-Paul
a: I would've assumed most of these people are not (a), and I haven't seen any evidence remotely close to (b). -Paul
a: I feel like in order to be at all close to the "justifiable murder" side (which it sounds like a lot of people are), you would need to be (a) pro death penalty and (b) have evidence this person directly harmed/killed many innocent people. -Paul
a: I haven't seen any evidence that UHC was suddenly denying reasonable life saving care for anybody, or at a higher rate, or that any of it is tied to the CEO. Wouldn't that be... illegal in some way? -Paul
a: Insurance companies can't just say yes to everybody. In the absence of a market, there has to be some push-back or else costs will spiral out of control and insurance will become unaffordably expensive. -Paul
a: Which example? The denied claims one? Didn't I just completely address that? Are there unjustified denied claims? Almost certainly. But what are the ratios? How do we determine justified vs unjustified? -Paul
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/13/us/duke-lacrosse-accusations-crystal-mangum given how much we talked about this at the time, felt like it was worth dropping this here. - mig
paul/daniel: for reference i put money in both tip and spip hoping i'd see a roi on high-inflation years and was surprised by 2022! ~a
paul/daniel: usd became worth less in 2022 (-8% due to inflation), and both funds are supposed to hold flat-ish during inflation (in real terms), so shouldn't both funds go UP by about 8% instead of DOWN by 17%??? the fact that both unrelated funds parroted each-other (17% down) means it wasn't just random noise, i assume? ~a
paul/daniel: finance question about tips (treasury inflation-protected securities). two real-world examples are tip (ishares tips bond etf) and spip (spdr portfolio tips etf). inflation was *terrible* in 2022, i think we can all agree. both funds dropped in 2022 by similar amounts. apx -17% in both funds. shouldn't the opposite happen? ~a
"not" the onion? not, not the onion ~a
paul: "A denied claim isn't necessarily unjustified or directly leading to death or injury" are you ignoring the denied claims that are unjustified? ~a
paul: "Can anybody point to actual evil stuff this guy has actively done?" how about my example? it feels cut and dry to me. again, def wouldn't gun him down for it. but pretty evil, or at the least super evil-adjacent. ~a
mig: troll? you're saying the president is trolling both republicans and democrats? if you look at the replies (yes, this requires you to create an account), the republicans replying are NOT seeing this as a troll. they're ALL 100% like "waaait, didn't democrats want to do the opposite in 2016?" ~a
a: I’d just file it under troll and move on. I *kind* of get it but eh. - mig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno&t=12 a 10 minute video I think you'll like about partisanship and how people ignore facts they don't like (ignore the first 12 seconds: he starts with clickbate bullshit). ~a
But even putting all of that aside... he was a father and husband... I just don't really get celebrating that and encouraging more murders of similar people. -Paul
Can anybody point to actual evil stuff this guy has actively done? Is he worse than Presidents who have actively ordered drone strikes that kill masses of innocent people? -Paul
I'm obviously no insurance expert, but stuff I'm hearing about this anesthesiologist / insurance conflict from people I trust seems to indicate that maybe the insurance companies were justified here and this is a cash grab by the anesthesiologists. -Paul
if you're cold, they're cold ~a
yah. ~a
a: Right, 5 was the biggest problem. with where I saw your initial line going. It makes the argument so incredibly messy, and in a completely needless way. -- Xpovos
xpovos: wow lots to unpack there. i'm glad we largely agree on 1-5. i def feel the "that's a huge problem" part. for 4, i agree 10% is huge. . . . 10% means a lot of death (and life-changing-injury). 5. woof, terrorist attacks ("attacks" and "they"): neither of them intended on getting away with it, yeah. ~a
My last read was he killed 15 and injured seveal others (a few dozen?). That's on part with most gun attacks. -- Xpovos
The fifth point feels most consequential in bringing in this terrorist attack. Here it's less about "getting away with it," and more about causing maximum chaos on the lowest budget; with an understanding that this is a suicide attack--so there's no chance to get away with it. Cars are still useful for that (see point 1, they're dangerous). He likely prowled for a long while looking for the best target with the softest defenses. -- Xpovos
(cont): Something else is higher importance. Usually time, a small and inconsequential amount, often. But it's other factors too, such as hubris, or an expression of low self-worth. Sometimes maybe even suicidal ideation. 5) If you want to kills omeone and get away with it, use a car. Probably true depending on your definition of "getting away with it." The consequences will be less severe, but there will still be consequences. -- Xpovos
a: (cont) 4) Many people are intentionally dangerous and borderline homicidal. Definitions of "many" can do a lot of work. 10% is many, but it's also a very small percentage. I don't know the true percentage of truly dangerous drivers, but I'd stake 10% as a first guess. I'm persuadable in both directions. That's still a very large number of people and vehicles with no regard as to whether you or they die in an "accident." ...
