[Opinion] The Un(?)fair Advantage of Latency Arbitrage
I remember when going from telephone orders to online trading was a huge leap for me, but this amount of microseconds seems ridiculous. <g> It appears that relatively speaking I am still stuck in manual mode. As you can tell I know very little about the kind of technology you guys discuss, but that never stopped me trying to arbitrate a little latency of my own.
I found that the articles conclusion … Yes—if you’re willing to invest in the same technology ...failed to address the object of enquiry...Un(?)fair...in a meaningful way. Reading the parts about the technology was much more interesting to me. It raises lot's of systemic issues. I think Jims post nailed it...besides it being fair or not, the ...combination of speed, volume, secrecy, and lack of human oversight and intervention worries even those who trust the human players not use their machines to cheat at the game. This don't strike me as anything new, just more of the same old something that's already there.
Contrary to what the person who wrote the latency arbitrage article may think, the world does not stand still, even though it might seem like it. There’s still plenty room left in physics, you’ll read the same article about something else in 5 years time and pretty soon you’re back to where you started, only it’s a different, not an identical issue. Not sure that the notion, of it simply being a monetary constraint, ultimately addresses the remedial issue you raised. All I can say is that at best it sort of does, but apparently not in ways the writer can imagine. I think the proffered solution in this case is more like some kind of mass market factory produced cultural artifact. I am at an odd juncture in this post – is it about technology or not – we sometimes think of ourselves as hardware and software, it's not a view I agree with, so I’m not really sure to what extent my post fits. <g> Anyway I don't think I can't stop it right now.
The man picked up a bunch of leaves from the florist I mean the forest floor and asked those gathered, if knowledge were leaves, where is there more, in my hand or in the forest. His point was not to ponder some de(e)ep question such as that posed by the article, but was to simply point out that it only took a tiny bit of knowledge compared to what’s out there, to set yourself free. Personally I think he understates the case, but since it was merely a device of rhetoric, not a metaphysical question, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt...iow his advice was to know when to stop thinking about certain questions and to focus on more practical, productive or beneficial endeavours. The response rose up in dependence on his goals, and we all know what those were. It is in this way that we create our own reality. The world seems to rise up in front us as contact is made with perception, the two meet in the mind.
The crowd was intrigued and wanted to know more, they asked a lot of questions. Some, like ...Who am I...he point blank refused to answer, his refrain, that ...what am I doing... is a much better question. Certain kinds of questions are perceived as falling into a category called “inconceivable”…for ex., the problem of a lack of first cause for phenomena and consciousness. Their view is that such ideas, by definition, cannot be grasped using ordinary concepts. This does not mean standing in dumb incomprehension before mysteries that are unsolvable by the intellect. Which is the point at which many many scientists, let alone the rest of us basically shrug our shoulders and walk away, quietly mumbling to ourselves as we invoke some sort of supernatural or mystical phenomena as a means of covering up this blind spot, which funnily enough can be abbreviated to bs. The idea of a beginning for ex is “inconceivable”, not because we cannot imagine back so far, but because our discursive minds cannot stand back from the process (or concept) of a beginning, in a way that is needed to transcend all concepts. Our ordinary thinking that emerges from this process can’t place itself “outside” the chain of causes, and so determine it’s own origin. Similarly, the so called body/mind problem is seen as false problem since neither has an independent or “intrinsic” existence. It’s kind of like a metaphysical version of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem which brings me back to that juncture I mentioned because science has had little to say that's final so far, about the relational coexistence of consciousness and matter and I’m beginning to wonder which aspect of technology I’m supposed to be talking about. These guys have studied consciousness for thousands of years, have developed systemized knowledge based on cause and effect, empirical testing, repeatability, it’s a robust technology imo.
In their view the ultimate nature of phenomena such as fair or unfair, existence and nonexistence, real not real etc lies beyond intellectual concepts, so it can be called “inconceivable” without this being synonymous with ignorance. The notion serves to dissolve the instinctive habits of mind towards reification, the mental solidification of “real” entities, and nihilism, the notion that nothing exists. A butterfly flew out of his crown chakra and that was that. Ok, I just made that last part up, but you know what I mean. I’m just a lowly market participant, sticking to my knitting for now. In my view it’ll never be fair, nor will it ever be not fair, it depends on how my trade turns out...g/ng |
