I don't understand that to be the case. They take on the trades on T+0, do nothing until T+2, then do their thing. If the hurricane hits, it would cause the same issues today, only two days later.

RH very specifically said that they allowed their customers to trade out of existing positions. They were just not allowed to buy more shares.

As to "are you a customer if you pay no fees?", the answer in this case is absolutely yes. First of all, RH offer all kinds of services that do come with a fee, for instance various ways in which they extend credit to their customers. Second, their business is like a travel agent. You pay nothing upfront to the travel agent, but they get some kickback from trips or bookings they make. (In some cases some travel agents do charge fees, but often they don't, so pretty much exactly like RH.)

This is a good question. The US switched from T+3 to T+2 in 2017. For the life of me, I can't understand why they didn't go directly to T+0 when they were making the change anyway. However, do note that this wouldn't have solved the issue. Every clearing member, including RH, would still be expected to pledge collateral to the clearing house (DTC in this case). But sure, the collateral requirements would probably drop a bit, and maybe they would have dropped enough so that RH would have been able to meet them. Probably not, though; they would just have had less working capital to start with, in all likelihood.

This is just factually wrong on every level. Robinhood isn't a bank, they are a broker. They also act as their own clearer. As such they have some amounts of money to post collateral to the clearing houses that settle the trades their users execute through them. When GME and other meme stocks exploded, both the volatility and the price exploded. This meant that RH had to post significantly higher amounts of capital than they usually have to do. More money than they had, in fact, so they had to limit trading in order to reduce their collateral demands from DTC. Yes, obviously they were underfunded. That was clearly bad. But it wasn't illegal or, if you stop to think about it for five seconds, very strange. Most small brokers don't have an extra billion dollars just lying around.

He's Bulgarian (or Bulgarian-American.) It should take you roughly five seconds to find that out.

No, prostitution involves working for your money. That is why they are called "working girls", after all. This doesn't involve actual work.

The dips were in earnings, not in expenses. It's obvious to everyone how there could be dips or spikes in expenses.

Buck Herzog. It's a bit of a trick question, as Herzog played for the losing Giants, not for the winning Red Sox. A reasonable guess would be Tris Speaker, and he did tie for the Red Sox lead with 9, but in addition to Herzog, Chief Meyers and Red Murray also had more hits than Speaker, both having 10.

This idea of having to store stuff for 100K years is so fantastically ridiculous that I can't really believe anyone takes it seriously.

Almost 400 years ago, the Swedish king Gustaf II Adolf planted oak trees outside of Stockholm, with the expressed intent that they were to be used as war ships in the twentieth century. The oaks are still standing. They are nice and everything, but it's sort of laughable to imagine that they will be cut down for war ships. Still, when he lived, the difference between life then and life 400 years earlier wasn't all that dramatic.

This is of course completely different now. We can be *extremely* certain that we will be able to either use the remaining energy in the nuclear "waste" or dispose of it in a completely safe way in the next 100 years (or, heaven forbid, that we blow up the planet entirely, in which case the point is pretty moot). The probability that none of that happens, civilization disappears, then reappears in some form in 50,000 years, and that they are able to dig up the buried waste, but can't read warning signs and don't have Geiger cuonters or similar instruments is almost as close to 0% as it is possible to get.

If that is your best argument against nuclear power, you have nothing to stand on. Nothing.

What you are saying is in effect "We have local monopolies. That's bad. Let's add regulations to make sure that the local monopolies wont' do bad things." That is putting a lot of faith in regulation. How did that work in other markets?

The only thing that will help is breaking up the local monopolies. That is where poeple should put their lobbying efforts. ANything else is a fool's errand.

You are missing the fact that Net Neuttrality hinders the development of alternative business models. This is bad for everyone, but especially bad for customers who are least well served by the mainstream alternative. This is pretty much exacty poor people.

Net Neutrality is only needed because of the last mile monopoly. Remove that and no one would have thought of the idea of NN for a second. You don't like the practices of your local ISP? Well, get another one, then. As long as there is a last mile monopoly, the situation isn't ever going to be good (for consumers - it's excellent for monopolists!). Fight that instead!

This is also, not coincidentally, why the NN debate is much less intense (in fact, almost non-existent) in Europe.

The Nordic countries are not socialist at all. In may ways, they are more free market than the US. For instance, you don't need occupational licensing to clip someones nails or decorate their homes. I know it's a nice story if you like socialism to point to Sweden or Norway as a good example. Unforunately, it's quite incorrect.

This is really all one needs to know. If anyone believes that anything good is going to come out of a situation with local monopolies, well, that person is simply wrong. And if there are no local monopolies, there is every reason to believe that the market is going to sort this out way, way better than some bureaucrat with an agenda.

Fight the local monopolies. That is the only truly important thing right now.

The top 1 item is VBA in Excel. If you don't have that, you can't get the power users to switch, and if the power users don't switch, you won't be successful. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this time in a mad Ballmer voice: Excel, Excel, Excel. If Linux would have a better spreadsheet option for power users, the entire financial sector would switch in a heartbeat, and the rest of the world would soon follow.

However, it turns out that it's actually hard to build something that is better than Excel. Really, really hard. Don't hold your breath waiting for this.

It's not 1% of the top users, but probably 5%-15%. And if what you offer isn't good enough for the 5%-15% top users, what you offer isn't usable in the entire organization. And if it isn't usable in the entire organization, it isn't usable at all. MS has known this all along. The FOSS movement still hasn't udnerstood it. Sad, really.