a: I largely won't disagree. 1) Motor vehicles are dangerous. true. 2) We don't treat them with much caution. As a totality, true, but I think less so than you'd argue. 3) Our punishments tend to be a slap on the wrist. Our punishments tend to be too consequentialist. Thus, the benefits reaped by safety engineering over the past 5-6 decades have gone towards--more reckless driving. That's a huge problem. -- Xpovos
xpovos: i wasn't making a point. I didn't have a logical path in mind. I guess if pressed though . . . I'd probably argue that our motor vehicles are dangerous and we don't treat them with much caution. our punishments for people that disrespect them are often a slap on the wrist. many people are intentionally dangerous, and borderline homicidal. if you want to kill someone and get away with it, use a car. ~a
a: I don’t know if the intentional violence by car also killing people is a great addition to your point. If you disagree, as it seems you might, I’m curious about your thoughts and your logical path. — Xpovos
i found this on reddit. wtf google if google fixes it's answer, as of writing, it has the wrong answer: "No, 3/8 is not bigger than 5/16; 5/16 is actually larger than 3/8". the explanation is hilarious, because it *is* smart enough to convert both numbers to sixteenths, but still fucks up the last step. ~a
10 people killed by one car this morning ~a
paul: https://coinmarketcap.com/ lol, it's gonna be a close one. ~a
mig: honestly, i'm tending towards #3 or #4 because they seem the most likely. the original quote was "turns out not to be right" and that feels like the most correct language. ~a
mig: #1 wouldn't work because, hegseth could have held onto his letter of acceptance. or literally told/called anyone about it at the time. or emailed anyone about it at the time. or wrote someone / wrote something down (it was the 90s). #2 this also wouldn't work for all the same reasons as in #1. you forgot #3: someone fucked up real bad. also you forgot #4: someone miscommunicated real bad. ~a
I can’t think of a reason for *2* different source at West Point to make this mistake other than, 1) making the assertion about Hegseth without verifying it, or 2) knowing full well it was false but making it anyways. Both come from a place of malice. - mig
a: It was only easily refuted because Hegseth held on to his letter of acceptance. Without it, he probably has to petition West Point to clear this up. Call me a cynic but I don’t think they would be as swift in clearing this up. - mig
using a car for over 50% of out-of-home activities lowers life satisfaction. i've been thinking about this more and more every year. if you design a city for cars, then everybody will have to drive, which leads to congestion. ~a
i'm totally not following the pros-cons that someone at west point would have been going through if they intentionally did this. ~a
mig: ok. i mean, it seems like a non-trivial mistake that deserves some further investigation: but without knowing west point's motivations for lying (west point is typically loyal to the gop, i'm guessing) . . . like why would you add a huge amount of confusion to a serious issue like this? why even would west point intentionally do this? like wouldn't it make them look terrible when the (VERY easy to confirm) truth comes out? ~a
a: condensed. i don’t think I have changed the spirit of what was said. - mig
mig: did you intentionally change the quote? ~a
https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/1867195493370962293 “should we do a story every time someone from the government lies?” in what world shouldn’t the answer be “100% yes” - mig
yeah when the grocery stores are 1000 times more convenient you don't have to go twice per month. ~a
with all the groceries i get in one trip i ain't hauling that shit on metro or on a bike. - mig
paul: you're on fuckcars. sorta. i think you're just barely off camera. (fuckcars is criticizing/trolling the video creator here and not the area: which is very uber-walkable and dripping in public transit) ~a
that reminds me. when obi wan kenobi went into hiding, why didn't he change his name? he changed his nick-name, sorta, but he still went by his name. ~a
paul: i would def put both mangione and thompson in "strong negative". so same favorability i think? you aren't surprised by this for me i assume though. ~a
paul: before 2022 my financial advisor said i should get rid of my tips and i totally ignored him. ~a
paul: "I feel like you literally spent weeks arguing the exact opposite point with me around the election" i said inflation was average during biden's presidential term, and i still feel that way. "This is why I don't invest in TIPS" well i'm sold. i don't plan to divest from tips overnight, but i'm 100% done being fucked by them. ~a
paul: "I feel like in order to be at all close to the 'justifiable murder' side". just no. this was not justifiable murder. not even gray-area, or borderline or anything resembling a grey area or borderline. what brian thompson did was bullshit, imo. and a violent response (to what some consider "violence", but i do not) is maybe warranted. but murder crosses many many lines. ~a
paul: if your claim is that the new ratios are justified, the burden of proof is on you (or more seriously the burden was on brian thompson before he was murdered). ~a
Except that doesn't even fully encapsulate things because she survived! -Paul
paul: "But what are the ratios?" answered in my link. "How do we determine justified vs unjustified?" these are all questions answered by: "that change is stark. and drastic. abrupt, astonishing, sudden, yucky." that UHC completely changed their metrics for how claims are denied, used AI to auto-deny the claims, and over night became the company that had the highest ratio of denied claims is what you failed to address. ~a
https://stratpolitics.org/2024/12/unitedhealthcare-poll/ Is this how some people feel here? Because this is a "What. The. Fuck" thing to me. It's like having a higher approval for Jared Loughner than Gabby Giffords! -Paul
