omarchowdhury

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, they would need to pay more than once for it. In any scenario, the demand would outstrip the supply and hence there is still a short squeeze on the table.

> I believe it when I see it. Isn't the majority of shares hold by the heavy pros anyway? I doubt the other Hedgefonds and Yolon Musks will sacrifice shit.

They don't need to. It's mathematically impossible for shorts to cover, because they've shorted more than the entire float.

No, coercion of the POTUS is the criminal offense.

> where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something

Right, it's more of a convenience.

> Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming.

The threat would be a criminal offense.

How much of that is wash trading?

Human and pigs have a common creator according to the Islamic view. Even via observation, we can see that humans and pigs are similar in that they both need to eat, breathe, sleep, excrete. Both have eyes, lungs, hearts, brains... Is there a loss of dignity or some sort of implied conflation because of shared properties?

What's your intention behind this question?