prev <-> next
[2021-02-01 17:19:30] - Daniel: It's often said that the best time to start investing was yesterday and the second best time is today.... but whoever said that might not have seen what was going on with Gamestop.
-Paul[2021-02-01 15:51:57] - so, yeah, last week was nothing by 2020 standards. but we did have a long period of very high gains and low volatility between the two most recent recessions. ~a
[2021-02-01 15:45:57] - daniel: by another measure, volume traded in the s&p500 (which doesn't even include gme or amc) was higher than any week between 2011 and 2019, inclusive. ~a
[2021-02-01 15:41:27] - daniel: 2020 was a pretty volatile year, because pandemic. but if you ignore 2020, last week (the week starting 2021-01-25) was more volatile than *any* week since 2011, according to the chicago board options exchange volatility index (vix). ~a
[2021-02-01 15:36:07] - I think I picked a crazy week to look at the stock market and think that maybe I'm ok gambling a smaller amount in it. I mean maybe every week is crazy for some reason. But last week definitely seemed crazy. -Daniel
[2021-01-30 23:12:40] - mig: the broker that lends to an individual does take a risk, but they get lots of money. ~a
[2021-01-30 23:08:13] - mig: when you lend, i think you lend to a broker (or maybe an exchange, i'm not sure), not an individual. i'm not sure there is much of a risk (or any risk? i'm not sure). ~a
[2021-01-30 23:06:58] - a: it still feels the risk/reward ratio is way out of wack for the lender vs the borrower. - mig
[2021-01-30 19:39:35] - mig: on that note, i just "removed margin from my account", but before i did, my broker went through half a dozen reasons on why i'd want to keep margin.
~a[2021-01-30 19:37:43] - mig: i have a strong feeling that a lot of people who lend out their shares are doing it without realizing it (fine print, and whatnot). ~a
[2021-01-30 19:35:49] - mig: (sometimes, i'm not sure about details in practice) you get paid. it's a "lease", where you're leasing your shares, and your voting rights, and (your broker, probably) gets something in return: dollars per unit time. that sort of thing. there are other perks: i think most accounts where you are allowed to borrow money (margin), your broker also will lend out your shares? i'm not sure. ~a
[2021-01-30 16:04:10] - eli5 - why would anyone allow their stocks to be borrowed. I only see potential downsides for the lender. - mig
[2021-01-30 13:16:18] - https://twitter.com/compound248/status/1355274739351248898 Found this on Twitter explaining some of what might be going on behind the scenes. Of note is that it wasn't only Robinhood that restricted trading. -Paul
[2021-01-30 04:59:29] - yah true. ~a
[2021-01-30 04:56:49] - a: Well, if the investors are using options and/or margin... They can be susceptible to liquidity problems still. -Paul
[2021-01-29 21:56:05] - like, they're talking about making a deposit of cash at the clearing house. wtf: they've been given huge amounts of cash by the investors. where did that cash go? ~a
[2021-01-29 21:54:36] - paul: "signaling cash crunch" aren't they allowed to just reject (or even delay) requests for margin? i'm not sure why they'd ever have a cash shortage that was out of their control. ~a
[2021-01-29 21:02:41] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/investing/robinhood-gamestop-reddit/index.html This is why I think there could be some merit to Robinhood having to restrict certain types of trading because of liquidity issues. (Note: Some merit. It's still damned suspicious). -Paul
[2021-01-29 20:33:25] - a: Fair point. There's probably more penny stocks than I think. -Paul
[2021-01-29 20:29:59] - i'm not sure how many penny stocks there are. but yeah if we ignore the penny stocks, i agree. ~a
[2021-01-29 20:28:20] - a: I don't think most equities have the same number of +/- 60% days as Gamestop has had the past week or two, though. -Paul
[2021-01-29 20:12:26] - "Gamestop could still go up a ton... or could collapse overnight" you're basically describing any equity with high volume though. ~a
[2021-01-29 18:04:29] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/this-is-how-wall-street-thinks-the-reddit-fueled-gamestop-trade-unravels-.html "More than 120% of GameStop’s available shares have been borrowed, down from about 140% earlier in the month." Jesus. Gamestop could still go up a ton... or could collapse overnight. -Paul
[2021-01-29 17:49:42] - a: No, but I admittedly haven't looked at all. -Paul
[2021-01-29 17:31:04] - paul: have you found a way to see the "order book" / "market book" on a stock? yahoo finance and google finance don't have it. i found it eventually, but i had to enable "level 2 quotes" on my broker and even then i had to click around and google for hours before i found it. why is this fundamentally important info so hard to find? ~a
[2021-01-29 16:34:58] - wow dogecoin, that's a blast from the past. up 500% in the last 7 days, jeeze. pump-and-dumps the last few months have been crazy. ~a
[2021-01-29 14:32:42] - https://twitter.com/CitronResearch/status/1355152873487798274 Also, apparently Citron won't be doing short reports anymore. -Paul
[2021-01-29 14:31:32] - https://twitter.com/elonmusk Also, surprised nobody mentioned, but apparently Elon bought bitcoin. Prepare for the internet to break. -Paul
[2021-01-29 14:30:40] - Pierce: Going back to the Kaepernick thing: Could somebody who got caught up in a violent riot then say Kaepernick tried to have them murdered because his tweets created an environment that led to violent protests? -Paul
[2021-01-29 14:29:51] - Pierce: "he helped create an environment that led to the attack" I know I sound like a broken record here, but I think this is also a very dangerous way of thinking. If we are holding people responsible for how their speech helped to create certain environments.... that would seem to fall over a lot of speech. -Paul
[2021-01-29 14:27:56] - Pierce: Because it felt like one word away from libel and frankly even with that word I imagine it wouldn't prevent somebody from trying to sue for libel anyway. Also, I don't know, it feels a little rude to be going around casually charging coworkers with almost murdering you.
