Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Battle of GameStop

paranoidenough.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 583 posts

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#481

Post by SilasX »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #461
nico_h wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, but how will the stock be covered, and by whom? If there is no enough stock to buy to cover the outstanding contracts?

GME can always issue more shares and that will give them a sizable injection of cash.

I thought that takes a lot of time though, because of SEC filings, after which the bubble could be over. Or are they allowed to hold on to a bunch of ready-to-go shares?

(Honestly asking and don't know, everyone please only answer if you have knowledge of how these kinds of things work and are able to identify and explain away the relevant confusions.)

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#482

Post by SilasX »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #351
rokobobo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, if a whole generation YOLOs hard enough, maybe the government will actually choose to bail them out for once.

Does anyone really believe that? The Fed'Gov couldn't get it together enough to vote for $600 assistance checks. We might see something before too long... maybe. And this is for a global pandemic. You think they're gonna do anything if people choose to make risky-ass bets that don't pan out?

Isn't that exactly what happened with home ownership? Everyone levers up to buy a home, real estate goes into a bubble, and when it would normally crash, the government comes out in force with grants and easy credit programs ("Making Home Affordable" etc) because those malinvestors dominate the voting pool.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#483

Post by Tycho »

cableshaft wrote: post #212
watwut wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> partied through college, skipped classes, hardly worked, majored in women’s studies / art history / literature / Some of those things are not like the other. I studied computer science, plenty of people partied and as far as I can tell, people who studied humanities like literature had to work more. It was not easier major in terms of how much you have to work. I liked computer science, so I am always surprised abo…

I majored in Computer Science and minored in English, with a focus in literature. I can only speak for myself, but most of my Computer Science classes were nowhere near a cake walk, while I aced every single literature class, even the 300 level classes. The only hard part about the literature classes was how much reading was assigned (often 300+ pages before the next class, per class, which might be 2 days later). Bu…

I got a degree in literature (from a top 100 university) and I'd say it was possible to pass without applying yourself too much, but getting top marks for essays was very difficult.

Now that I've ended up working in software engineering, I wish I'd had the foresight to have done joint degree in computer science and literature. Applying NLP techniques to literature would have been a blast.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#484

Post by glazyrin »

gruez wrote: post #480
glazyrin wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a truism which doesn't always apply. Suppose that there are 1,000 basement-dwelling redditors (okay, it's a caricature). Each has their basic needs taken care of, but not much money, and not much scope to improve their lot in life. What little money they have doesn't get invested, but spent frivolously. Suppose 1,000 such people could all put in $500 and give it to a randomly selected one of them. Tha…

>What little money they have doesn't get invested, but spent frivolously. The implication you're making here is that these people wouldn't mind losing $500/year, because it's otherwise being spent "frivolously". I don't think this is true because if you're spending it on something , you're getting joy out of it, otherwise you wouldn't be spending money on it in the first place. For reference, $500 can buy you a game…

You seem to believe that saving is a virtue, that you get what you pay for, that interest rates have a natural level much higher than zero, and in 'diminishing returns'. I accept that you and many other people believe in those things, but I don't think they are universally believed in, not particularly supported by evidence.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#485

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

glazyrin wrote: post #475
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire comment is a strawman. Either way, your first comment is false. Sex is not free. I can't go outside and instantly have sex. I need a partner who is willing - which is, again, not free. > Women getting married and having children later should mean more opportunities for casual sex, not fewer. You're conflating "should" with "What is." You think it "should" mean more opportunities - but you haven't given an…

This is the comment you're replying to: > why blame older people for your generation having less sex? If you think it is the responsibility of older people that younger people aren't having as much sex, then why? If not, then what are you challenging? I didn't say that there was more sex going on, not that student debt was great, not that Tinder was awesome. Your whole argument seems to be 'there is less sex availabl…

> It does not contradict my suggestion that younger people are choosing to have less sex.

People make choices based on their situation. Their situation leads them to choose less sex. You're proving my point.

> Nor does it disprove the theory that the availability of alternatives to in-person sex has made it less attractive.

