I've followed the gme saga off and on for the past few months, I've never once seen the theory debunked. If this is actually the case, could you post a link to it?
As far as I understand it, the core aspect of an impending “MOASS” is that GME stock is still shorted > 100%, but SI is currently reported at around 15%[0].
In other words, the canonical measure that represents the ratio of uncovered shorts to the float is ... wrong? There are people who are short, but are not short?
From what I got, the majority of the actual short would be hidden in some method of put-call options shenanigans (not sure what it is now, but there was at some point the equivalent of 2 times the float in $<2 puts a year out)
A lot the bigger theories that they preach can't be disproven because they get updated to take into account new facts. For example, the entire MOASS theory (Mother of all short squeezes) is founded on the idea that hedge funds have shorted the entire float of GameStop multiple times over. This theory was created when GME's short interest was over 100%, but now that it's reported to be down around 20%, the theory has evolved and to say that the short interest we see is a lie because hedge funds a in cahoots with data providers as well as selling through dark pools to hide the actual short interest.
The first version of the theory WAS disproved, so the theory evolved to account for that. You see that same pattern over and over with everything the preach right now. If they correctly predict something it's proof that they're on the right track. If they make an incorrect prediction, they just didn't have the right data and they "discover" something new that will make their theory right.
That being said, if you stalk their sub (its my guilty pleasure), there's plenty of small things they get wrong that are easily disproven. They love to talk about GME's price movement being unique (GME went up 11% today on no news), but it tends to move in tandem with plenty of other speculative stocks, which they ignore. They love to talk about how the reverse repo update that gets posted every day is a sign that they're on the right track even when the first post that brought that data to their sub claimed it wasn't definitive proof of anything, just a weird thing that was happening.
I think the icing on the cake is the one guy from Florida who is a member of their sub who sued GameStop in an effort to get more information. When they held a stockholder vote sometime in 2021 there were 8 different items to vote on and the total number of shares added up differently in one of the votes. In the last vote, if you add up all the yes and no votes, there was one additional vote. GameStop claimed that the difference was because of rounding fractional share votes, but the guy claimed it was proof of naked shorting, so he sued. GameStop's own lawyers said the guy said there was no proof of naked shorting and that the lawsuit was frivolous and are asking the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice and have the guy pay their legal fees.
It's not debunked at all. You have to remember that this is the same corruption level that had the 'buy' command (but not 'sell') turned off just for that stock for a day on RH -- and no one went to jail.
There is growing pressure as more and more investors DRS their shares to push back, so we'll see more articles like the one above, convincing us that the short squeeze is over, trying to convince people to sell. Because once 100% of shares are registered, it's all over.
> once 100% of shares are registered, it's all over.
IF you can extrapolate the rising trend all the way to 100%, then shorting would be quite a bit more difficult for most market participants. But the fact that some investor have DRSed their shares does not mean all the rest will, too. You might equally ask that if it would be so beneficial for shareholders to do this, why haven't all shareholders done it already?
As someone without any direct interest in the whole saga (neither short nor long), it sure looks like the whole thing has been over for at least six months.
> it sure looks like the whole thing has been over for at least six months
I think for passive spectators it may feel that way. For those people in it (and I was in WSB from before this started), it's absolutely right in the middle of the action. They has a steady march of registering shares for months and it's not letting up.
The more that directly register their shares, the smaller the pool to manage the price. It doesn't have to hit 100% for there to be an effect. But if it ever does hit 100%, wow.
IMO Swift is a language written by a compiler guy to solve compiler problems. the syntax is dense because it forces you to make a lot of decisions that could otherwise go unmade in objc.
If a variable is read-only, you're forced to think about that by deciding between let/var. contrast this with objc, where all vars are writable unless you do the extra work of adding the const keyword. objc makes us do more work to get the faster (and safer) behavior.
Similar with Optionals, you're now forced to decide right away if a parameter can ever be nil, whereas with objc you didn't need to declare nullability. Again, it makes the safest and fastest choice easier to make, and allowing nullability is actually more work.
Generally Swift forces you to pass as much information to the compiler as possible at compile time, and it does it with a delightfully readable syntax. This theme repeats itself throughout the language. more information at compile time is always going to result in safer and more predictable behavior.
full disclosure: i'm an iOS dev working in objc and swift. i love both languages, and i think swift is the obvious path forward.
You've hit the nail on the head, but I take the opposite conclusion.
Swift is designed around premature optimization. In my experience, improving programmer productivity is more important. The more time spent with compiler enforced busywork is less time in Instruments. The same goes for compile times. If you want people to write fast code then help them to iterate quickly.
One of the problems I have is that I love python, but I was hoping that swift would be like python on steroids. Instead, I can’t make the leap because python lets me iterate so freaking fast. If I could have something like that with the ability to incrementally improve my code and compile to a binary, I’d be happy. I thought awift would be it, but your comment helped me understand why it isn’t working for me.