-Paul[2021-01-28 22:41:02] - strictly speaking, her tweet said he should resign, not that he should go to jail for attempted murder. I'm sure she's pushing for an investigation into whether he did more than just help create this environment, but charges against him would be based on the result of that, rather than the significant but indirect support for the attackers that we're currently aware of. - pierce
[2021-01-28 21:20:26] - pierce: if we prosecute him for this (which we kinda have to, if it is indeed an attempted murder) won't it be our duty to prosecute other people that make non-direct non-specific speeches, when people take action on their speeches? seems . . . dangerous
~a[2021-01-28 21:08:50] - as I said before, I think a reasonable interpretation of her words (and obvious if you're even vaguely aware of the facts of the situation) is that he helped create an environment that led to the attack. his reckless disregard for the violent rhetoric, and support for the lies that it was based on even after the rhetoric escalated into deadly violence, give him some responsibility for the attempt even if he didn't order her killing. - pierce
[2021-01-28 20:51:42] - pierce: not all speech is protected. and not all speech should be protected. but just because it has "danger", doesn't mean it should be disallowed. seems pretty clear to me. nobody banned her speech, which is good. i'm still not confident i know how ted cruz tried to have her killed though: he had a part to play in this mess, but it doesn't seem so direct. ~a
[2021-01-28 20:46:40] - if you weren't asserting some type of hazard that we would want to prevent, then (whether you meant it this way or not) saying her accusation felt dangerous is the type of criticism often used as tone policing or concern trolling. you could just say you don't like or agree with her accusation. calling it dangerous couches your statement with an air of objectivity or logic, which you should be able to back up. - pierce
[2021-01-28 20:45:46] - paul: you said her accusation was dangerous. what's the danger, specifically? why wouldn't we try to prevent it? otherwise, what's the point of describing things as dangerous in the first place? - pierce
[2021-01-28 20:38:56] - paul: exchanges do, yes definitely. btw, i'm not talking about whether a single stock is loaned out multiple times (though you could do that as well, i think that would be dumb). on the other hand, stopping leasing because the number of shares leased is equal to the number of shares that exist, that would be possible. (probably still dumb, but less dumb?) ~a
[2021-01-28 20:36:27] - a: They can track scenarios where a single stock is loaned out multiple times? Does the SEC really track every single transaction like that? -Paul
[2021-01-28 20:35:21] - paul: it's probably super easy to track? stock leases and short sale transactions are (probably) listed as such, right? i'm not sure i agree with enforcing any bans or caps or anything, but i think it would be super easy to implement. the lease *and* the sale are literal actions the SEC can follow along with and watch (and potentially cap). ~a
[2021-01-28 20:31:43] - a: And I think that's why any regulations banning more than 100% of the float being sold short might be hard to enforce. It's not like one dedicated hedge fund is doing it. It's probably dozens of different funds, not to mention possibly individual investors. That's probably hard to track. -Paul
[2021-01-28 20:30:00] - https://apnews.com/article/new-york-nursing-home-coronavirus-deaths-a6c214f4467976efdfca9ba75f8adaef Going back to our discussion about Cuomo's handling of COVID. -Paul
[2021-01-28 20:29:33] - paul: "As an example, take a situation involving four investors." i proposed this same scenario to pierce. maybe my way of describing it was worse, but its definitely a similar scenario: link "if there was ONE share..." ~a
[2021-01-28 20:29:17] - Pierce: Who said anything about disallowing her to make that accusation? -Paul
[2021-01-28 20:25:58] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/28/yes-a-stock-can-have-short-interest-over-100-heres/ How more than 100% of the float of a company can be sold short. -Paul
[2021-01-28 20:14:37] - paul: well you said the million dollar question is who gets to decide whether something is false. so it would be dangerous to disallow her from making that accusation, right? that seems like the logical application of your previous points and concerns about suppression of free speech, why aren't you applying it here? - pierce
[2021-01-28 19:14:46] - a: Oh, shoot, I trailed off and never finished that sentence. Anyway, I was going to say it felt a little dangerous. -Paul
[2021-01-28 19:14:17] - a: Well, either way, it feels like "almost" (see what I did there?) accusing a sitting Senator of trying to have you murdered because... I actually don't know what her argument would be. Did Cruz speak at the protest-turned-invasion? Did he have some tweets about marching on the Capitol? -Paul
[2021-01-28 19:10:18] - paul: yeah, but you're basing that on what i said about libel. i think its more complicated to "knowing its false". maybe it's closer to should have known it was false? "fault amounting to at least negligence" is what the formal definition is. ~a
[2021-01-28 19:09:13] - a: I guess it makes sense, but it still seems odd to me. So if somebody is completely delusional and detached from reality... they're kind of immune from committing libel? -Paul
[2021-01-28 19:08:02] - paul: well there you go. looks fairly damning to me. scroll to 46-87 to see some of the parts where he knew they were lies. the profiting off the lies is new info i hadn't seen before, jfc. ~a
[2021-01-28 18:57:00] - a: I read dominion's filing (looks long but it's a lot of screenshots, first time I've seen those in a court document). they make it excruciatingly clear that he knew he was lying, that it would negatively impact their business, and the ways in which he profited off of the lie. - pierce
[2021-01-28 18:46:47] - https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354853920762253315 Rampant speculation, but it's from a blue checkmark.
