arch_8ngel

You should read the book to see where I'm coming from. It is not written as a "father-son journey" that has any positive takeaway, IMO -- it is the most utterly hopeless story of surviving for the sake of surviving after pretty much all of the other good people in the world have apparently killed themselves out of despair and only the worst people are left to contend with.

As a sidenote to the "downer movies" discussion -- do any of you guys remember the Aliens line of action figures? Did you know they were supposed to be affiliated with a CARTOON SERIES based on Aliens? I love those movies... but I have a hard time seeing how you take something that grim and make a kid's show out of it.

I'll keep that in mind, since I love Vigo's work, and was originally really excited about the trailer. But man... that book... it does one of the most thorough and lasting jobs of stripping away the concept of hope that I have ever seen. It is genuinely traumatizing.

Reading that book was legitimately one of the most depressing experiences of my life, up to that point. It was hard for me to imagine wanting to inflict that on myself again in movie form.

I'm going to assume that The Road fits the bill... though I could never make myself watch that one after I read the book.

or Pi from the same director. Jacob's Ladder is another "fever dream" type of movie that you just walk away from feeling like you need a shower.

It means the process goes like this: (1) you file your dispute with Paypal -- and for whatever reason they decide against you (2) you then file a chargeback with your CC (3) Paypal still says you owe them the money, because they previously decided against you, and they decide to send you to collections if you don't pay them back the money you just charged back That is -- your recourse doesn't double by having both your CC and Paypal as a middleman -- instead it will most likely stop with Paypal. And I strongly suspect, that if any of us fully read the Paypal terms and conditions, we all likely signed up to have to accept whatever Paypal's findings are in a dispute (i.e. we potentially forfeit chargeback justification against them as part of the agreement -- though admittedly, I've never cared enough to read that in detail, because there isn't enough at stake for me to worry about it) So generally, I would rather cut out the middleman (that in fact, represents an extra vulnerability) and just deal with CC issuers, who have legal requirements around specific cc-related consumer protections.

You aren't really getting an extra layer of protection with what you describe -- if Paypal doesn't side with you, and then you execute a chargeback counter to Paypal's findings, then Paypal will potentially send you to collections. Basically you are leaving it up to Paypal (or whatever other middle-man you choose). Personally, I would rather make sure I have full/direct access to the strong consumer protections associated with credit cards. Exposing credit card information to online points of sale is the lowest liability transaction you can execute online -- the only hassle is the time it takes to make a 5 minute phone call to have the issuer overnight a new card, assuming you have already set up transaction log emails so that you're aware of any fraud.

A little confused by your last statement here -- paying by credit card online is probably the MOST secure way for a buyer to pay, in that they have the cleanest and clearest path to established legal protections. Every layer you add in the middle convolutes your ability to leverage the legal protections inherent to your credit card.

There was at least one post on WSB of a guy that was laughing at the news for picking up his fake story that sounded similar -- might have been the same guy. (basically pranking reporters that were doing poor due diligence)

A chunk of the WSB crowd get into some truly stupid situations like investing their student loans or getting into options where they can't possibly cover the losing the side of the bet.

I'm not bitter at all, and you're misreading me if you think that is where I am on this. (and for reference, your "I'm disappointed in you" routine is rude as hell and not remotely constructive) But I suspect I'm not the only reader of your few posts in the thread that read the tone of your posts as gloating/"I told you so" in nature (given my recollection of your history with Jonebone in similar threads in the past it was easy for me to read it that way, at least -- maybe that wasn't completely fair). In all honesty, my main "emotion" on this is intrigue/fascination at the battle between the mania of retail traders with the tactics taken by the hedge funds to forcibly stop the momentum. Things were done that I think most retail traders weren't even aware were possible, and it's been interesting to see it all unfold. (and by way of an admission to Jonas, my original posts tracking DFV's progress/status were tongue-in-cheek -- though through the spike it was a convenient way to "keep score" on the level of mania -- evidently you took offense at those posts)

Along with safer companies (or just general large-cap SP500 type funds) -- I've spent the last year getting more into REITs that have a good track record (and actually raised their dividends during the pandemic). Not a large slice of the portfolio, but more-or-less accounts for being in "real estate" at all, since I don't particularly want the concentrated risk of land-lording.