Full disclosure, I’m not a full time dev, so YMMV.
> IMO Swift is a language written by a compiler guy to solve compiler problems.
I'm not convinced; the examples you give require _more_ work for the compiler writer, not less. In general, a stronger type systems means that the compiler has to do more.
I see it in the sense that if the target for both compilers is to produce a correct program, then that target is much easier to achieve with more information (and less assumptions) passed in the source code by the programmer (ie Swift).
another Brooklynite here. this is 100% true. You absolutely needed to "trick" the driver into letting you into the car. I've had taxis drive off, or refuse to let me in. When I was in the car, they would say they can't take me to my destination because their "shift was ending" and they had to go in a different direction. Many of these incidents happened in the LES, which is right next to the bridge I had to cross!
Taxi drivers also never know the destination, I got pretty good at giving my directions speech (to a well known neighborhood)
And taxis cost more!
As far as I'm concerned, the old way of hailing can rot, the old taxis can rot. they can't hold a candle to uber, and they'll never be able to become competitive on price or quality given the cost of a medallion.
This still doesn't address the fact that the reason Uber experiences are different from this is purely down to subsidy. If drivers weren't being subsidized to provide the unprofitable rides that yellow cabs are forced to provide by law (and which drivers try to avoid), then Uber also wouldn't provide this.
Basically, your comment is the same as saying, "I am glad VCs are giving me reduced-cost rides and subsidizing drivers to provide ride stock for intrinsically unprofitable routes and locations."
You're not saying that the Uber experience is better than the old yellow cab experience. You're saying that the experience where VCs give away money for free in order to finance a ride you could otherwise never expect to get (except at much higher price) is nice.
This isn't a property of Uber or any transformation of taxi services. It is just a temporary property of VCs being willing to artificially increase supply, artificially increase car quality, and artificially reduce prices via subsidy, while not providing any evidence that it could persist without subsidy.
I finally understand what you are saying: it's as if Uber is like Kozmo.com and Uber's service of safe, convenient, affordable transportation, despite existing in reality now, won't exist in some near future, much like Kozmo's subsidized service of same day turnaround of food, groceries, alcohol, coffee, home goods, etc. was part of a fleeting moment never to be realized again...
Yes, that is a good comparison. With Uber though, it is dramatically worse, since all obtainable data about their finances shows that Uber has created, by far, the biggest losses among VC-funded companies in the start-up / post-tech-bubble era. The degree of Uber's published losses is _staggering_ to a level not seen before. And yet, there has so far been no accounting or financial data to support any path to profitability, let alone a path that could keep prices at levels that drivers and riders are happy with. So it's not just something like "will Uber make it or not?" It's more like, "with losses of X _billion_, when do we stop pretending the 'business' is anything other than a donation from VCs to consumers?"
Naked Capitalism's multi-part series goes into this with extreme detail on the finance and business model side.
This is generally the first thing that everyone thinks in response to seeing Uber's shocking loss numbers and lack of profitability in the model where drivers needs to be subsidized greatly to increase supply in unprofitable areas.
Since the idea of self-driving cars as an Uber savior is so common, it is one of the most deeply analyzed, particularly by Naked Capitalist [0].
The outlook doesn't look good unless some very specific and IMO unlikely conditions are met for _any_ ride hailing service.
Most ride-hailing services can only profit from self-driving technology if they get it to a fully completed and commercially viable final product. Partial solutions that could power robotics at, say, a seaport or warehouse, likely wouldn't work well unless the business pivots away from ride-hailing. The ride-hailing part, though, requires a full end-to-end solution before the losses Uber currently has could ever begin unwinding or leading towards a profit.
But the problem here is that many competitors in the self-driving tech space are perfectly able to profit from shorter term or partial solutions. Waymo and GM in particular. And if they can build from incremental successes, rather than needing the whole shebang before they can use it for profit, it suggests they will have a large advantage when claiming patents, understanding how the technology works for customer needs, legal requirements or licenses, and many other things.
In short, Uber would basically need to beat all of those competitors to self-driving tech, create an unassailable patent war chest from it, _and_ get the commercial implementation all the way to the end state where it is ready for consumers in large-scale taxi situations (including all the issues with governments, safety, and so on)... all _before_ any competitor seriously develops even partial business models on components of overall self-driving systems.
I just think it's such an unrealistic ask. But I do grant that somehow, maybe, if Uber is exceptional enough at self-driving cars, it is a possibility they could become a full on monopoly of the tech and that would be their way to capture the market and have room to charge higher prices.
But essentially _any_ other outcome in which self-driving tech is commoditized, so that either Uber leases it out from someone else like Waymo or GM, or where multiply players all have separate commercially viable systems, then Uber would gain no cost advantage.
Basically, if Lyft, Via, Uber, local taxis, etc., are all just licensing the same self-driving cars, then everybody can eliminate the cost of drivers, and now suddenly you're in the same price war you were in with drivers. The total price of a ride might be lower, but you're still pressured to drive it to the marginal price that the wear and tear on the self-driving vehicle costs, because all the other players can do this too.