-Paul[2021-01-28 18:46:26] - paul: "Does it?" i'm not positive, i have not looked this up. (i have trouble understanding this) "Couldn't Giuliani's defense for Dominion's libel case be pretty easy?" maybe, i'm not sure. persecutors might be able to show he knew he was lying? ~a
[2021-01-28 18:44:00] - Pierce: And yes, it's hard not to see this selective action (a certain group of traders can only sell) as not being market manipulation... especially in the environment pitting one side desperately hoping for the stock to go down with another side desperately trying to make it go up. -Paul
[2021-01-28 18:42:48] - Pierce: Agreed. The "almost" was important there. -Paul
[2021-01-28 18:37:40] - paul: well, "almost" refers to the fact that she wasn't killed, and attempted murder is still a crime. so if there was a libel case for falsely accusing him of a crime that word wouldn't protect her. but between his being a public figure and it not being recklessly untruthful (as there's a valid interpretation that he was responsible for the environment leading to the attack, if not consciously planning a murder) she'll be fine. - pierce
[2021-01-28 18:34:04] - a: "this is how delisting works" except unlike delisting, some investors are still able to buy. the more I think of it the more bonkers it seems that this type of asymmetry (no buying, only selling) was allowed to be introduced to only a subset of investors. clusterfuck is right. - pierce
[2021-01-28 18:30:06] - a: Does it? That seems like a pretty big loophole then. Couldn't Giuliani's defense for Dominion's libel case be pretty easy? -paul
[2021-01-28 18:25:07] - paul: (frivolous lawsuits aside) doesn't libel require her to know it to be false? ~a
[2021-01-28 18:23:53] - "you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago" That "almost" is doing a lot of work to help her avoid a libel suit, methinks. -Paul
[2021-01-28 18:11:53] - 3 weeks ago? we need to move on. (s) ~a
[2021-01-28 18:09:45] - oh, DAMN. - pierce
[2021-01-28 18:04:58] - "When @AOC and @DonaldJTrumpJr are on the same side you know you fucked up @RobinhoodApp" ~a
[2021-01-28 18:03:42] - pierce: ha, yes, wtf. even knowing the story it sounds crazy. trump jr is also on board with AOC
~a[2021-01-28 18:01:42] - of all the things I might've expected to see in January of 2021, "AOC and Ted Cruz take the side of a bunch of redditors" was not exactly high on the list. - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:56:55] - there is evidence of market manipulation, but their statement doesn't discuss market manipulation. it only discusses "volatility". wtf. ~a
[2021-01-28 17:52:58] - "Only Allowing Holders To Sell" god, i know that this is how delisting works, but this will become a huge clusterfuck: this isn't a penny-stock. it's a huge company with tons of revenue. delisting it just because you don't like where the price is, is taking a bad situation and making it much worse. ~a
[2021-01-28 17:45:37] - ...but safety nets like the 5-min halt should prevent that from getting too out of hand too quickly for the market to compensate, and tools other than shorts might be less risky ways to mitigate that problem (like increasing margin requirements for stocks when they're spiking, which seems to be happening here anyway) - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:45:07] - a: I'm sure you're right that there are historical examples of runaway prices, but do you have a specific one? like, why didn't an escalating higher share price eventually discourage people from buying it? there's certainly some level of groupthink where you would see a rising stock and buy it because you assume other investors know something you don't. - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:44:17] - a: again, though, I'm not saying we should remove it entirely, just beyond a certain threshold. let's say it was 100% of shares, then no one would be prevented from lending but we'd have some sort of cap in place. maybe that's not enough to prevent short squeezes, I dunno. - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:42:49] - a: I can't, that's why I'm freaking asking.
- pierce[2021-01-28 17:42:20] - pierce: "short squeezes undermine that goal" how can you be sure that removing the ability to lend your shares to short sellers won't undermine that goal even further? ~a
[2021-01-28 17:32:24] - and maybe importantly, that added downside doesn't reflect anything new about the underlying company being traded. if the market is a tool for correctly pricing investments then short squeezes undermine that goal. - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:32:09] - but with short positions, if there's a real risk of a short squeeze, you can be punished for identifying an overvalued stock earlier than others. even though you might have been right about the fundamentals of that company, the later buyers agreeing with you are actually making your investment riskier. - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:31:52] - pierce: "wouldn't a runaway price largely self-regulate?" historically this has not worked, no. disallowing people from being able to lend their shares to short sellers, is removing an option from the market to its detriment. people lending their shares can (???) set whatever price they want, right? ~a
[2021-01-28 17:31:47] - how about this: with long positions, you're incentivized to be smarter and faster than other investors. if you buy an undervalued stock early, later buyers drive up the price of your shares. that seems like a good incentive to have in place that benefits the overall health of the market. - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:30:51] - paul: well my point is kinda that allowing stocks to be so vulnerable to a short squeeze makes it so any short position becomes excessively risky. if the institutional investors here took shady actions then they should be punished, but if it's just that they misjudged gamestop then the financial consequences should be proportional to their misjudgement and how much they committed to it, not "punitive". - pierce
[2021-01-28 17:14:26] - i don't think he'd lie about this. ~a
[2021-01-28 17:12:56] - https://twitter.com/tyler/status/1354809759497478153 Not sure if anybody trusts a Winklevoss, but I'll leave this here. -Paul
[2021-01-28 17:02:46] - Personally I don't know enough to know how to regulate (or if this whole debacle warrants regulation) but I do agree with the concept that if the hedge funds took the risk of shorting over 100% of a company that ought to be on them if it comes crashing down. -Daniel
[2021-01-28 17:01:34] - https://shortsqueeze.com/shortinterest/stock/term2.php?s=GME Capping out for the 52 week change from low 9999.99% lol. -Daniel
[2021-01-28 17:01:19] - a: wouldn't a runaway price largely self-regulate? people would stop being interested in buying it the more it costs, and eventually be unable to afford it at all? and I'm not saying we necessarily ban shorts entirely, maybe just ban them beyond a percentage threshold of overall shares so that a short squeeze is unlikely to exacerbate a runaway price situation. that, plus some failsafes like the automatic five-minute halts. - pierce
[2021-01-28 16:59:01] - Pierce: I don't know enough about the mechanics of shorting and everything to say with any kind of certainty, but it seems clear that some funds were taking on more risk than they could handle and that if we don't punish that by allowing them to fail, I think we encourage it to only happen again. -Paul
[2021-01-28 16:56:56] - a: "i assume you mean people who have margin accounts that will walk away from their debts?" Yeah. I mean, ultimately the broker is on the hook if a short runs up a loss they can't cover, right? -Paul
[2021-01-28 16:49:52] - pierce: if you curtail shorts, then you might create more of a problem with a stock with more of a runaway price. in other words, this could be worse than it is now. ~a
[2021-01-28 16:48:38] - so, going back to something I'd said way back when this started, do we think this situation might've been avoided if we didn't allow so many short positions (>100% of float, or some other threshold) on a single stock? is there some tipping point at which the risk of volatility due to a short squeeze exceeds the market benefits of allowing shorts? - pierce
[2021-01-28 16:47:58] - paul: "shorts who can't cover their losses" i assume you mean people who have margin accounts that will walk away from their debts? in general,if you have a short that you can't afford, they cover the short (liquidate), but i think i understand your point. ~a
[2021-01-28 16:44:13] - paul: its interesting how robinhood spins this: "Rebates from Market Makers and Trading Venues" is what they call it and they also say this: "Market makers typically offer better prices than exchanges" (emphasis mine). i wonder how/why that could possibly be. theoretically possible, but its confounding. ~a
[2021-01-28 16:41:19] - a: But I'm sure it also plays a role.