Unfortunately, due to the low rates, the liquidity injections, and general stimulus we seem to be in a scenario of asset-inflation, where holding cash is getting eroded pretty badly against the broader market returns. But don't get your wires crossed on bear-vs-bull market activity and whether the broader economy is in a "recession", though. The two aren't always related as closely as it sometimes seems. Right now, for practical purposes, risk free rates of return are pretty close to zero, so that serves to crowd money into the market seeking any kind of return at all. (though as an individual, you could get risk free rates of almost 4% for relatively small amounts of money in the form of EE-bonds -- BUT you have to hold them for 20 years to maturity to capture the guaranteed doubling - otherwise their rate is basically zero, as well!) It's as good of an opportunity as any to do some serious assessment of how you have your broader portfolio balanced, though.

Not me. I just held onto one share after the ridiculous ride up, to be legitimate party to any lawsuits that come out around the trading halt activity. (but at a low enough cost basis that I don't mind holding that one share as a memento of the market mania) And Jonas was out of GME before the last round of mania, anyway, so if you're looking to say "I told you so" to him, you're looking in the wrong place. It was pretty interesting to see what lengths the hedge funds could go to, and who they were able to bring to their aid, to manipulate things from their end, and counter the mania-fueled run-up.

If that is true, that is really unfortunate -- and seems a bit petty on Nintendo's part (though I understand they have a different business culture, in terms of what is tolerated). A claymation style Star Fox would have been really well-received, I bet, given the massive success of the various LEGO animated shows. Live-action Zelda seems a lot harder to pull off well -- and a little surprising they would note have gone animated for that one -- though it might be a matter of brand-differentiation from newer fantasy animated shows like LEGO Elves (from a few years back) and Dragon Prince (Netflix). Though it would have been cool to see a well-executed version done live.

If all of their money is tied up on platforms that restricted buying, then the only resistance they can provide is not selling, rather than being able to buy.

It takes multiple business days for transfers like that to clear. If it wasn't understood to even be a risk/problem until after Thursday, there hasn't been enough time for any of the robinhood kids to move their stuff to a real brokerage yet.

I'll believe we're there once Robinhood and others allow unrestricted buying again. While the artificial suppression of buying may win in the end -- while it is going on, the actual willingness to buy is not fully known.

For what it's worth -- this is not a fact, it is an estimate, and the origins of the estimate have a significant chance of conflict of interest. That said -- the attacks by shorts in combination with heavily restricted retail volume may end up succeeding. EDIT: also A LOT of clamoring on reddit that the silver discussion is a smear campaign by media/hedgies and that wsb says they are NOT investing in it.

Well that is a different story -- I thought you were talking about picking a non-kit block. If you have some dickhead running the show that assigning blocks as a starting point rather than random assignment or some kind of lottery-order, that is a different issue. Though it would take a pretty horrific grain pattern to make the block unworkable when the vast majority of the block is "waste material" anyway, and the vast majority of the weight is non-wood weight added anywhere you want it during the construction process (could certainly end up with a situation that leaves you dealing with power-tools to work the block, though, I guess, if you had a giant knot in the middle)

That would be the opposite of "keeping things fair", IMO -- using the issued kit for the main car is part of the starting from a level playing field. Any derby I've ever participated in required you to use the parts from the kit. (had to use those nails, those wheels, that block) You an modify from there within the weight and size limits -- but you had to use the core kit.

Well in this case the short-side hedge funds are really losing billions of dollars -- it is a DIFFERENT set of hedge funds profiting off of the mania on the long-side. I saw it put succinctly elsewhere "the only thing hedge funds like more than making money is fucking other hedge funds" So I don't think there is a lot of love lost between the major players.

Well, personally, I prefer the "value added" to the existing product. They signed up for it, it is good to see them deliver on promises made.

They're not selling options on it, at all, I think (via Robinhood) They're in a serious liquidity crunch due to the clearinghouse raising coverage requirements in a way they (as a VC-funded startup) were not equipped to handle.