kcg

For anybody looking into VATSIM and alternatives, the pros of PilotEdge are that there is guaranteed ATC staffing with paid ATC (not volunteers like on VATSIM), controllers are likely higher quality on average, and you will be making all of the radio frequency changes you would in the real world (although often talking to the same controller just on a different frequency). The pros of VATSIM are much wider ATC coverage (PilotEdge is western US only, VATSIM is global) and much higher pilot volume (PilotEdge has 16 pilots online right now).

The controller you're referring to is still very active in the Boston area, he's just "retired" from streaming.

Interestingly, in the US, for all its "optimistic" procedures, a controller isn't allowed to issue a conditional ("behind X") line-up-and-wait.

But, if an arriving aircraft is still on the runway, a controller can clear a departing aircraft for takeoff if there will be adequate separation when the departing aircraft starts takeoff roll (i.e., the arriving aircraft will be clear of the runway at that point).

[1] 7110.65 3-9-5 Anticipating Separation

> Who is saying that procedures allow one plane to take off when one is "3 miles out"

The FAA says that, specifically the 7110.65 which governs ATC rules and procedures. In a radar environment it allows for departures when the arriving aircraft is 2+ miles from the runway, and there will be at least 3 miles of separation within 1 min of takeoff. A separate rule requires that the departing aircraft is at least 6000ft down the runway and airborne before the arrival crosses the runway threshold.

If there is a departing plane rolling up to the hold short line and confirmed ready for immediate takeoff, there is possibly time to get them out and maintain separation. If it's low visibility, the departing plane is rolling slowly and not confirmed ready, then it's a bad bad idea.

While I 100% think the controller in this situation made a terrible judgement call and likely shouldn't be working planes anymore, it's worth noting that that there are very specific regulations on multiple planes using the same runway (called Same Runway Separation). Specifically, for these types of aircraft (SRS Category III), the departing plane needs to be at least 6000ft down the runway and airborne by the time the arriving plane crosses the runway threshold. Heck, for smaller general aviation aircraft, you can have a plane land when another has landed and is still on the runway, as long as they are 3000ft past the threshold.

A different regulation (applicable only to radar environments, which AUS is) allows for a departure if an arriving aircraft is 2+ miles away from the runway, as long as there is at least 3 miles of separation within 1 min after takeoff.

All that being said -- it is possible to execute a squeeze play like this if everything is perfect, but you need the departure to go IMMEDIATELY. Trying this in low visibility was extremely reckless and incompetent.

This is completely correct. One of the first sentences in the 7110.65 (the FAA document governing ATC rules in the US, often referred to as "the book" by controllers) is "the primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision involving aircraft operating in the system." Loss of adequate separation between aircraft (called a "deal") is much worse for a controller's career than being inefficient.

That's not actually the point of this article. Many many lenders are not on good terms with their counterparties. Distressed debt and bankruptcy exist. And yet, I've never heard of another story of a bank accidentally wiring nearly a billion dollars to creditors.

Source: spent several years working in the loan and high yield space at a well-known fund.

I think people are missing the fact that the 3060 that NVIDIA is halving the hash rate on is not yet released. It is expected at the end of this month and different than the already-in-market 3060 Ti.

The 3060 Ti was already NVIDIA's mining efficiency leader (per W and per $). I think the 3060 would be in the same ballpark, if not better, which I assume is why NVIDIA is doing this.

Presumably they will do nothing to the existing cards (in part because it would solve very little if you could just use old drivers to get the unthrottled MH/s).

Person A can only sell the number of shares they've borrowed. If Person A borrows a share from Person C, they can sell that one share only. To sell more without borrowing additional shares would be naked shorting, which is prohibited.

You might be asking instead about the following scenario, though, where a single share is borrowed and sold short multiple times:

Person A borrows from Person C and sells to Person B

Person D borrows from Person B and sells it to Person E

Well, the covering of the shorts doesn't have to happen in an atomic transaction; there are thousands to millions of trades of a single ticker every day. Just as a single share can create a chain of multiple shorts (borrows and sales), a single share can cover multiple shorts too through a chain of trades.

>Also, apparently Gamestop itself used the gain in stock price to settle some debts by being able to issue more stock to meet demand at the higher price, thus getting a cash infusion.

False -- if you're going to spread information about financial nuances across this thread, you should look it up first. Go read the SEC filings for GME (SEC EDGAR is your friend), there has been no additional issuance since GME took off. Nor would it be realistically possible given the volatility.

> that extra 40% will fail to deliver, because those shares don't exist.

That's only true if you force all shorts to be covered at once without a chain of trades. That's not how it happens.

Person A covers their short by buying a share from Person B and returning to Person C. Person D then buys that share from Person C and returns to Person E to cover their short. That's 2 short shares covered with a single underlying share and no failure to deliver.

Yes, the SEC does track failure to deliver, but >100% short interest does not mean there is naked shorting nor does it imply there will be failure to deliver.

In this scenario, Person C still owns the stock and will gain/lose with the stock's rise/fall. Person A borrowing from C at the end is just borrowing, not buying. At some point Person A needs to return stock to Person C.

Except you're completely conflating terms and numbers here. A stock can have over 100% short interest with no naked shorting occurring. >100% short interest DOES NOT imply that there is naked shorting.