-Paul[2021-01-28 16:40:58] - a: Right, the conspiracy online is that some of the Wall Street bigwigs who buy that order flow are telling Robinhood to do this or else they'll stop. I actually suspect it's a lot more complicated then that and their are legit issues with them having a bunch of shorts who can't cover their losses which they are worried about. -Paul
[2021-01-28 16:38:10] - paul: they make 40% of their revenue from "order flow". wtf that is crazy. my broker has an option called "smart routing" and now i'm wondering if that is related.
~a[2021-01-28 16:35:39] - a: https://www.thestreet.com/investing/how-does-robinhood-make-money-14856528 Yes, they make some money from their users, but I believe they make a lot from selling orders to market makers. See #4 here. The claim from this article is 40% of their revenue comes from it. -Paul
[2021-01-28 16:32:23] - "Robinhood doesn't really make money from their users" no they definitely make money from their users. ~a
[2021-01-28 16:32:22] - Re: Discord. Didn't mean to imply any conspiracy with Discord, just that I don't buy the whole, "this has nothing to do with what is happening with WSB and the stock market". Clearly the attention played a major role. -Paul
[2021-01-28 16:29:18] - Pierce: Yeah, I'm totally willing to believe that too. With $0 trades, Robinhood doesn't really make money from their users, but from selling their data to high frequency traders. So their customers aren't really their users, but the funds they sell data to, which likely have ties to the short sellers. -Paul
[2021-01-28 16:28:39] - i'm with pierce. the discord ban is probably fine until we see evidence that it isn't fine. but, the robinhood move is more problematic. i don't even buy the "manipulation" argument: if the SEC said "your users are manipulating the market", wouldn't robinhood be forced to respond with "ok, you have a formal order, right"? i'll admit i'm kinda guessing, but i feel delisting a stock without getting sued must be hard. ~a
[2021-01-28 16:25:53] - ...and GME is down to $132 (-62%). - pierce
[2021-01-28 16:20:36] - I'm more inclined to believe that they're under external pressure to intervene in this situation. it might be legal, the SEC might be alleging there's more to this story than the "loose army of WSB members" narrative would suggest, and robinhood doesn't want to be liable for that type of market manipulation. or it could be other institutional investors threatening or incentivizing robinhood. - pierce
[2021-01-28 16:20:26] - ironically I actually find the robinhood thing more sketchy. your explanation might be correct, paul, but if some users defaulting on short positions on a couple of stocks puts the platform in financial jeopardy then it's a lot more fragile than it has any right to be. - pierce
[2021-01-28 16:20:17] - "suspicious" isn't the word I'd use for the discord ban. there are plenty of examples of reddit banning things that had been violating the rules for ages because of sudden media attention (usually porn... creepshots, jailbait, etc.). - pierce
[2021-01-28 14:46:46] - generally when I hear the term "hate speech" these days it's not thrown around in good faith. - mig
[2021-01-28 14:29:43] - Robinhood at least has somewhat of an excuse.... possibly. They might be getting into fiscal trouble dealing with... margin calls? On their platform? Not sure if my terminology is right, but when shorts go really bad, the broker can sometimes be left on the hook. -Paul
[2021-01-28 14:27:53] - Paul: I agree that on the surface it seems suspect though I also do admit its possible that the discord wasn't cracking on people making threats towards Melvin employees or some shit (I have no idea if thats what was happening but I could see it as plausible at least) -Daniel
[2021-01-28 14:22:42] - "cue Paul's music" I know I'm the weirdo guy all about free speech, but just curious if anybody else finds the timing of the closing of the discord channel at least suspicious. Feels like "hate speech" is a broad enough term and the internet an awful enough place that you could probably literally shut down any communications platform with the excuse of "hate speech" whenever you wanted. -Paul
[2021-01-28 14:19:20] - And I guess I need to refresh before jumping in after 18 hours with, "I have news!" -Paul
[2021-01-28 14:19:05] - a: I generally don't like notifications from websites in general. Sorry. -Paul
[2021-01-28 14:18:18] - a: "who gets to decide what's false?" YES. That is the million dollar question. -Paul
[2021-01-28 14:16:27] - Daniel: I think you may have chosen the wrong week to start investing in individual stocks. -paul
[2021-01-28 14:16:11] - Robinhood has delisted GME, AMC and some other WSB favorites and Discord has taken the WSB channel down (supposedly for too much hate speech, but it's interesting how the hate speech became intolerable as soon as they were making noise taking down hedge funds). This went from amusing to alarming in a hurry. -Paul
[2021-01-28 04:15:07] - Yeah I don't think there is a lot of love in there for people affiliated with citron but there were definitely mod posts up about not doxxing and not posting about anything IRL. Maybe discord didn't have that same discipline? -Daniel
[2021-01-28 03:57:47] - yeah, I'll be curious to hear some follow-up on this. the andrew left (citron) video last week referenced threats and hacking attempts, and there were lots of reddit comments cheering about it and mocking him. their normal tone is awful enough, but their winking tolerance of real-world illegal behavior may have bitten them in the butt. - pierce
[2021-01-28 02:34:48] - WSB is back up on reddit but apparently got banned from discord for "hate speech" (cue Paul's music) though I'm really sure since I didn't go to their discord but from reading the reddit the last few days they don't seem big on hate speech other than calling themselves "retards" left and right. -Daniel
[2021-01-28 00:27:50] - the WSB subreddit has been set to private: "We are experiencing technical difficulties based on unprecedented scale as a result of the newfound interest in WSB. We are unable to ensure Reddit's content policy and the WSB rules are enforceable without a technology platform that can support automation of this enforcement. WSB will be back." - pierce
[2021-01-27 23:32:34] - (maybe prepended, not appended, since the tab width is often too short to show the full title) - pierce
[2021-01-27 23:30:57] - I'm not a big fan of notifications from websites, because I'm a tab packrat and often have the same site opened multiple times and/or long past when I want to be actively paying attention to it. much more useful to me would be if the page title updated with a "(5)" or whatever appended to it showing the number of new comments since that tab was last loaded. - pierce
[2021-01-27 20:46:14] - on the other hand, having to refresh every time i want to "catch up" is distracting and time consuming as well. ~a
[2021-01-27 20:45:42] - gotcha yeah, i am often distracted by it, especially when i'm trying to work, but i'm starting to get used to it. ~a
[2021-01-27 20:44:44] - i don't like things to go ding when i'm trying to write a unit test / method whatever. I like that I just refresh and see where we are at. Maybe a tab blinky thing or something? I have no idea what goes into that feature though. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 20:30:46] - paul/daniel: i noticed recently that nobody besides me seems to be using the "toggle listening for notifications" feature here. do you not use it because it doesn't work? (i know there are at least two significant bugs) or do you not use it because of another reason? thanks! ~a
