Incoming wall of text:

"To short sell an IPO like Reddit’s, you’d typically follow these steps. However, it’s important to remember that short selling involves significant risk and requires careful consideration and planning.

1. Brokerage Account with Short Selling Capability: Ensure you have a brokerage account that allows for short selling. Not all brokerage accounts have this feature, so you may need to apply for permission or open an account with a different broker.

2. IPO Availability: After the IPO, there will be a period before shares are available to short. This is because the shares need to be in the secondary market and sufficiently distributed to provide liquidity. The time frame can vary, but it’s usually a few days to weeks after the IPO.

3. Locate Shares to Short: Before you can short sell, your broker needs to locate shares that you can borrow to sell. This can be challenging immediately after an IPO due to the limited number of shares available. Your broker’s ability to find shares will depend on the relationships they have with other institutions and their clients’ holdings.

4. Understanding the Risks: Short selling an IPO is particularly risky. IPOs can be very volatile, and prices can spike significantly in the short term. This volatility can lead to substantial losses, as your potential loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited (since there’s no cap on how high a stock price can rise).

5. Executing the Short Sale: Once your broker has located shares for you to borrow, you can place a short sell order. This involves selling shares you don’t own at the current market price, with the intention of buying them back later at a lower price to return to the lender, profiting from the difference.

6. Cover Your Position: You’ll need to monitor the market closely. If the stock price drops, you can buy back the shares at the lower price (covering your short position) and return them to the lender, keeping the price difference as profit. However, if the stock price increases, you’ll be facing losses and may be subject to a margin call, requiring you to add more funds to your account or cover your short position at a loss.

7. Consider the Regulations and Costs: Be aware of regulations concerning short selling and any additional costs, such as borrowing fees for the shares and interest on the margin used to open the short position.

Because of the risks and complexities involved, it’s highly recommended to consult with a financial advisor or a professional before attempting to short sell any stock, especially an IPO. Short selling requires a solid understanding of the market, the specific stock, and a high tolerance for risk."

GPT 4

God damn it, that headline got my hopes up for a second.

Almost like it’s an ideological thing and not based on any kind of evidence or fiscal policy.

That’s the Spirit!

Not every member of the Commonwealth has the British monarch as head of state (in fact the majority do not).

No, the full context of the code snippet doesn’t appear to check the browser user agent at all. Other comments have explained that it’s most likely a lazy implementation of a check for ad blockers.

undefined

I have a web dev joke but [object Object]

That is a trickier question. My gut feeling is that while it makes sense for a person’s likeness to enter the public domain after they die, it feels a bit morbid and disrespectful for it to become possible to start running AI generated ads of a celebrity the day that they die. I hate how long copyright lasts now, but I feel like there should be at least some period after someone dies before their likeness enters the public domain. I don’t know how long that should be, but definitely shorter than copyright currently is (which should also be much shorter).

My other concern is that if studios can freely recreate dead celebrities then new talent won’t get a chance to make a name for themselves. Hollywood would much rather milk existing celebrities for every cent possible with AI (which is part of the reason for the SAG/AFTRA strike I guess). I don’t have an answer for this right now.

Yes and yes imo. A person’s voice is part of their likeness, and people should get to decide how their likeness is used and get paid for such usage.

Not to mention that the bar for a referendum to pass is very high. For the non-Australians, you need not only a majority of voters nationally to vote yes, but also a majority of states to vote yes (the so-called “double majority”). Only 8 of the last 44 referendums before now have passed and partisan referendums have never passed, so this one was doomed the minute Dutton decided to play politics with it.

I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?

I look forward to fighting Clippy as a raid boss

It’s going to moon any day now, for real this time! /s

Little Bobby Tables

In Australia Coca-Cola is made under licence by Coca-Cola Amatil (not the same company), and the full sugar version uses local cane sugar. I don’t know if the recipes for the sugar free versions are different to the US, but I suspect they might be in order to better match the taste of the local full sugar recipe.

There are dozens of us!

Like a baby. Just like a baby.

Waking up crying every 2 hours? I guarantee that whoever came up with that saying to mean sleeping well never had kids.

I struggled to sleep on planes even before I had an energetic little kid to keep under control. I don’t like sleeping while sitting up so I only ever manage to sleep lightly for a couple of hours at most.

I signed up on lemm.ee because I had trouble signing up on aussie.zone at first, but after trying again it worked and now aussie.zone is my ‘home’ instance. I do also have a Mastodon account on mastodon.world.