So it means Uber's expenses would go down, but their revenue per ride should go down more or less exactly the same, eating away any excess revenue gained from eliminating the need for a driver. Sure, it won't be perfect, but it still immediately begs the question, how can Uber prove this would be profitable? So far, there is no evidence to suggest it would be, unless Uber has an insane monopoly of self-driving for ride-hailing.
Finally, the second thing everyone thinks of after they realize that self-driving doesn't change the fundamental profitability of taxi services if it's commodity, is they think about Uber-based gig economy stuff like Uber Eats. But there again, Naked Capitalism has looked into it, and the results are dire.
The best I could say is that maybe Uber can find a way to use partially completed or partially approved self-driving tech to hammer on their logistics business. But again, any way you slice it, to be profitable, it literally requires a pivot away from general purpose ride-hailing. The business model is intrinsically not profitable for what Uber claims to do. A subsidy to increase ride stock in regions where ride stuck is fundamentally unprofitable is, well, unprofitable. It's just a VC subsidy. Unless they produce an innovation whereby they actually reduce the in-built cost of inconvenient and under served transit relative to all other ride providers, then they don't have a business there, just more losses.
In fairness this is almost impossible to guess: the is no label and no indication you can press the thing. It was only muscle memory and the fact that my mac now goes into flicker-mode weekly that lead me to discover this.
ports put a limit on how thin the laptop can be. a VGA connection can't get smaller, an RJ-45 jack can't get smaller. the dimensions of the laptop define how realistically "portable" it may be, which is ostensibly the main argument for laptops in the first place.
I'm happy to see the RJ-45, I don't care if it's thinner, my ~2011 mbp had one and thought it was a fine size (miss being able to reasonably upgrade the ram and hdd myself too). I'd much rather see another hdmi or dp/mini-dp over the vga though. Though the lack of a quality touchpad is the biggest omission for me... I hate all laptop keyboards, but the mbp touchpad is super nice.
My Panasonic CF-RZ5 weighs 1.6lbs, and sports VGA, HDMI, Ethernet, 3xUSB3, a headphone jack, a power socket, a 1920x1200 IPS display, and a removable battery. It is from 2016, and makes the idea of all of these features compromising portability questionable.
HR could totally act in the way the article describes. They exist to protect the interests of the organization, and to minimize boat-rocking. It would be easy for HR to dismiss her claims in the very same way that you are. Before we start down the path of victim-blaming, lets at least consider the possibility her claims are valid.
Telling a victim that they should expect to be abused further (in the form of a negative review) does not minimize boat rocking or protect the interests of the organization. It leaves them open to lawsuits and antagonizes the victim into further action. And if it was true that they were protecting the manager because he was high-performing, why would you make this explicit. It just makes no sense and reeks of one side of a story.
I see you've never actually dealt with HR departments before.
I worked at a company where the director of IT/Dev hired his wife to the department; they were swingers and engaged in a variety of unethical and harassing behavior. If you got on his wife's bad side he would punish you by taking away bonuses. He was also regularly drunk at work (and later died of liver failure around age 45). They both propositioned women in the office.
Nothing was done. HR papered over any complaints and ensured anyone who did complain was given a bad performance review to ensure if a lawsuit were ever filed they could point to bad performance and claim it was just sour grapes. He was seen as critical to the success of the department and the company had grown quickly. The head of HR was old golfing buddies with the CEO and both were friends with the director in question.
He was only fired once he grabbed one of his manager's breasts while in a huge meeting with a bunch of people. This was not the first time he grabbed women around the office, but there were too many witnesses to punish the victim in this specific case.
I agree that HR should not behave in the ways it's claimed they did. However, based on my perception of Uber's willingness to ignore rules, I find it believable that they could have an HR department that thinks such actions are a good choice; I also wouldn't be surprised if they don't do any of the state mandated harassment training either for all employees or the addition training for managers.
I also believe the claims because they are very specific, egregious, and should be verifiable; and they were related in a simply facts manner: there were no questions of intent or what the other people were thinking, and only a limited amount of heresay. Additionally, it felt more like a "this kind of thing is happening, you should watch out for it" than a call for pitchforks and torches.
Willingness to ignore rules does not lead to these actions. It's nonsensical. There is no way you would tell a complainant that you were protecting a manager because they were high performing. You would be extremely secretive about that. There is no way you would tell a complainant that they should expect a negative review for reporting sexual harassment. You would placate them to make the problem go away.
I don't understand the couple other posters who are dismissing this article. it is exactly what it claims to be, a practical introduction to functional programming.
I'd also like to echo poster vvanders sentiments about Rust and how it compliments the functional style. I've experienced the same feelings, although I did it while working in Swift.
And for those out there asking "why is FP better", I submit that it allows for fewer ways for me to shoot myself in the foot.