[2021-01-27 20:28:26] - daniel: Q "is the WH concerned with the stock market activity, we're seeing around gamestop, and now with some other stocks as well, ... have there been any questions with the sec about how to proceed?" A "i'm also happy to repeat our first female treasury secretary: [we] are monitoring the situation, it's a good reminder though that the stock market isn't the only measure of the health of the economy ... K shaped recovery ..." ~a
[2021-01-27 20:21:46] - a: How so? I continue to be super entertained. I saw on wsb that Powell was asked about it. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 19:52:16] - gamestop was discussed in the white house press briefing today. ~a
[2021-01-27 19:48:36] - well, it sounds like we all agree the lindell situation is (at least) borderline. i had asked earlier about *what* bindell said, and didn't see any info on that. i've tried to google around, and can't find anything. ~a
[2021-01-27 19:40:18] - a: In this case I guess twitter given that its their policy and yeah that does allow for bias. I do think there is room where the policy could go bad and lindell might be an example of that. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 18:23:33] - who gets to decide what's false? if its twitter, then i could see some obviously problematic bias creep in. ~a
[2021-01-27 18:22:49] - daniel: the only questionable part would be "false or misleading information". false is one of those weird words when we're talking about unknowns and grey areas. ~a
[2021-01-27 18:21:59] - daniel: ok, it is true that a lot of people went to jail over election meddling. no votes were overturned, but i guess that goes to our original point: that this was more about the thumb, not about the . . . arm that pulls the voting lever machines?
would talking about this on twitter be allowed today? i feel like it would be: link again. ~a[2021-01-27 18:18:06] - Also https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts the video there is literally him asking. So yeah. I think there is more evidence on the side that 2016 was influenced than 2020 was stolen. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 18:16:20] - I don't think there is a court finding that 2016 was stolen. But I think there is much more evidence that has been through court to support that 2016 Trump had connections to Russia and was coordinating? (not sure the right word there) with them to some degree. Vs the courts opinions on the evidence in regard to 2020. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 18:14:51] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-associates-factbox/factbox-here-are-eight-trump-associates-arrested-or-convicted-of-crimes-idUSKBN25G1YU Those aren't all about 2016 but it has four that I counted that were about Russia and the connections b/w them and Trump. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 18:04:07] - daniel: "Courts disagree"? do they? i know that the 2016-fraud cases info came from the US-intel community, but i'm not sure it went through any courts. (the 2020-fraud cases did go through the courts, of course) ~a
[2021-01-27 18:02:48] - Paul: " I honestly think it's a lot closer" - Courts disagree? -Daniel
[2021-01-27 18:02:09] - I think that Trump is arguing what I put below. I do not think Pelosi was arguing the same. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 18:00:18] - Daniel: All I am saying, and I really will leave it at this for now, is that for as much as you think that 2016 might've been stolen and that people who think 2020 was stolen are idiots.... just imagine there is somebody out there who thinks the exact opposite and I'm not sure the facts back up that one of you is 100% right and the other 100% wrong. I honestly think it's a lot closer. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:57:02] - Do you agree that Trump is arguing that there is a conspiracy afoot that is actually changing vote totals / stealing votes / double voting in order to make him lose? -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:56:55] - Daniel: I don't think the election was stolen, no. Did Trump solicit and receive aid from Russia? Maybe. But the investigation didn't uncover any smoking guns in terms of Russia stealing the election in my opinion (even though I do think he probably should've been removed from office). -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:55:28] - (Though I don't remember as much about 2016 being stolen but influenced instead but thats just my memory) -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:54:57] - Maybe even both sides used the word "stolen" but what they mean is very different. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:54:26] - I don't think 2016 was stolen in that Russian agents were changing vote totals in FL. I don't think anyone does. But I do think as adrian put there were thumbs put on the scales as it were and that had an impact. That is what people are talking about. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:53:24] - Paul: You don't think Trump solicited and received aid from Russia? Despite the evidence? -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:52:21] - Daniel: "what is true also matters" Agreed. And the 2016 election wasn't stolen any more than the 2020 one was. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:51:40] - I think if speech that incites or glorifies violence is worth banning, then it should go both ways. I don't think an objective media should go from appending "without evidence" to everything Trump said to appending "how factual!" to everything Biden says even though we don't have any evidence that his predictions will work out. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:51:08] - " I think that applies to both sides" - if it were actually true. Its not just about the "saying" - what is true also matters. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:50:32] - "not sure if that's a taboo saying now" ugh. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:50:06] - a: Sure, but this isn't a discussion about legality, right? Anyway, I need to get some work done, sorry. I'm just trying to say that I don't think American politics is as black and white (not sure if that's a taboo saying now...) as a lot of people here seem to think it is. If it's bad to question the results of an election when the winner was clear, I think that applies to both sides. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:49:46] - paul: 1. the policy didn't exist. 2. i'm not sure she would have been counter to the policy even if it had. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:49:17] - paul: pelosi wasn't arguing that any votes were cast illegally. i'm pretty sure of that. she was saying that putin put his thumb on the scales. (and it doesn't matter to the argument regarding twitter, but there's a lot of federal intelligence evidence to back this up). ~a
[2021-01-27 17:46:51] - paul: the religious objection is legit, of course it is. discriminating based on their sexual orientation is straight up illegal. maybe it shouldn't be? (honestly both situations suck, illegal and legal) it is obviously illegal, though, you get that right? ~a