I don't buy this theory. Masturbation always felt good, and I doubt if you put the option of easy sex next to masturbating most would choose the easy sex. The problem is that easy sex is hard to find. Partners have less time and have more pressures now than in prior times - thus reducing opportunities and reducing overall sex. It isn't just young people having less sex:

> From 2000 to 2002, 71 percent and 69 percent of married men and women, respectively, reported having sex weekly. In 2016 to 2018, that dropped to 58 and 61 percent of married men and women, respectively, having weekly sex.

Even married men and women are having less sex.

Options like pornography aren't people's first choice. They'd probably choose sex if all things were equal. Just like you'd rather choose a steak over chicken tenders - but if you can't get the steak, and it's too hard to get the steak, you settle for the chicken tenders, and here we are.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#486

Post by toomuchtodo »

55555 wrote: post #303
ollifi wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/r/wsb is kind of insanity, but I’ve come to think that maybe young person can YOLO a bit against the odds somewhere in life. If something returns poorly on average, but has high payouts at the top it might just work out. Your life won’t be the average case but single sample. Lottery is too improbable but some other things ”no rational person would do” can be ok. Main thing is to get over with it soon and protect the…

> I’ve come to think that maybe young person can YOLO a bit against the odds somewhere in life. If something returns poorly on average, but has high payouts at the top it might just work out. Your life won’t be the average case but single sample. This is indeed, after all, a website about founding startups.

The only difference between being a founder and gambling is the social signaling. In both cases, luck is a larger component than grit (lots of amazing folks have failed through no fault of their own).

No shame in gambling your way to wealth if you don't care about the social signaling.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#487

Post by SifJar »

pseudo0 wrote: post #278
SifJar wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And likewise - if they lose loads of money, isn't that a bunch of people's retirement accounts? We're not just talking about some Wall Street traders losing some money (who can likely afford to), but regular people may suddenly be finding they can't afford to retire as soon as they had planned.

Hedge funds are only allowed to manage the money of accredited investors, people with over $1 million in assets and sophisticated financial knowledge and experience. So when a hedge fund screws up, its investors might have to put off getting a new Ferrari for a year or two, but no one is ending up destitute.

Ah my mistake, I thought hedge fund clients would include pensions etc.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#488

Post by PartiallyTyped »

SilasX wrote: post #481
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GME can always issue more shares and that will give them a sizable injection of cash.

I thought that takes a lot of time though, because of SEC filings, after which the bubble could be over. Or are they allowed to hold on to a bunch of ready-to-go shares? (Honestly asking and don't know, everyone please only answer if you have knowledge of how these kinds of things work and are able to identify and explain away the relevant confusions.)

I am not sure either tbh.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#489

Post by LunaSea »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #348
blackrock wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now the new proposal is for people to live in RVs, and wander from town to town? No security. No firm ground to call home. This is a life worse than the medieval ages.

> No security. No firm ground to call home. I don't see the attraction but when you consider all the overhead costs that come with living traditionally I can see why it makes sense. FWIW a non-trivial minority of people in the residential building trades have been doing this for years. They move north and south with the construction seasons.

That overhead comes with quality of life.

As a nomad in an RV you don't have a fridge, a shower and the price of the RV loses value over time compared to a house.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#490

Post by imtringued »

glazyrin wrote: post #484
gruez wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What little money they have doesn't get invested, but spent frivolously. The implication you're making here is that these people wouldn't mind losing $500/year, because it's otherwise being spent "frivolously". I don't think this is true because if you're spending it on something , you're getting joy out of it, otherwise you wouldn't be spending money on it in the first place. For reference, $500 can buy you a game…

You seem to believe that saving is a virtue, that you get what you pay for, that interest rates have a natural level much higher than zero, and in 'diminishing returns'. I accept that you and many other people believe in those things, but I don't think they are universally believed in, not particularly supported by evidence.

Saving isn't a virtue. You need a healthy balance between savings and spending. The economy is like a power grid. You cannot save labor. Any work that is currently done has to be consumed within a short time frame. Food rots. Technology gets obsolete.
Post reply on HN