Natural gas liquefies at -260f. I'm supposed to believe a "wellhead" froze at 10f? Nope. Someone needs to fill in the blanks some other way. I'm not convinced the wind turbines failed in any substantial number either. A coal or gas plant that is maintaining "gland seal steam" can be brought online in a couple of days. A completely cold plant will take much longer. Cooling water reservoirs will be deeper than the 4-6" of ice that might form on top so I don't buy that BS excuse either. Halogen street lights replaced by LED's saved terawatts state wide. Why was that capacity not available? Everybody stomping their cocks in unison here?

You get your stock advice from a hedge fund?

No, options "exercise" on expiration if they are in the money. They go to $0 if they aren't. They settle in cash for the difference or you exercise for the shares at strike. "Execution" is what happens to an open trade that hasn't filled yet when it fills. The only part of an option I don't control at purchase is the premium. I control the timing, I control the price I'm willing to pay, I control the strike price, Even the premium can be managed with a limit order. If he sold an option before he covered it with a long option at a different strike price then not only is he an idiot but RH is also fuckwitted for letting him do it. There isn't any such thing as "opt out" of an in the money option. You either exercise and take the shares at your strike price or you settle in cash. See? I read all about option spreads just like you told me.

Sorry, I meant "short" the underlying stock, covered by the long put. I guess he was just trying to capture the premium in the nearby put? Still a pretty safe trade.

The article is still incorrect but yes, he was doing it wrong. Never execute a trade of any kind (generally) without placing a limit for what you're willing to spend on the order. If that limit can be satisfied then the implication is that both trades execute simultaneously although that detail must be specified. If you have big stones you can always "leg into the trade" one option at a time hoping to get price improvement. An "in the money" put spread isn't much different than simply being long the underlying stock unless there is a lot of time premium in the nearby put which if it's in the money there won't normally be. So, yes, a simple in the money spread is a pretty safe trade. Nothing executes "automatically" unless it's an "at market" order which is insane. Nobody should ever do that except in desperate situations. If he was short an uncovered put for any length of time then there is plenty of risk but sure, you can always buy the long put later if the short put moves against you, at a premium. So I generally agree, he doesn't sound like he was in that much trouble to me so where the bad information came from could be crucial but probably not decisive?

A long "put" does not cancel a "sold share". Assuming he sold short, a call option would be needed to "cancel" or offset the losses if the share price increased. Either TFA is wrong or the kid is an idiot. On the other hand, most trading platforms including brokers that can be contacted by phone will strenuously advise against a position like this or will require a stop loss and considerable collateral/margin to execute such a trade. How much liability RobinHood has depends on their agreement with their client AND with their clearing house (if the client can't pay). Hard to say without details.

If a trading institution has $50M orders come in long, and $50M come in short at roughly the same time, is it realistic to expect them not to lay the two off against each other in a cash trade? The idea of having to "borrow" a share to sell it short is silly and arcane. Forcing share possession by law in order to sell short would drive prices to artificially high levels and could itself be considered "market manipulation" without risk. Tell a sugar or pork belly trader he has to borrow contracts to sell short. Then call the paramedics so the guys don't laugh themselves to death if they can figure out what you're talking about. (No, posting margin isn't the same thing.)

No, you moron, it's me clippy. What's wrong with you?

Of course, nothing in science or art can replace the organic majesty of handsome genitalia, but should the beefpit of a bride loosen and the man's backlog become so great that his thoughts grow dizzy and his ab- domen swollen, the man is well off to choose a suitable agricultural product and use it for mating. Recommended here are the fruits of the melon and mango families; the man is cautioned to warm the item above the interior temperature ol a Hebraic woman so as to avoid freezer burn, and to remove the seeds from the inside of the fruit, as otherwise it shall feel like the hole of a French woman. By following these dictum's a man shall achieve a pedigree of bliss encompassing both the spiritual and the physical.

Bill Gates?

You forgot to water the parakeet.

$0.01 is too much. It isn't worth the money.

Not unless they enable macros.

Indeed. The argument seems to rest on the fact that Linus is wrong on the technical issues because the Linux development process is unable to implement and stabilize similar features in any of the currently available native GPL file systems. For a code base that requires no proprietary hardware support, I'm skeptical to say the least. Are the Sun engineers and the proprietary development model really that much better? In certain cases they may be but apathy in Linux development generally indicates lack of necessity and economy.

If folks like Jim want to roll with Kay Seivers and Mauro Carvalho Chehab that's OK with me. What Jim is missing here is that Linus does not give a flying fuck about ZFS. He's been in this ZFS pissing contest so many times over so many years it's an anachronism. You have to suspect that Linus is saying whatever he is not based on purely technical merits but because of arguments that he's been in for ages. On the other hand, I haven't seen a good Linus rant in a day or two so.... Jim has managed to escape the context of reality going back years. I'm not sure how much of this is currently relevant and Red Hat can generally blow me but there are reasons to not use ZFS. I don't know if Hans was in prison yet but: https://www.redhat.com/archive...