[2021-01-27 17:45:00] - a: No, Pelosi wasn't trying to say the election was stolen when she said it was hijacked. She was being metaphorical. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:44:49] - Paul: " possibly think they are patriots trying to prevent the election from being stolen" - they 100% thought this. Its why they were posting pictures and stuff as they were doing it. They were also 100% trying to overthrow the gov. They were just idiots so failed. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:43:23] - paul: "not my president" is different from saying that votes were cast and counted illegally. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:43:22] - Dem lead invasions of the capital: 0. Investigations proving Trump & co colluded with Russia: Many. Investigations proving Biden stole election: 0. Rep lead invasions of the capital: 1. Those numbers do matter. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:43:08] - a: All of them? The baker couldn't possibly have had a legit religious objection to making a cake for an event celebrating something they don't believe is morally right. No, they're just a hateful bigot. The capitol rioters couldn't possibly think they are patriots trying to prevent the election from being stolen. No, they're just trying to overthrow the government. -paul
[2021-01-27 17:42:43] - the policy didn't exist in 2016. maybe you don't like the new policy, hell i don't like the new policy, but i'm not sure how its been applied unfairly since it was created. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:41:14] - Like, the Democrats literally spent the last four years questioning the legitimacy of the election and accusing Trump of being a Putin puppet and being all #resistance and "Not my President" but for some reason all of that was fine. But when Republicans are doing the same thing now it's all grounds for tossing off social media and they're just being assholes. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:40:34] - which people and which motivations? ~a
[2021-01-27 17:39:40] - paul: "lots of people want to see are that they are evil and have the worst motivations, and when it comes to the other side then all they want to see is that they are noble" based on what exactly? ~a
[2021-01-27 17:39:07] - And there is always an excuse. -paul
[2021-01-27 17:39:01] - Daniel: "Its we have been discriminating for a long time" Sure, that's a perfectly reasonable justification, but it doesn't change the fact that it is discrimination based on race. Again, I think the issue here is that when it comes to one side, the only "truth" lots of people want to see are that they are evil and have the worst motivations, and when it comes to the other side then all they want to see is that they are noble... -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:38:04] - Paul: wat. Taxes aren't theft? I also don't know which both you mean. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:37:03] - Daniel: Both can be true. Just like how taxes can be "money we agree to pay to government to live in our society" and also "theft". -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:36:39] - paul: "is it okay for a private company to discriminate on who it does business with" "depends on what issue they are trying to advance". you've changed the argument. you can't go from "Right leaning speech or left leaning speech?" to "depends on what issue they are trying to advance". that's a different argument entirely. not all "issues" are (even) legal to discuss. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:34:46] - Which isn't the same thing as "discriminating based on race" -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:34:25] - There is context when it comes to hiring so it isn't "is it ok to discriminate? it depends on the race.". Its we have been discriminating for a long time and continue to do so if we don't actively try to do something about it so lets try to actively do something about it. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:33:30] - paul: "Yes it is!" no it isn't. "we've established before that discrimination based on race in hiring is perfectly fine or the worst thing ever depending on the race involved" we. have. not. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:33:03] - oops - i was trying to edit that still. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:32:53] - The answer isn't depends on the race when it comes to hiring - it *might* depend on the context.
[2021-01-27 17:30:33] - a: "the answer isn't" Yes it is! We just established yesterday about "is it okay for a private company to discriminate on who it does business with" depends on what issue they are trying to advance. Likewise, we've established before that discrimination based on race in hiring is perfectly fine or the worst thing ever depending on the race involved. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:29:14] - Its the truth. Its not a take. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:28:49] - Daniel: "The other is literally trying to overthrow the gov of the country" That's your take, but I'm sure that isn't their take. They probably think they're protecting the government from being stolen. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:28:35] - *worse at consistently applying political principles. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:28:10] - paul: "the answer shouldn't be" the answer isn't. stop the straw man, paul. ~a
[2021-01-27 17:28:07] - Paul: "consistent political principles that apply equally" I would agree but also don't think I am not doing. I do think politicians suck at this on both sides too. I do think R's are worse. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:26:41] - Daniel: If I told you that a mob attacked and killed innocent people to advance a political goal and asked you if it was bad, the answer shouldn't be: "Well, what was the political goal?" Or, if I asked if it's okay to discriminate based on race, it shouldn't be: "Depends on the race". Or if it's okay for Twitter to ban certain political speech, it shouldn't be: "Right leaning speech or left leaning speech?" -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:26:11] - Paul: "WHAT your political stance is, violence against innocents to advance your political goals is wrong." - Agree. No one argues the riots parts stemming from BLM protests are good. (I mean probably someone would / has - its the internet after all). However one stems from expressing anger at being killed by police / gov and is anger boiling over (which is bad). The other is literally trying to overthrow the gov of the country? -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:24:49] - Daniel: But this is my whole point, I think it is important to have consistent political principles that apply equally and not just whiplash from one side to the other based on which group is being targeted. I think the latter is really dangerous and polarizing. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:23:00] - Daniel: But I'm sorry, I don't really care WHAT your political stance is, violence against innocents to advance your political goals is wrong. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:22:25] - Daniel: "Like the rioting part is bad in both cases but they aren't equivalent at all in scope or justification" Not surprised you think I'm crazy, but I likewise think it is crazy the amount of sympathy the BLM riots got. Not only were they utterly self-defeating (driving people away from supporting the cause and ruining communities they were supposed to help)...-Paul
[2021-01-27 17:16:22] - Daniel: Fair, that's probably more accurate. -Paul
[2021-01-27 17:03:59] - Just to make it more targeted and less classist. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:03:44] - Paul: I would say Wall Street instead of Rich. They are all about Musk in there and he is rich af. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 17:03:04] - Daniel: I've seen some people comparing WSB to Occupy Wall Street in that both seem to be motivated by a "screw those rich people" mentality. -Paul
[2021-01-27 16:42:40] - a: I had a busy morning - so didn't get to check till recently. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:42:20] - daniel: i'll argue paul's side on this one though. "angry" is an understatement of what happened. many were glorifying violence. many were being violent. at least 25 people were killed. ~a
[2021-01-27 16:42:13] - Bitcoin is bonkers too - I hadn't checked recently. I do enjoy reading about it some over time but yeah its more abstract maybe since it doesn't quite have the drama of the GME story. Which is probably for the best. I imagine within a month no one will care about GME anymore except for the lesson that people learn from this craziness. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:41:02] - daniel: i figured you'd have something to say about paul's comments last night. they seemed . . . inflammatory. ~a
[2021-01-27 16:40:12] - Paul: "attack on the capitol was, I feel the same about the BLM riots earlier in the year" - this is crazy. One group was trying to kill law makers because they wrongly believe an election was stolen. The other is angry that police keep killing them? Like the rioting part is bad in both cases but they aren't equivalent at all in scope or justification. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:39:41] - daniel: now that i've finally convinced myself that i can't (or otherwise won't) make money on gme's stupid price, i don't care what gme's price is at. it's now just a number just like any other. this is probably how most people feel about the bitcoin price. ~a
[2021-01-27 16:37:59] - a: Thats all I know too. Yeah I meant I think he was further on the safe side than Kaep in a vacuum. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:37:18] - GME continues to be bonkers and entertaining. Reading about it and listening to some stuff there is definitely an element of this that is just anger at Wall Street which is interesting. People found a way to fuck a hedge fund and that seems to be enough to motivate the action - making money is still important but I think the other part fuels the economic irrationality part. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:37:02] - daniel: ah interesting. i couldn't find any of lindell's tweets (like i couldn't find any screenshots / lists of deleted tweets). what did lindell say exactly? i assumed (maybe incorrectly) that he was merely questioning the legitimacy of the election. did he go past that? ~a
[2021-01-27 16:34:32] - I also don't think I would have banned him either? At least I don't think so right now. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:34:13] - Re Twitter I wonder if this is similar in aspects to the what is art / porn conversation of what is glorifying violence / inciting violence. I definitely don't read Pelosi's tweet as doing either, I don't think I read Kaep's tweet that way but remember it being close? on the line? The myPillow guy I think is further from the line in vacuum but the context of him supporting a martial takeover and Jan 6th do make it worse. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 16:31:37] - Paul: Yeah I'm not interested in options / calls / etc. I think I'm to lazy to fully understand that enough to feel comfortable doing it. I do think to some extent I will be trying to time the market by definition though. I mean isn't that the point of active investing? Buy low / sell high and all that. I don't plan on day trading and hopping in and out of things though. -Daniel
[2021-01-27 15:46:51] - that's a different thing i think. i think that's called a backdoor roth? or mega backdoor roth? ~a
[2021-01-27 15:44:56] - a: Ah, okay. I had assumed you were putting non-IRA funds (ie, taxable funds) in. -Paul
[2021-01-27 15:44:55] - paul: the benefit is you're able to retire earlier than you'd be able to without it? if you have enough taxable money to get you to 59.5, i'm not sure you need it at all? ~a
[2021-01-27 15:41:20] - paul: "I thought you need to do this before you retire" i think you do it in early retirement (well before 59.5 but after you have a zero-ish income). no, your original question is problematic because you'll never pay capital gains on any 401k or ira regardless of what you do. ~a
[2021-01-27 15:36:57] - a: I thought you need to do this before you retire. Also, if you still have to pay income taxes, then how was my original quetion ("Is the benefit that you pay income tax instead of capital gains taxes and hopefully that is a lower tax rate?") wrong? -Paul
[2021-01-27 15:25:51] - paul: yes and yes. otoh, income tax will be low if you've retired. your federal income tax on parts (sometimes all) of that conversion will be $0. virginia has a flat-ish tax though, which sucks for this part. texas has no state income tax (and a very high state capital gains tax?). ~a
[2021-01-27 15:19:47] - a: Hmmm, okay. So you transfer some money from a traditional IRA, pay income tax on it, and then 5 years later you take it out tax free? You still have to pay the income tax during the conversion, right? -Paul
[2021-01-27 15:17:44] - paul: the other point of the ladder (the reason its a ladder) is you're required to wait 5 years. that's another big part of the point. overview ~a
[2021-01-27 15:16:27] - paul: yes, but you're increasing the principal. the point of the ladder is you're changing the principal by taking large amounts of money from your traditional ira. (the context is early-retirement when your normal income is expected to be low or zero. you'll also need a taxable account balance to afford the extra taxes) ~a
[2021-01-27 15:13:55] - a: You can only withdraw the principal, though, right? And can't you do that without a ladder? -Paul
[2021-01-27 15:11:02] - paul: when we were discussing capital gains, i said to use *either* type of ira (or 401k). ~a
[2021-01-27 15:10:04] - paul: no, that's not the point of the roth ladder. the point of the roth ladder, is before you're 59.5 you're able to get money out of an ira (without any fees) by laddering money from a traditional ira into a roth ira. ~a
[2021-01-27 15:07:55] - I'm sure you all are watching GME be up 90% now, but how about AMC up something like 160%? -Paul
[2021-01-27 15:07:13] - Looks like I need to investigate Roth ladders more. Is the benefit that you pay income tax instead of capital gains taxes and hopefully that is a lower tax rate? -Paul
[2021-01-27 15:05:02] - Daniel: I think Adrian makes most of the good points I would make. I assume you know the other advice I would give: diversify and don't use risky options or try to time the market. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:41:43] - Daniel: I don't claim to have all the answers. It would be nice to have it be an open dialog. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:41:17] - Daniel: "So should I just go to PvtM and buy your stocks Paul?" I've always thought the smartest thing would be to maybe use PvtM as a starting point to investigate companies that sound interesting and then make your own decisions from there. Or even tell me why I'm wrong or suggest other companies. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:38:10] - Daniel: "In what feels like a philosphical win of sorts for Paul..." I'm simultaneously happy and nervous... because what if you lose money and blame it all on me now? -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:31:32] - a: Maybe some day I will tell you privately, but I am pretty sure I am right.
-Paul[2021-01-27 03:30:57] - paul: you said "banned". there are no policies against either of those things, as far as i know. ~a
[2021-01-27 03:29:05] - a: Probably stuff around gender or transgender issues (as the J.K. Rowling thing shows, Twitter has a particularly sensitive LGBTQ contingent). Maybe stuff around equality vs equity? -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:27:26] - i honestly doubt you have any views that would get you banned from twitter, but feel free to surprise me. ~a
[2021-01-27 03:26:14] - a: And so the threat feels much more real to me. It's not just a sword being used against bigots and bad people who nobody could possibly like. It's a sword swinging around my neck that could easily come after me next. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:25:39] - like which? ~a
[2021-01-27 03:25:08] - a: And I guess I feel less politically distant? I've said before there's plenty of political opinions I don't feel comfortable sharing with coworkers or on social media and, in fact, I feel pretty confident that I could get myself banned from Twitter for stating some of my opinions. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:23:37] - a: I think maybe because you all feel politically more distant from the bannings that are happening so it feels more... justified? As you said, it's okay when used against bigots. Thankfully you aren't a bigot so you're safe. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:21:48] - a: And just to repeat, I'm guessing you and I (and maybe even Daniel) probably agree 80% in terms of how much of this speech is stupid, misguided, maybe even dangerous. I'm guessing we all agree on all of these Republican examples. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:21:36] - paul: "the very idea that businesses could choose who they wanted to do business with was seen as a terrible shield for racists to use" i feel like we already covered this, but, yes i agree, it is a terrible shield when bigots use it to do biggoty things, and it's a perfectly fine shield when non-bigots use it to do non-biggoty things. ~a
[2021-01-27 03:18:49] - paul: kaepernick definitely was glorifying violence. probably not allowed by their own rules. it wasn't direct, or specific, or imminent, but they do have rules against glorifying violence, so it probably should have been removed. ~a
[2021-01-27 03:15:58] - paul: i'm not sure i agree with twitter that lindell should have had his account removed. i think what he's posting is dumb, and maybe even dangerous, but i probably wouldn't have written the policy such that his account should be removed. ~a
[2021-01-27 03:15:14] - a: Like, you can't have it both ways that glorifying violence and having violence follow is perfectly fine, but questioning election results and then having violence follow isn't? -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:13:48] - a: Because if that's what we're doing, let's return to good ole Kaepernick and his tweets and the violence that followed. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:12:54] - a: That's not what the My Pillow CEO was removed for, was it? Wasn't it just spreading election misinformation? Also, this goes back the incitement discussion. We generally don't hold people responsible for what others do in reaction to their speech unless it meets very specific criteria. Are we expanding that now? -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:12:07] - Back when it was the baker and the gay wedding cake, the very idea that businesses could choose who they wanted to do business with was seen as a terrible shield for racists to use. Now, it the brave sword being brandished to thwart the evil conservatives spreading their speech online. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:09:31] - I was kinda hoping that maybe when there was talk about people "flipping" their stances in terms of their opinion on private companies being able to do business with whoever they wanted that maybe it was a little eye-opening here in terms of a little bit of selective in terms of how political principles are being applied differently to different groups. -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:06:03] - paul: you seem to be trying to create so many false equivalences i don't think i can keep up. did pelosi get her supporters so worked up that they tried to murder people in both parties? ~a
[2021-01-27 03:06:00] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/18/fact-check-partly-false-claim-stacey-abrams-2018-race/6318836002/ When did the Twitter policy go into affect? What about Stacey Abrams? She claimed for a long time her election was stolen. Should she have been banned? -Paul
[2021-01-27 03:02:20] - Daniel: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html The idea that Trump stole the election was definitely pushed by the Democrats. I don't see how anybody can claim otherwise. -Paul
[2021-01-27 02:59:21] - a: Ah, sorry, haven't read through everything yet. -Paul
[2021-01-27 02:58:52] - Daniel: I don't have a horse in the race. I generally dislike both parties equally. So I don't try to make excuses for one side or always look for the bad on the other side. What I hate is the hypocrisy. That it's wrong and dangerous and undemocratic for Trump to claim the election was stolen but not at all when the Democrats claim it. -Paul
[2021-01-27 02:56:46] - paul: yeah pierce beat you to it. 233. ~a
[2021-01-27 02:55:32] - Daniel: So as mad and as unjustified as you think the attack on the capitol was, I feel the same about the BLM riots earlier in the year. Think Trump and company are being lying sore losers about the election? I felt the same about Hillary and the Democrats 4 years earlier. -Paul
[2021-01-27 02:51:32] - Daniel: "I'm also never sure given the format of the message board how serious you are" I'm usually pretty serious (I tend to say in advance if I'm just being devil's advocate). So, I think what will help you understand is that all the anger you feel at Republicans and all the non-benefit of the doubt you give them... is the same way I feel about Democrats (and Republicans). -Paul
[2021-01-27 02:47:27] - Sorry, some family illnesses took me away from my computer today. Remember when we were all making fun of the guy who bought GME at $155 or whatever? Looks like it is up over $200 after hours. -Paul
[2021-01-26 22:49:28] - a: That is a good question. I think one everyone tries to figure out to some extent? -Daniel
[2021-01-26 22:46:31] - ha. how do i monetize my enjoyment? ~a
[2021-01-26 22:46:01] - well both of those are problematic, right? ~a
[2021-01-26 22:45:52] - Or just get value by being entertained at the fact that WSJ is quoting redditors from wsb which is pretty funny. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 22:45:12] - a: I guess it depends on which way one is trying to capitalize on the stupid. Buy shares if you think the stupid is going to keep stupid up or buy shorts if you think the stupid is going to stupid crash. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 22:40:02] - why would i do that? i think the price is terrible. i know you're probably joking, but, yeah i won't be buying shares. ~a
[2021-01-26 22:39:34] - a: Yeah I've wondered what they are thinking. Like yay? But also if you are counting on wsb for your valuation thats a big yikes. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 22:39:01] - a: buy shares? -Daniel
[2021-01-26 22:25:53] - who i'd really hate to be is anybody on the board of game-stop. they're probably all looking at their new valuation and thinking to themselves "uhh, wtf do we do now?" ~a
[2021-01-26 22:13:45] - i definitely can't afford any of these options. ~a
prev <-> next