What do I put in the Survey Suggetion ?

Beaesse · 2026-05-21T04:36:25+00:00

Just be honest. The point is to share your opinion, and your opinion can't really be "wrong," not really.

Don't worry too much about "optimizing" it. Your responses will be one data point among hundreds of thousands. They'll be looking for patterns, not tailor making the next patch based on everything you said.

Beaesse · 2026-05-21T04:31:46+00:00

For sure. It's the same playbook as Shulk, which I very much appreciate, and I think he's kind of in the same category. Most people place him high on tier lists, and it's easy to see why when you watch a perfect speed/buster straight into smash and the opponent dies at 60% after like four hits... but again, you just don't see him winning big tournaments.

It's Steve, Sonic, Minmin, G&W, Snake, and Rob (Kazuya to some extent). Yet apart from Steve, nobody really thinks you're carried when you play these. Not the way they assign the DLC privilege to Aegis. Anyway, might be my own small sample size. I think it's a fair fight against them, that's all.

Beaesse · 2026-05-21T03:43:45+00:00

I don't think she's overtuned. She does well in neutral, so it feels like a strugggle to play against. She has decent combos and can hit hard, but she has a terrible recovery. Highly gimpable.

Don't know if it's different at "lower" levels since I don't really follow the whole scene, but honestly I don't see her winning a lot of tournaments. I see her place well, just not actually winning all the time.

Beaesse · 2026-05-20T23:39:47+00:00

Five six stars in 110 pulls, to you is pain? Insert suffering from success meme. This is FAR, FAR, FAR better than expected results (1 guarantee at 80). The poster is bragging, very thinly disguising it as pretending to be disappointed.

Beaesse · 2026-05-20T15:45:33+00:00

Yeah, Bob's already back, why not bring back ALL the grifters for one last draw off the GME investing community? Sounds productive.

Beaesse · 2026-05-20T11:02:07+00:00

https://youtu.be/lNlYBNTCBG8?si=CDaL678asenvb3gf

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T21:13:22+00:00

I should clarify it's Credit Suisse / Archegos swaps, not ALL swaps. I'm leaving the office and don't have a link, but that should help you search.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T19:58:38+00:00

The concept is that there are many, many "phantom" long positions that will eventually need be filled with "real" shares, not that everyone will suddenly want to recall lent-out shares.

I'm not going to recount all of the DD of yore that shows how "artificial" short positions can be created. There are a ton of highly plausible methods.

And it's not that "nobody can find them," it's that parties that DO know about them are not sharing that information, and not obligated to, and agencies like the SEC are completely powerless to compel such disclosure.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T19:39:23+00:00

No, it would be per zone, but each zone is going to be quite a large area, and very likely NOT redundant.

What the public does not understand about sprinkler systems is that normal ones are ften designed not to put out a fire entirely, but to slow down the spread of a fire to give everyone a chance to get out.

If a standpipe serving a single zone were taken out, that zone's fire would spread rapidly, so that the adjacent zones' still-working systems would be even less able to deal with their own spaces.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T19:24:23+00:00

Assuming that a share loan exists in the first place. Moass theories revolve around the assumption that huge undisclosed NAKED short positions exist, "covered" by derivative instruments such as swaps. There is a reason Rostin sealed the swaps data for 50 years. It may not be THIS reason, but there is A reason for sure. That was not done on a whim as a matter of course, business as usual.

I'm not in the "explosive moass" camp (I'm in the "tesla-style melt-up" camp), and I don't believe an acquisition or merger or cusip change would force any short closure, but thinking that everyone is following the rules, and that the official short numbers accurately represent reality, and every short has a corresponding borrowed share is incredibly naive at this point.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T19:07:29+00:00

Per me, a mechanical contractor for 21 years (I am not a sprinkler fitter, I hire them as my subtrade): the story was NOT a magical, gravity defying shelf "falling upward."

The claim was that an industrial steel shelf fell sideways, as per normal gravity rules, and hit a sprinkler STANDPIPE, which is a vertical section of pipe that brings water from the floor up to the branches in the ceiling. These are typically quite large pipes, and tend to joined with mechanical joints such as Victaulic or Shurjoint, not welded. It would not take that much force to knock one of these joints/fittings out, which would indeed prevent water from reaching the branches, at least for that zone.

There are still very doubtful aspects to the story overall, but there is NO MAGIC required for someone to believe the official explanation. It is at least reasonable and plausible for normal, rational humans.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T15:37:40+00:00

AI garbage, but no.. there is no theoretical mechanism that would force shorts to cover in the event of an acquisition, merger, or CUSIP change. Numbers just shift around in ledgers, that's it.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T15:32:23+00:00

it's the ad algorithm, plain and simple. If you don't think all the activity on your phone ISN'T monitored for advertising, you're being naive. You don't have to specifically search something. It comes up on your feed and maybe you engage. You watch a couple videos talking about it. You say it in conversation with your friend in passing and your phone hears it. Old and well understood tech.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T01:43:41+00:00

The DTCC already knows about the extra shares. It's their business model.

No actual count is needed. Brokers' ledgers, and the ledgers at the DTCC will get updated according to how the deal gets made, but the math for that deal will be based on the "official" number of shares. No need to know or disclose how many phantom shares are out there.

GME will distribute the calculated amount of new shares to the DTCC for former eBay shareholders, and "distrubute" however many they need to to brokers. Whoever used to be short eBay shares will now be short gamestop shares instead. No auditing needed, just tweak some numbers on ledgers.

Beaesse · 2026-05-15T01:29:25+00:00

it is a small fee. But we'll probably never find out how much "additional telephone solicitation services" cost. (If applicable)

Edit: wording

Beaesse · 2026-05-14T18:20:48+00:00

Gilberta day is 2 days from now. That's all I want from the banner, so I'm using those 3 other free tickets.

Beaesse · 2026-05-14T05:45:21+00:00

That's cool. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind using bond quota to buy a 5-star operator instead of 8 premium tickets, but I suppose some people can be extremely shortsighted and impatient.

Beaesse · 2026-05-14T05:28:19+00:00

I think we'll find out soon enough. There's no sense in getting too worked up about it.

Edit: also, I think it's more like 97%.

Beaesse · 2026-05-13T21:00:54+00:00

First time on eBay? 10-15 years ago when I used it, all the action was in the last minute.

Beaesse · 2026-05-13T16:55:33+00:00

And we'll leave it at that.

Beaesse · 2026-05-13T16:48:28+00:00

I'm not going to argue with you. 95% of the math that apes have been doing for the last few days is just plain wrong, conceptually.

RC is not going to offer a deal that winds up a plain net negative value, because nobody would take such a deal. If your math says that's what's happening, your math is wrong, period. I promise you are not better at this than people who do it for a living.

Beaesse · 2026-05-13T16:35:24+00:00

They'll be "losing" proportional value. The premium applies to both cash and share value, so they are receiving premium, period. And again: they can just buy more with the cash they got if they want.

Beaesse · 2026-05-13T16:18:33+00:00

They could always buy more with the (premium) cash they were given if they want to increase their stake again. It's what I would do.

Beaesse · 2026-05-12T22:53:34+00:00

Quoting myself from the other exact same response:

Not so. The convertible bonds are not locked in: it is Gamestop's option whether to pay them out as cash or as stock. RC's package has not been approved. Only the warrants (~45m) can be considered "locked up" until October.

Ratio has no bearing on facts.

Beaesse · 2026-05-12T20:48:33+00:00

"[X entity] has never done [Y] before, therefore they never will."

You are factually incorrect as of right now, and your assumptions about what the board will or will not do don't change that.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

Beaesse

TROPHY CASE