213,931 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran, IIT Madras professor: "Bridgewater pays a risk manager $650,000 a year to answer one question: what is the exact probability this blows up. that is the same question this professor answers to keep billion dollar oil rigs from collapsing in a storm, and he teaches the math for free" this free lecture is the risk model under every fund that has survived more than one crash. strip away the upside talk and one number decides everything. not how much you can make, but the odds the whole thing fails. an oil rig and a trading account die the same way: one rare load bigger than anything you planned for. reliability is the math that sizes your safety margin so that day does not end you. Chandrasekaran builds it from zero, on a blackboard, in notation a beginner can follow. failure modes, safety factors, and the probability of ruin. Wall Street rents this out as a $650,000 skill. an IIT professor hands you the math of not blowing up for free.
51:23

Srinivasan Chandrasekaran, IIT Madras professor: "Bridgewater pays a risk manager $650,000 a year to answer one question: what is the exact probability this blows up. that is the same question this professor answers to keep billion dollar oil rigs from collapsing in a storm, and he teaches the math for free" this free lecture is the risk model under every fund that has survived more than one crash. strip away the upside talk and one number decides everything. not how much you can make, but the odds the whole thing fails. an oil rig and a trading account die the same way: one rare load bigger than anything you planned for. reliability is the math that sizes your safety margin so that day does not end you. Chandrasekaran builds it from zero, on a blackboard, in notation a beginner can follow. failure modes, safety factors, and the probability of ruin. Wall Street rents this out as a $650,000 skill. an IIT professor hands you the math of not blowing up for free.

Rossst.03

21,051 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

Sir David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge professor: "Give me 10,000 traders and I'll show you a genius with a flawless five-year record, built by luck alone. I can even tell you how many to expect." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. spiegelhalter spent his career at cambridge turning that exact question, is this real or just chance, into hard numbers. start ten thousand traders flipping coins and some will "win" five years straight. not because they're gifted, but because with enough people a spotless streak is guaranteed to land on someone. that someone writes a book, sells a course, and calls it skill. it was arithmetic. his whole message is that you cannot judge chance by how surprising it feels, you have to compute it. how likely was this record if the person had zero skill? until you can answer that, a winning streak is not evidence of anything. he built a career and these free public lectures on making that rigorous. same point as my article: a run that feels like genius is a question, not an answer. here is the edge. do the calculation your gut refuses to, ask how many lucky fools your sample was always going to produce before you assume you're not one of them. the math is free. the humility to run it on your own success is the rarest thing there is.
49:18

Sir David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge professor: "Give me 10,000 traders and I'll show you a genius with a flawless five-year record, built by luck alone. I can even tell you how many to expect." the article above is about telling a real edge from luck. spiegelhalter spent his career at cambridge turning that exact question, is this real or just chance, into hard numbers. start ten thousand traders flipping coins and some will "win" five years straight. not because they're gifted, but because with enough people a spotless streak is guaranteed to land on someone. that someone writes a book, sells a course, and calls it skill. it was arithmetic. his whole message is that you cannot judge chance by how surprising it feels, you have to compute it. how likely was this record if the person had zero skill? until you can answer that, a winning streak is not evidence of anything. he built a career and these free public lectures on making that rigorous. same point as my article: a run that feels like genius is a question, not an answer. here is the edge. do the calculation your gut refuses to, ask how many lucky fools your sample was always going to produce before you assume you're not one of them. the math is free. the humility to run it on your own success is the rarest thing there is.

Rossst.03

27,123 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Mrityunjoy Chakraborty, IIT Kharagpur professor: "Jane Street pays a 22 year old $500,000 a year for one skill: turning uncertainty into a number you can bet on. that number is the first thing this professor teaches, and it is free" this free lecture is the foundation every quant bot and hedge fund model is secretly built on. before the AI, before the strategy, there is one question. what is the chance this happens, exactly. get that number right and every bet after it is just math. get it wrong and no model, no bot, no amount of compute can save you. Chakraborty builds probability from the axioms up, on a blackboard, in notation a 15 year old can follow. Wall Street sells this as a $500,000 edge. an IIT professor hands you the source code for nothing.
58:21

Mrityunjoy Chakraborty, IIT Kharagpur professor: "Jane Street pays a 22 year old $500,000 a year for one skill: turning uncertainty into a number you can bet on. that number is the first thing this professor teaches, and it is free" this free lecture is the foundation every quant bot and hedge fund model is secretly built on. before the AI, before the strategy, there is one question. what is the chance this happens, exactly. get that number right and every bet after it is just math. get it wrong and no model, no bot, no amount of compute can save you. Chakraborty builds probability from the axioms up, on a blackboard, in notation a 15 year old can follow. Wall Street sells this as a $500,000 edge. an IIT professor hands you the source code for nothing.

Rossst.03

703,891 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

David Jerison, the mathematician who spent decades teaching the exact method for finding the optimal choice when the odds are stacked against you: "I used to think the best decision was whichever option looked strongest at first glance. Then I proved that the real answer almost always hides at a point nobody would guess just by looking, and checking only the obvious choices gets you the worst possible outcome, not the best." this is the exact method quant desks lean on to find the one allocation that survives every constraint thrown at it, and it's been sitting free in a public MIT lecture for almost twenty years. strip away the notation and the mechanism is simple. every optimization problem has a handful of candidate points where the best or worst answer could be hiding, and the obvious middle-of-the-road guess is almost never one of them. check only the points that feel natural, and you don't just miss the best answer. you can land on the exact opposite, the worst possible one, without ever realizing it. nobody presenting a "risk-optimized" portfolio out loud admits how easy it is to stop checking one step too early. zoom out to how this plays out sizing a position or allocating risk under real constraints today. the instinct is to test the option that feels balanced and call it done, when the actual edge is almost always sitting at an extreme nobody thought to check. the industry sells a clean, confident number as proof an allocation is optimal. but that number means nothing until every boundary has been checked, because the same method that finds the best case can just as easily hand you the worst one in disguise. the right answer was never the one that looked most reasonable. it was the one nobody bothered to check.
49:15

David Jerison, the mathematician who spent decades teaching the exact method for finding the optimal choice when the odds are stacked against you: "I used to think the best decision was whichever option looked strongest at first glance. Then I proved that the real answer almost always hides at a point nobody would guess just by looking, and checking only the obvious choices gets you the worst possible outcome, not the best." this is the exact method quant desks lean on to find the one allocation that survives every constraint thrown at it, and it's been sitting free in a public MIT lecture for almost twenty years. strip away the notation and the mechanism is simple. every optimization problem has a handful of candidate points where the best or worst answer could be hiding, and the obvious middle-of-the-road guess is almost never one of them. check only the points that feel natural, and you don't just miss the best answer. you can land on the exact opposite, the worst possible one, without ever realizing it. nobody presenting a "risk-optimized" portfolio out loud admits how easy it is to stop checking one step too early. zoom out to how this plays out sizing a position or allocating risk under real constraints today. the instinct is to test the option that feels balanced and call it done, when the actual edge is almost always sitting at an extreme nobody thought to check. the industry sells a clean, confident number as proof an allocation is optimal. but that number means nothing until every boundary has been checked, because the same method that finds the best case can just as easily hand you the worst one in disguise. the right answer was never the one that looked most reasonable. it was the one nobody bothered to check.

MindArch

16,232 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce