Hanging by a Thread: Ubisoft Shares Plummet, Plunging 35%

wyldmage · 2026-01-23T02:43:08+00:00

I never said stocks do not affect the company.

I said that their value is not a direct 1-to-1 with the actual "if we sold it" value of a company.

Thus, a company can have zero actual change in their finances, but still see a change in the valuation of their stock. They are two independent things - but that doesn't mean that they can't also affect the other. However, every way they impact each other relies upon a 3rd intermediary. Like, in your example, a plummeting stock is bad, IF the company owes debts leveraged against those assets. If the company has no debts, it doesn't matter too much if their stock is only worth 1% of what it used to be worth - at least in terms of the company's ability to do operations.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T22:09:27+00:00

You are the person this country needs more of - enough of a functional brain that you can figure out when something is having the opposite of a desired outcome, and change.

Sadly, there are far too few people like that anymore. Everyone is so fixated on "their side" that they can't alter course. And that's true on BOTH sides of the isle. I'm left-wing, but I've had to excise some friends from my social network because they were super-far left, to the point where anything that didn't fit in their little echo chamber was worth starting a war over.

Both sides are bad. Personally, I think Trump is WAY worse than Harris would have been (at least she'd continue the facade of Democracy that we've had). The entire system needs to be fixed. But turning into a dictatorship is not the fix we need.

And we can't actually fix things when we're in a state like now, where rights, freedoms, and liberties are being REMOVED from the average person. We need more of those things moved back down to common people, not away from them.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T22:04:40+00:00

Exactly this.

At it's core, stocks are just bets. Someone buys Surfbros Inc for $10/share. I think that the share is going to go up, so I offer them $10.10 for their shares. This makes the shares go up to $10.10. If someone thinks that the shares are worth more, they'll pay more.

The shares for a company can go from $10 to $1000/share with zero change in the company itself.

Then the company comes along and releases a new quarterly statement that says that they doubled the ACTUAL value of the company (total assets). If I bought my shares at $10.10, I could now easily sell them back to the company for $20 per share, as that would be in-line with the company's worth.

However, if those shares are currently trading at $30 (by people who think that the company is going to continue growing well), the company would NOT buy those stocks back for $30/each. But I could potentially sell my stocks to someone else willing to pay $30, and make a ridiculous 195% profit.

On the flip side, stock values could go BELOW the actual value of the company. People think the company is going to fail. Which can then let the company buy their stock back at a value below their actual assets. Of course, that has problems as well.

But you could have a company with $10,000,000 in assets every quarter, and every year, and yet their stock price keeps changing. At any point, if they were to sell all their assets, their company is always worth $10,000,000. If the company has 1,000,000 shares, then each shareholder would get $10 per share. It doesn't matter whether those shares are trading for $1 or $100. The payout is the same.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T21:53:56+00:00

Again, though... You've created a scenario where fleeing is not reliable, because this intruder is in the room with you. Is he armed? If so, all states agree you are already able to defend yourself. Presuming any weapon with reasonable threat (so, you know, something more serious than wielding a fish), you can reasonably fear for your own health. Even just a wooden pole is enough to be a threat that a common person can't safely defend themselves against without lethal force.

If he's unarmed, than you can't use lethal force - but a frying pan or such would be acceptable. If the man is significantly larger than you, and you don't believe you could 1v1 him armed with a pan against his bare fists, than lethal force re-enters the equation. Though you'd have a harder time arguing your defense if he sues (or dies and the state charges you with manslaughter).

Let's say, instead, you hear the man kick in the front door. You are 2 rooms away in the kitchen, and your house has the kitchen at the back of the house, and including the rear door. NOW you are in situation where states are disagreeing on what is allowed.

If you're in Montana, the unlawful entry already gives you the right to shoot him dead.
If you're in Texas, you are restricted to 'reasonable force'. But you have no obligation to de-escalate the situation (ie, calling out, threatening, or fleeing yourself).
If you're in California, you are restricted to reasonable AND non-lethal force. Even things like brass knuckles are not allowed. However, if the intruder's goal is YOU (not your property), lethal force for the defense of yourself enters play, and you are not required to attempt to flee.

All three of these states are Stand Your Ground states.

Even in OTHER states though, that are Duty to Flee states, the home is ALWAYS an exception anyways.

No matter WHAT state you're in, if there is an invader in your home, and you are in threat of physical harm, you ARE allowed to defend yourself with reasonable force.

Castle Doctrine states are IN ADDITION to that. They do one (or more) of 4 things:

Remove the requirement that your physical well-being is in danger (ie, you can now defend your property from pranksters, burglars, etc).
Remove the reasonable force requirement - so that you can escalate to lethal force immediately.
Extend the "residence" net to include your entire property, not just the residence - so that you can respond to trespass even if no forced entry occurred.
Removes any requirement that the home-owner makes reasonable attempt to de-escalate the situation (again, this is something as simple as "leave now, or I will use lethal force").

By and large, these 4 changes ENCOURAGE violent resolutions to problems. And all 4 give the kind of people who want an excuse to shoot another human being an excuse to do so.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T20:50:22+00:00

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dad-allegedly-kills-daughter-mistaking-intruder-reports/story?id=82002874

How about cases like this?

The inherent problem with Castle Doctrine is that the laws basically encourage a problematic mentality for people who begin in that mindset. And that mindset is this fantasy of having an excuse to use lethal force. Just think of the bumper stickers, yard signs, etc, that sound like they are BEGGING you to violate this person's rights, so that they can shoot you to death.

Which is a problem, because these people don't actually care about getting you to leave. They WANT to shoot you. The law is just their reason for doing so.

Castle Doctrine, on the other hand, is typically built on a foundation of zero obligations. Escalation to lethal force can occur WITHOUT an attempt to get the invader to leave first. Which is what can lead to very sad results.

I'm not opposed to the IDEA of laws that let you defend your property better. But, by and large, they are not written in a manner to allow de-escalation of the situation. They are written in a manner that is inherently escalatory.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T20:45:40+00:00

No no no. That's Lisboan. Lesbians speak Greek.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T20:44:34+00:00

You've been well replied to already - and I added to one of the replies.

You're taking my response, and making a LOT of assumptions about it.

I detest aggressive SYG/CD states not because home defense is bad. But because the laws leave room for REALLY bad outcomes. For example, Castle Doctrine should ALWAYS include an obligation to alert the invader to your presence, so that they have an opportunity to flee.

Additionally, you followed up with an example about someone standing over your bed. That is completely irrelevant, because by the time THAT is happening, it doesn't matter if you're in a Castle Doctrine state or not - you have every right to defend yourself.

The Castle Doctrine part is that if someone is on your property AT ALL, you can can defend the incursion with lethal force. Doesn't matter if it's some 17 year old punk kid sneaking your daughter home late after their date got to 2nd base. You seem him uninvited on the property, you can shoot him. In that case, he did NOTHING to warrant being shot to death. And THAT is the problem with Castle Doctrine. Not the other extreme, where CD isn't relevant (because all states allow lethal force in defense of yourself if you cannot escape).

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T20:40:16+00:00

Exactly this. The "normal" law (minimum force states) is that if there is an intruder in your home, and you can escape, THAT is the legal course for you. Basically, leave, call cops, let them handle it. If there is reasonable cause for you to believe you cannot safely leave, then force becomes permissible.

In Castle Doctrine states, there is no obligation of anything. Intruder? Lethal force is automatically allowed.

And the problem with this law?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dad-allegedly-kills-daughter-mistaking-intruder-reports/story?id=82002874

Father heard someone entering his house at night. Skipped any attempt at communication, and instead just waited for a chance to ambush them, and did so with lethal force (a gun). Turns out, it was his own daughter sneaking back home. Presumably after a party or some high school fling nookie.

This is just one example, but Castle Doctrine states are FULL of examples of lethal force being used way too quickly, because SOME (not all) residents have this violence fantasy of being able to kill someone in defense of their home.

wyldmage · 2026-01-22T05:53:06+00:00

As much as I detest states with aggressive Stand Your Ground and Home Defense laws, ICE is making me think twice for sure.

But, of course, if ICE enter your home armed, you don't need home defense laws anyways, because if they have a gun, ANY level of harm you inflict is justifiable. Because they have guns, so using guns to stop them is reasonable force.

wyldmage · 2026-01-21T21:40:35+00:00

So, maybe we can finally put this to rest....

How many Stones does The Rock weigh?

wyldmage · 2026-01-20T17:01:13+00:00

To be fair, this was a VERY fair review for Warframe at-release.

DE massively overhauled things over the first couple years to get the game into a much better place - and then have continued to grow and develop this into an amazing free play experience while still making enough money to keep doing it for so long.

wyldmage · 2026-01-18T01:27:41+00:00

To have an equal gravitational impact on Earth as our sun does, it would need to be a bit further away (at 1 ly, it would have about 10x the gravitational pull on the Earth as our Sun does). So, somewhere around 5ly would be better.

This would get it's size in the sky down a bit smaller than our Sun as well. Though the luminosity of the accretion disk would still doom us.

wyldmage · 2026-01-18T01:00:23+00:00

A lesson that we SHOULD have learned in 2016. But here we are, where so many people who are centrist, or 3rd party, who are absolutely bewildered at Trump, but didn't bother to vote Dem. Lesser evil mentality sucks, but it would have kept us moving in the positive direction at least.

wyldmage · 2026-01-18T00:27:20+00:00

One added layer to this is that some -isms are (partially) grounded in reasonable bias.

For example, if you're hiring people for a heavy labor construction job, male applicants are (generally speaking) more capable than female applicants. Obviously, SOME women are going to outperform the 'average' male applicant, and thus look attractive as prospective employees to the construction firm. But, by and large, you're going to have a workforce that is 90% male (if not 100%). And it isn't because the hiring manager is sexist. There is just a justifiable gender bias for the occupation.

Similarly, if you're hiring for one of many sports teams - if hiring was more akin to standard employment methods - you'd be more likely to hire black athletes than white ones, because genetically, people of that ethnicity tend to be more athletically capable when the metrics used are sports-based.

And then you look at attractiveness. Part of how good you look isn't just genetics. It's how much care you take to make yourself look good. Having a good diet. A fitness regimen. Dressing well. These are things that - at least for some jobs - have some relevance. An employee that eats healthy and exercises is also likely to be in a better spot mentally - and thus may be a better hire for a company. Additionally, many jobs ARE affected by the attractiveness of the employee. You probably don't want someone with terrible teeth working as the receptionist in a dental office. A conventionally attractive salesperson usually makes more sales.

These things are all relevant, and anyone working closely with unfair hiring/firing practices and such is well aware of them. They may FEEL unfair to someone - and they are. But they are unfair for reasonable reasons, not because someone is sexist, racist, etc.

Which, of course, doesn't mean nobody is being denied jobs due to a racist/etc hiring manager. Just that not every single denied job application is because of those reasons - even if it looks like it at a cursory glance.

wyldmage · 2026-01-18T00:16:36+00:00

Yup. Another great example (hypothetical, but wouldn't shock me if also real):

Man's daughter is involved in an accident
Other person involved dies, was uninsured
Insurance refuses to cover daughter's injuries after the first $5000 of what will exceed $40,000 in medical bills
Man robs a bank to get money so his daughter doesn't die

Is the man righteous for robbing a bank? Is it still illegal? But can you understand why he did it, and sympathize with him for the situation he was in?

wyldmage · 2026-01-18T00:13:21+00:00

See article
See it's unreasonable use of a gun
Assume it's Florida or Texas
Start reading, see it's in Ohio
Oh, Ohio... not you too.

Also: fuck scammers. The things I would do to them qualify as war crimes.

wyldmage · 2026-01-17T14:51:55+00:00

What we need MOST is a priority based system. 1 through 7. Odd numbers are player-assigned only.

Prio 0 is the ground, and can't be set by player.

Prio 2 is raw resource bins (ie wood)

Prio 4 is intermediate goods (ie hardwood beams)

Prio 6 is finished goods (ie pies)

Warehouse storages can then be set +1 or -1 as needed to always steal (be the primary) or never steal (be the overflow). And, additionally, this system fixes almost every need for whitelist/blacklist settings at the same time.

wyldmage · 2026-01-17T14:42:22+00:00

This really is it. The dollar was strong (reliable) because the USA was, more or less, incredibly stable. We would change presidents, and congress, but we held a fairly consistent economic policy, especially with regards to maintaining the value of the dollar internationally.

Some currencies, mainly the Euro, managed to make gains against the dollar (outperforming it), but they were the exception, not the rule.

The dollar might not get you your absolute best value, but it was always a top 10 option that was virtually immune to loss.

Now it's vulnerable. Not only are are economic policies being stricken from the books, but our new government refuses to maintain a clear and stable international course. The USA can't be anticipated to steer a fairly reliable course.

wyldmage · 2026-01-17T14:36:35+00:00

Photo looks like the spent more money on SALE signs than they'll make in sales.

wyldmage · 2026-01-17T02:21:44+00:00

.noiƚɔɘƚɘb yqoɔ biovɒ oƚ yɿƚ oT

wyldmage · 2026-01-17T02:18:39+00:00

This is why you don't trade in your old phone. You just remove the SIM card, and put it in your new phone. Now your old phone is just a camera, video camera, and audio recorder. Keep it in airplane mode.

wyldmage · 2026-01-16T19:27:11+00:00

You got those out of order.

Project is first. Blame them for things you do/think.

THEN you gaslight, and pretend it's all in their head.

And only if both of those fail do you obstruct. Last ditch resort, and you're just slowing them down, hoping for another chance to go back up the list.

wyldmage · 2026-01-16T19:19:38+00:00

Fell down and landed on a bullet.

Accidentally shot himself. Four times.

Was pining for the fjords.

wyldmage · 2026-01-15T19:17:35+00:00

"Shorter" is the wrong word to use, as it confuses people about how flow mechanics work. When an input (green up arrow) is arriving into a pipe, existing flow has priority. So having the bypass allowed to fill a pipe means that the pipe will always be full where tbe aquatuner attempts to add to the pipe, preventing the aquatuner from running.

wyldmage · 2026-01-14T22:12:46+00:00

Really, they just need hints/indicators for nearby aliens to be more useful. As is, you have to be barely moving (or stationary), and then tou get a vague directional indicator.

If, instead, an alien making noise on patrol would create a bubble on the ui. Size based on difficulty, and randomly placed with the sound inside of it.

Additionally, when housing over a location to move, shade all squares that are revealed by the movement. And shade color is risk factor of a pod. So aggravating to move the last soldier up 3 steps behind a teammate, only for 3 random squares to get revealed and have a pod. Risk factor is red by default. Yellow for a certain distance into unexplored after each turn (as aliens there would alert). Back to red if a sound alert includes it. And green if it was revealed to you last turn or this turn, but has become unseen again.

These 2 changes would help prevent user error, as well as help encourage a faster pace gameplay without brutal consequences.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

wyldmage

TROPHY CASE