sidibe

71 ms·

961.
by sidibe 6y ago
This happens in ponzi schemes too, people will find a scapegoat rather than feel their ignorance or greed was the problem. Here it's Robinhood and hedge fund conspiracies and Wall street playing by different rules. When MMM ponzi schem
962.
by sidibe 6y ago
If you want to make a cloud gaming service that isn't expensive and a good experience, you need it to be huge scale because more locations is essential for less latency, and you need a varied workload instead of just people playing gam
963.
by sidibe 6y ago
Ah I see thanks, well explained
964.
by sidibe 6y ago
You and I can lend each other all of our money. The bank can lend more than they have.
965.
by sidibe 6y ago
Unfortunately I've also had all of this confused nonsense explained in real life to me from people I respect. I think people are bored from the pandemic and the excitement of something nefarious to rail against prevents them from looki
966.
by sidibe 6y ago
And the whole "fractional" word. You can't lend someone 10 shares based on the one you bought.
967.
by sidibe 6y ago
1. Even if some shorts are in trouble (you don't know whether or not it's the same people as at the beginning of the run), others are willing to take their places. 2. Long whales also have plenty of incentive to sell. Namely they
968.
by sidibe 6y ago
That article doesn't help clarify at all because it's just focused on long positions, if anything though I would say it's just about opening vs closing positions, the subtitle says "Users can still close their positions
969.
by sidibe 6y ago
You are starting with the assumption they've been forced to do something wrong, I think you have to explain what that is first
970.
by sidibe 6y ago
Sure that could happen, but it's just as likely as giving anyone a billion dollars and expecting them to become a company that justifies a $20 billion valuation very quickly. The timing is important too because at the end of a mania li
971.
by sidibe 6y ago
They're not in a promising sector and there's nothing to suggest raising a bunch of money is going to allow them to turn into the kind of company a market cap of $20 billion suggests.
972.
by sidibe 6y ago
"I don't think there's a conspiracy" followed by hints of conspiracy. I think Robinhood didn't do anything wrong (or even incompetent), but they are screwed because the prospect of losing money (actually just the p
973.
by sidibe 6y ago
On the contrary, as the gap between the current price and the range everyone knows it will fall to eventually grows, the stock is becoming more and more attractive to short to people with "serious money" and a little appetite for
974.
by sidibe 6y ago
Did they block buying, or did they block opening new positions (i.e. could shorts still buy to close)? The latter is completely consistent and all this outrage would be unwarranted.
975.
by sidibe 6y ago
I remember the MMM ponzi scheme that was in a bunch of countries including Nigeria. When these things go south people always need an outlet to blame for denying them their free money they thought was coming and better if its a third party a
976.
by sidibe 6y ago
> The whole ideas is that the hedge funds are these "bag holders." And to a huge degree they were. But a huge amount of the bag holding is going to be done by retail investors. Yup, people are buying into a misconception here t
977.
by sidibe 6y ago
The idea that the shorts are for sure going to pay a higher price is super misleading and is the fuel for this ponzi. Everyone already knows the value of Gamestop is a tiny fraction of its price, so even if some shorts have to close, others
978.
by sidibe 6y ago
Did they block people from buying or did they block people from opening new positions?
979.
by sidibe 6y ago
Well the original shorts claim to have already closed their position and as it went up I think people are probably jumping on that side of the bet as well. Short interest doesn't mean it's going to go up forever this thing is just
980.
by sidibe 6y ago
The people who probably would have lost their money anyways (because they were waiting for more suckers to push the price higher) now have an excuse (other retail buyers couldn't open new positions). People who realized those were the
981.
by sidibe 6y ago
> base them on something All the talk of short squeezing and sticking it to the hedge funds and Wall Street aside, they are really basing it on the belief that someone will buy it at a higher price than it is now which will be true until
982.
by sidibe 6y ago
> People on WSB realize that if many people purchase and hold on to GME stock for long periods of time You have a lot of faith in a bunch of people not wanting to realize their profits on a stock that everyone knows is going to tank soon
983.
by sidibe 6y ago
It's been forever since I read this, but IIRC Consider Phlebas was more of just some alien action novel that didn't get much into the Culture. I see a lot of people recommending to start with Player of Games instead of Consider Ph
984.
by sidibe 6y ago
I don't see why super-successful capitalists wouldn't want to live in The Culture. I think people who see the Culture as a dystopia are those who either believe work/being useful is an essential part of life OR those who get
985.
by sidibe 6y ago
If we're cherry-picking examples this comparison of 2009 Waymo vs 2020 FSD Beta is pretty funny https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1324122869702389761
986.
by sidibe 6y ago
Oh they've got the data. I see it everywhere, Tesla has way less accidents per mile than us horrible human drivers. I don't know what it's based on because every few minutes of footage there's a scary moment on FSD beta
987.
by sidibe 6y ago
The problem with gradually going from drivers assistance to self driving is there will be some period, possibly a very long period, where the cars almost never need intervention but aren't safe enough to actually not need it. There wil
988.
by sidibe 6y ago
If they say they are going to cut off what would be affected by the law, that's not really a threat, that would just be "getting ahead of potential regulation." If they say they are going to cut off other unaffected services,
989.
by sidibe 6y ago
Not all of that revenue is search. When you add consider not all of that revenue is from Search, the cost of compliance (adding more to legal team and the toil of actually negotiating with all the other parties), much less actually paying f
990.
by sidibe 6y ago
> I have a hard time following the idea that google should use its dominant market position to force others into submission If it's just a case of legally avoiding the new law, it's not a case of using "its dominant positi

More ›