please/listen/carefully/as/our/menu/options/have/changed

77% of americans would pay more to live in walkable neighborhoods. also, 92% of gen-z americans would pay more to live in walkable neighborhoods.  crazy.  (national association of realtors)  ~a xpovos:  "not if Trump wants to get elected"  record scratch.  hmm?    ~a xpovos:  (continuing)  if we're worried about safety, smaller cars will help safety of vulnerable road users like people on foot and people on bikes, children on their way to school, parents with strollers, etc.  it'll also decrease deaths when two cars hit each-other.  you won't need to change cafe, you won't need to dismantle the fmvss:  you will need to tax cars based on weight, but that's long overdue imo.  ~a xpovos:  "They won't happen though"  i have total hope it will happen.  (eventually)  "Cars that small fail US safety regulations, in large part because our highway mix is so ridiculously big and heavy."  we can change the safety regulations and the highway mix.  (eventually)  but also all highways allow motorcycles:  which i'll fully admit are terribly dangerous. and some non-interstate highways allow pedestrians and people on bicycles.  ~a paul:  "tariffs?"  yes.  or more probably . . . everything?  the president has done like twelve things to kill the national economy, and maybe six of those reasons, tariffs being one of them, have combined their powers to knock us back a bit.  but also, who knows:  there's a lot of random noise in there.  we will see how 2026 goes i guess?  ~a (continuing) Of course consumer preference is only a stumbling block if you care what people want. Make some new laws, take CAFE to the moon. Dismantle the FMVSS. Tax cars aggressively and progressively on weight. It can happen.  But not if Trump wants to get elected.  Of course, he isn't acting much like he cares about that most of the time anyway. -- Xpovos a: I would like the small cars, and I'd be among the first to buy them, in many circumstances.  They won't happen though. Cars that small fail US safety regulations, in large part because our highway mix is so ridiculously big and heavy.  And fixing the consumer side is only a partial point.  Seen how many semis are on 95?  It's a Matryoshka doll of logistical impossibilities. -- Xpovos a: "it is a very pro-adrian-message" Stopped clock and all, right? I wouldn't be surprised if 1% or so of Trump's tweets / truths / whatevs are something I can get behind. -Paul a: "do you expect this trend to continue?" I don't know? I should probably do more research into exactly why this is happening this year. Tariffs? It's not like the US stock market has been a dumpster fire. -Paul a: "vxus/vtiax will outperform all of the major us indexes in 2025" I am finally vindicated! Joking, of course, since having a larger-than-suggested allocation to emerging markets has hurt my returns for probably close to two decades. -Paul a: "he get's a solid zero point five out of three?" Yeah, probably. You could generously say maybe a 1 out of 3 but that's likely as high as I would go. -Paul a:  if we’re scheduling blocks of time we might as well start a podcast /nudge paul. - mig hmmm wow, i kinda like this tweet from the president.  it's not something i think will turn into a reality, and i doubt his intentions are good, but it is a very pro-adrian-message.  ~a paul:  unless something major changes in december, vxus/vtiax will outperform all of the major us indexes in 2025.  i had a hard time looking at data before ~2010, so i'll just say that hasn't ever happened in recent memory.  do you expect this trend to continue?  (... to continue generally, not literally:  will it happen more often than never, in the next three years?)  ~a paul:  " I try to judge things by outcomes and legality rather than by motivations"  so of the three measures, the "motivations", the "outcomes" (whether it's good), and "legality", he get's a solid zero point five out of three?  like, it's only maybe legal, that's it.  also, really it's probably not even legal, either.  ~a a: Bringing up politics with people whose politics I am unfamiliar with is never my go-to. It's always safe to assume everybody vehemently disagrees with me. -Paul a: As with most things Trump, even if he might be doing something right-ish, I'm sure the motivations are wrong. I try to judge things by outcomes and legality rather than by motivations. -Paul it's always better to have doubts about someone's political beliefs than to be disappointed.  ~a paul:  "I'm sure the motivation is wrong"  yeah, ok, we probably mostly agree, then.  "not encouraging disobedience and mutiny"  yeah sure i agree on this.  it would be good to get a perspective of someone in the military of course.  i do work with people in the military pretty consistently and constantly.  these days, though, i'm less inclined to dive into politics with my current crop of military coworkers.  i'm happy not knowing.    ~a a: Maybe there's good reasons to have these military rules in place in terms of not encouraging disobedience and mutiny. Hard for me to judge as somebody with no experience with military service. -Paul a: "are we on the same page about whether it's a good, or positive, move" I don't know if I have enough information to say. The optics look bad, and I'm sure the motivation is wrong, but don't military courts operate in different ways than civilian courts? Defendants have fewer rights? -Paul a: "but what are the facts?" Not sure I have all of the facts either. I think the concern is that there are non-zero numbers of people on X (sometimes with lots of followers) who live overseas who are specifically trying to stir up discontent. -Pau a: I would advocate for a scheduled SC2 session that Miguel could join though. -Paul a: I don't know if a schedule would work. Unfortunately, my day to day is all over the place and there's little rhyme or reason why I might be slightly less busy one day (and thus able to check the message board) versus another day. Sorry. -Paul literal orders to fire upon the shipwrecked.  ~a paul:  "It sounds like this might be legal?"  i wasn't thinking about legality, really.  are we on the same page about whether it's a good, or positive, move.  ~a paul:  "You want to facts behind it or my opinion?"  both.  it sounds like you've given me your opinion, but what are the facts?  i've read a bit about it, but don't feel like i have a full unbiased view of what even happened (or what is currently still happening?)  ~a paul/mig:  i was just thinking it's been a week since we saw any traffic on the message board.  is there like, a "schedule" we should set up or something?  some sort of rhythm?  "message board day"?  