But nobody was extorted into working there lol, they volunteered.

We’re not talking about some village where people are forced into working the only job available so the boss can demand whatever. We’re talking about people who chose to work at a particular company and knew the deal they were getting before moving. You don’t change countries for a job without doing your research on cost of living first.

Also, Dan Houser has been living in the US for decades. He’s a writer, not an HR specialist. Why does he have to be familiar with the exact situation of the UK labour market? Why does he get the blame and not the UK itself for having shit laws?

I swear some people just want to hate whoever’s name sticks out when we truly don’t know who knew what or what these employees salaries were.

Might wanna tell your vibe coders their project is shite, bot.

Yes, you can with derivatives: buy out-of-money puts.

Derivatives are financial instruments that pay out based on market movements. A classic example is crops: using derivatives, farmers can, essentially, “lock in” the price they sell their goods at. This allows them more stability, since they know in advance how much they’ll be paid for their crops. (And they’ll separately buy crop Insurance to cover their risk for crops failing, most likely.)

Puts are a derivative that is a contract for the right to sell an asset at a given price (the “strike price”) on a given date. Usually, these are closed out by paying the cash value at the end, not actually selling the stocks.

Out of money means that the strike price is below the current market price. If they are still out of money at the end of the contract term, they are literally worthless. But, if the underlying asset (like NVidea stock) crashes, then you can earn the difference between the strike price and the market price.

What makes this speculation* strategy effective is that the market usually prices in a low probability of a major price decrease, so they’re (relatively) cheap. They also have limited downside risk—at worst, you lose everything you spent buying them. For deeply out-of-money puts, you can make a lot of money with a huge crash, but most of the time you “just” lose all your money.

This contrasts with short selling where you have unlimited downside risk. With short selling, you’re basically borrowing someone else’s share and immediately selling it at the current market price, then you need to buy it back from the market when you close out the position. So if you sold it for $100, and need to buy it back at $1000, you’re royally fucked. (You won’t be allowed to get that far, though; you need to keep assets in your account to cover the cost, so you’d be forced to continually “pony up” more cash as the price rises, until you can’t make a payment and you’re forced to close out the position, losing all your initial money and all the money you were forced to keep adding as it rose.)

But good luck with that strategy; I imagine NVidea puts are pretty expensive right now since a lot of people are making this exact bet. As such, people issuing/selling puts are demanding a lot of money to pay for them taking on risk.

* This is “speculation”, not “investment”. Investment requires, by definition, capital put towards productive assets—in other words, it needs to be expected to return an income stream of some kind, like interest, profits, or dividend payments. Speculation is betting on the direction of price movement on an asset—“gambling”, effectively, but with fancy investment words. Like in the farmer example above, they’re gambling that prices won’t go up, since they won’t gain any of the benefit from rising prices. That type of speculation reduces risk—unlike what you are asking about.

There are other ways that derivatives can reduce risk, but that’s not what you were asking about here.

Puts are a derivative that is a contract for the right to buy an asset at a given price (the “strike price”) on a given Date.

Puts are rights to sell, not to buy. And with that, the rest of your post actually makes sense (you want to sell above market price).

I know nothing of the situation

Then say: “We are not completely aware if as a Creative Director he was involved in in the exploitation of the hired visa’d during his tenure, but fuck’em unions.”

but fuck’em unions.

Are we still talking about the guy that stopped working for the company 5 years before the whole union busting thing happened?

Correct, and trying to get clarification as to what you claim the problem is is yielding no results, so I have to assume it’s non-existant.

Yep, someone already joked that they picked 4 digits for their username so they have a failsafe for getting banned 9,998 times. That was at 0004.

If you look at their chat history it really explains it all tbh. I wonder if we could get this instance to defederate their account haven.

they volunteered.

fired

We are done with this capitalist scumming.

Imagine having hundreds of millions of dollars, having this amazing creative vision, seeing staff under you getting fired… and remaining without resigning, publicly speaking out against the actions, or doing absolutely anything for the people under you.

But hey, I understand you simply disagree and think they are awesome. That’s great.

But they were fired in 2025, we were talking about pre 2020 conditions. Who knows what their work was actually like? They do, we don’t.

Let’s DEMAND Dan Houser answer us then!

In the meantime, all capitalists are bastards.

Wait, are you not aware what fallacy you are committing?

So at this point you are trying to digress the discord server is 5 years or younger.

Stupid question: if you think it’s a good idea but don’t know when the price will go up, you just buy stock and wait. But if you think it’s a bad idea and don’t know when the price will go down, is there any long-term alternative to shorting that doesn’t require betting on the date?

Strawman is arguing against a different argument than the one you are presenting.

I’m saying you’re not presenting an argument at all.

When did the union busting happen?

Cool. My argument is Dan Houser exploited employees when he worked at RGS.