Maybe because the US dropped most of its anti trust regulations, leading to ridiculously monopolistic practices such as "acquire everything that may be threatening".

Not just public, private funds as well. Typical EU, I call that helicopter regulating: you see a problem, throw a regulation at it, then close you eyes.

GDPR pop-ups are the most obvious example, but there are so many more.

For instance, now apparently companies can opt to send payslips digitally instead of physically (paper). Of course, some smart ass nitpicked that employees could loose or change their mail address, so the company is now forced to store digitally delivered payslips in some kind of European-hosted vault for 10 years. And since no sane company want to be liable for that, we now have a wonderful ecosystem of trash "payslip digital vaults" startups, which companies use to proxy-send employee payslips.

So in essence, my company is now sending my payslips (with name, address, contact details, compensation breakdown, etc) to a stupid start-up with egregious ToS, just because "send it by mail and let the employee back it up" was too simple. Thanks !!!

See the best place I learn and read through materials is when I'm commuting. Far away from a console.

Could you envision a way to deliver this as a web app linked to e.g. an OpenRouter/Anthropic/OpenAI API key?

The zellij layout includes panes for OpenCode, a shell, a neovim, inotify tests, etc.

I cycle through the zellij sessions during agent prefills.

To the mooooon!

Hooo damn TextMate snippets, that brings back memories. Hard to convey how hyped I was to use these. That is also what drove me to Mac at that time. I remember writing hundreds of those snippets for every possible C++ construct, and to fill in variable name, type, loop counters and so on.

I think most people trade synthetic, just because it's faster and you don't have to wait for settlements, but maybe that is different if you trade onshore (I am a foreign investor).

Anyway if you are synthetic your margin is most likely shared between shorts and long on the same instrument, so no, you wouldn't be called.

So essentially, they are not expected to be boring businesses yielding stable dividends to investors. That's your aristocrats stocks postioning: J&K, P&G, etc.

What is expected from tech stocks is the opposite: small to no dividend, reinvesting inflows into ever growing new businesses and technologies. A tech stock distributing dividends to shareholders instead of reinvesting in new projects would be seen as a mark of failure to innovate, incapacity to grow.

For RSUs companies do not purchase at exercise date, they issue new shares (or use previous buybacks).

And for stock options, the employee pays the strike, so it's even a positive cash flow.

Technically no, but in reality yes, because shares are used as currency.

For instance, META does not acquire companies using cash, they use their own shares as payment. The higher the stock price, the lower the dilution.

Same thing for stock options and RSU.

So, it's true that stock prices don't translate 1:1 to cash inflows, but wherever stocks are currency (employee compensation, benefits, acquisitions, etc), it does translate.

Yes you are, and options are complicated. Actually, the mere fact that you think they are "simple insurance" is enough proof to me that you probably don't understand it enough to safely buy one.

> You are buying a contract

Oh right, you've bought a PUT, now the fun part: you have to manage your position/exposure, could you enlighten me how you do that?

Could you explain me why buying a SpaceX PUT in a high IV regime (e.g. soon after IPO) will have it drop 40% when the IV decreases after 1 month, even though price moved in my favor? It should be simple, it's just a simple insurance product right?

Seriously. Someone, likely not super financially literate, ask a simple question about how to neutralize a stock exposure, and your answer is to advise buying options? Just stop.

1) Most top US tech companies are flooded of money. Everyone dumps money in the SP500.

2) This money has to go somewhere. You can't just redistribute it as dividends, otherwise it's an admission that you won't grow and giving you more money would be a 0 sum game.

3) So you have to invest it somehow, somewhere.

4) Obviously you can spend that money buying whatever company you can.

5) Once you've bought realistically enough, you just hire more, and people will think that there should be some kind of linear relationship between resources spent and revenue growth.

6) You can also do grand projects, like the metaverse, convert all you software to blockchains, become AI native, etc. and dump billions on these.

So essentially it's all about projecting growth and potential.

The ETF is this case follows the index, so there's really no surprise.

> I would still probably go with the long put strategy

Just, don't. There is a world of complexity between a simple short, and entering an option contract with non linear pnl.

Also there is no liquidity issue, we're talking SP500 names here, you'll pay GC, which should be around 25bps as the other comment mentions.

You can just short SpaceX of an amount equivalent to its share of your SP500 holdings. You will have to pay borrowing costs though, but on something that liquid it will be very small.

There is a growing community of enthusiasts starting to sell ZMK powered boards from traditionally QMK based designs, so if you're interested, Etsy is where all of this is happening. MochuKeeb is a good example.

Thanks a lot for your part in the journey to modern, wireless custom keyboards Nick!

There is nothing wrong with striving to give a heads up in life to your kids, on the contrary, it's a core, visceral instinct of parents to do so, and removing that would be alienating.

There is a certain level of wealth though, where the "heads up" transforms to an unstoppable compounding lever.

France for instance has a progressive inheritance tax (starting at 5%, up to 45%), triggered for children inheriting at 100k€ per parent. In practice, 50% of the population inherits <70k€.

Also, the proposed Zucman tax in France for instance is triggered starting at 100M€ wealth. At these levels, a mere 2% risk free investment yields 2M€ annual income, this is enough to both compound and enjoy a very luxurious lifestyle. This level of wealth is unstoppably compounding, and that is why it is proposed to tax it.

If you don't, well you end up with a US situation, where disproportionate wealth (and thus power, influence) end up in the hands of random citizens with their own agendas, possibly (likely) orthogonal to the interests of the majority.