i'm kinda tired of checking the message board multiple times per day to just be disappointed.  ~a paul:  "Congress has already abdicated so much of it's power anyway"  so true.  but generally if they're abdicating it more, they are making things worse.  and if they're demanding back their power, usually that's the direction we want to head.  (if republicans want to work with democrats and independents in congress to retake a right usually allotted to congress *vs* the wishes of a democratic president...i'll still generally be for it)  ~a a: Honestly, given everything else going on, I don't know if that would rank top 10. So much else to worry about. -Paul a: "please tell me we're on the same page, here, yes?" I'm unfamiliar with military law. It sounds like this might be legal? Seems like a bit of an issue in terms of balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, but Congress has already abdicated so much of it's power anyway.... -Paul a: "does someone want to describe the current x/twitter drama regarding outing tons of people's countries of origin?" You want to facts behind it or my opinion? I think it's the double edged sword of anonymity. I think it's important to allow it on X, but it can cause all sorts of problems too. -Paul a: Which, granted, seems like an odd nit to pick, but that's likely always going to be the case when making the "well, teeeeeeechnically that person isn't a pedophile" argument. -Paul a: "but i wouldn't back her so quick" I wasn't trying to back her. Like I said: "I am completely ignorant of any spats involving Megyn Kelly". The very limited things I've seen have been about the semantic issue of if he was a pedophile. -Paul a: "there are hundreds of non-hypothetical-unforgivable things that trump has done.  you agree, right?" But weren't we talking specifically about links to Epstein? Literally four messages before I said: "He's awful regardless of if he is completely innocent with Epstein" -Paul the news depresses me, guys.  pentagon says it’s investigating sen. mark kelly over video urging troops to defy 'illegal orders'  please tell me we're on the same page, here, yes?  ~a does someone want to describe the current x/twitter drama regarding outing tons of people's countries of origin?  i've seen a lot of the aftermath, but i had wondered about your take.  ~a mig:  is this a strawman?  has anyone been calling it fake news?  if i were to guess, it would be that it's small potatoes compared to non christian persecution.  is 250 small potatoes compared to non christian persecution?  ~a https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/23/africa/50-students-escape-abduction-nigeria-intl christian persecution in nigeria is fake news y’all. - mig mig:  it's true.  i did say usually.  if clinton had a position of power during the me too movement, i assume that things would not have gone well for him.  ~a a:  there really hasn't been much accountability for Bill Clinton. - mig paul:  she's going for epstein is terrible:  but also suggesting that raping a 15 year old is ~nbd.  like, what is her point exactly?  that we shouldn't prosecute 15-yo-rape?  that we shouldn't prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law?  that what epstein did was somehow borderline?  15 is not "barely legal".  right?  not jumping down her throat without the facts is one thing.  but i wouldn't back her so quick.  ~a paul:  "that's something I'm a little sympathetic to"  maybe listen to what she has said before you get her back.  cnn.com has some of the context.  it also isn't the full clip, but yeah she's saying "15" is "barely legal".  i have a hard time generously interpreting her words.  ~a paul:  "a lot of this is still hypothetical about Trump"  what?  no.  there are hundreds of non-hypothetical-unforgivable things that trump has done.  you agree, right?  ~a paul:  "depends on the issue"  yes but i was more specific.  i said "rape".  ~a a: Because honestly, that's something I'm a little sympathetic to. I feel like words have meaning and it's important to use the right words and if we start referring to sex with a 15 year old as pedophilia then we diminish how awful true pedophilia is. -Paul a: "did you hear megyn kelly's take on this?" No. I am completely ignorant of any spats involving Megyn Kelly. Was she making the differentiation between pedophilia and what Epstein did? -Paul a: Either way, it's not like I want to try to defend Trump on anything. He's awful regardless of if he is completely innocent with Epstein. -Paul a: "fantasy and reality are different" Very true, but so is actively doing something vs... just staying quiet about something? Also I think nobody disagrees that Jones did what he did but I think a lot of this is still hypothetical about Trump. -Paul a: "Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape" I think the records are mixed and depends on the issue. For example, Democrats seem to have been largely silent about the antisemitism in their ranks lately whereas Republicans seem to be having a civil war over it. -Paul mig:  directing bondi to open an investigation seems the perfect way to do that.  now you can redact whatever you want and use the "active / ongoing prosecution" as the excuse.  ~a mig:  yes i agree.  except that's not what bondi told trump a few months ago.  she told him that he was very much all over the files.  other congressional republicans said the same.  i assume it's not just that one bj joke?  it now feels likely they plan to release redacted shit, and call it done.  ~a a: i dunno maybe the most embarrassing thing in there was the blowing bubba stuff and thats why he’s 180’d on releasing them. - mig agreed.  especially since the whitehouse has had a full year to get their ducks in a row.  ~a https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/17/larry-summers-steps-back-from-public-commitments-deeply-ashamed-by-epstein-revelations-00655712 I’m going to guess the epstein files will probably have more dire consequences for people not named Trump than Trump himself. - mig paul:  "I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party"  did you hear megyn kelly's take on this?  "barely legal type" = "15-year-old"?  "there's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know".  "i was under 10" "i was under 14"?  kinda disgusting, if you hear the full quote.  she's like "maybe it's a distinction without a difference", but her guest is like "no".  ~a seems like a pretty typical "rules for thee"  ~a (i mean i see it now obviously, but i had to search for it, and it seems like quite the footnote in articles i've found.)  ~a paul:  "hours spend on his campaign was 'community service'".  i didn't see mention of this in the press.  ~a