mig: yeah wow. looks like we're going WAY back. "it's a really murky case. - aba". now that's a name i haven't heard in a long time gif. ~a
a: This is why I don't invest in TIPS. I don't really understand it and don't trust it to be able to provide a positive return or even retain value during periods with volatile inflation. -Paul
a: "inflation was *terrible* in 2022, i think we can all agree" Is this tongue in cheek? Because I feel like you literally spent weeks arguing the exact opposite point with me around the election. -Paul
a: I would've assumed most of these people are not (a), and I haven't seen any evidence remotely close to (b). -Paul
a: I feel like in order to be at all close to the "justifiable murder" side (which it sounds like a lot of people are), you would need to be (a) pro death penalty and (b) have evidence this person directly harmed/killed many innocent people. -Paul
a: I haven't seen any evidence that UHC was suddenly denying reasonable life saving care for anybody, or at a higher rate, or that any of it is tied to the CEO. Wouldn't that be... illegal in some way? -Paul
a: Insurance companies can't just say yes to everybody. In the absence of a market, there has to be some push-back or else costs will spiral out of control and insurance will become unaffordably expensive. -Paul
a: Which example? The denied claims one? Didn't I just completely address that? Are there unjustified denied claims? Almost certainly. But what are the ratios? How do we determine justified vs unjustified? -Paul
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/13/us/duke-lacrosse-accusations-crystal-mangum given how much we talked about this at the time, felt like it was worth dropping this here. - mig
paul/daniel: for reference i put money in both tip and spip hoping i'd see a roi on high-inflation years and was surprised by 2022! ~a
paul/daniel: usd became worth less in 2022 (-8% due to inflation), and both funds are supposed to hold flat-ish during inflation (in real terms), so shouldn't both funds go UP by about 8% instead of DOWN by 17%??? the fact that both unrelated funds parroted each-other (17% down) means it wasn't just random noise, i assume? ~a
paul/daniel: finance question about tips (treasury inflation-protected securities). two real-world examples are tip (ishares tips bond etf) and spip (spdr portfolio tips etf). inflation was *terrible* in 2022, i think we can all agree. both funds dropped in 2022 by similar amounts. apx -17% in both funds. shouldn't the opposite happen? ~a
"not" the onion? not, not the onion ~a
paul: "A denied claim isn't necessarily unjustified or directly leading to death or injury" are you ignoring the denied claims that are unjustified? ~a
paul: "Can anybody point to actual evil stuff this guy has actively done?" how about my example? it feels cut and dry to me. again, def wouldn't gun him down for it. but pretty evil, or at the least super evil-adjacent. ~a
mig: troll? you're saying the president is trolling both republicans and democrats? if you look at the replies (yes, this requires you to create an account), the republicans replying are NOT seeing this as a troll. they're ALL 100% like "waaait, didn't democrats want to do the opposite in 2016?" ~a
a: I’d just file it under troll and move on. I *kind* of get it but eh. - mig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno&t=12 a 10 minute video I think you'll like about partisanship and how people ignore facts they don't like (ignore the first 12 seconds: he starts with clickbate bullshit). ~a
But even putting all of that aside... he was a father and husband... I just don't really get celebrating that and encouraging more murders of similar people. -Paul
Can anybody point to actual evil stuff this guy has actively done? Is he worse than Presidents who have actively ordered drone strikes that kill masses of innocent people? -Paul
I'm obviously no insurance expert, but stuff I'm hearing about this anesthesiologist / insurance conflict from people I trust seems to indicate that maybe the insurance companies were justified here and this is a cash grab by the anesthesiologists. -Paul
-Paul
a: I would've assumed most of these people are not (a), and I haven't seen any evidence remotely close to (b). -Paul
a: I feel like in order to be at all close to the "justifiable murder" side (which it sounds like a lot of people are), you would need to be (a) pro death penalty and (b) have evidence this person directly harmed/killed many innocent people. -Paul
a: I haven't seen any evidence that UHC was suddenly denying reasonable life saving care for anybody, or at a higher rate, or that any of it is tied to the CEO. Wouldn't that be... illegal in some way? -Paul
a: Insurance companies can't just say yes to everybody. In the absence of a market, there has to be some push-back or else costs will spiral out of control and insurance will become unaffordably expensive. -Paul
a: Which example? The denied claims one? Didn't I just completely address that? Are there unjustified denied claims? Almost certainly. But what are the ratios? How do we determine justified vs unjustified? -Paul
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/13/us/duke-lacrosse-accusations-crystal-mangum given how much we talked about this at the time, felt like it was worth dropping this here. - mig
paul/daniel: for reference i put money in both tip and spip hoping i'd see a roi on high-inflation years and was surprised by 2022! ~a
paul/daniel: usd became worth less in 2022 (-8% due to inflation), and both funds are supposed to hold flat-ish during inflation (in real terms), so shouldn't both funds go UP by about 8% instead of DOWN by 17%??? the fact that both unrelated funds parroted each-other (17% down) means it wasn't just random noise, i assume? ~a
paul/daniel: finance question about tips (treasury inflation-protected securities). two real-world examples are tip (ishares tips bond etf) and spip (spdr portfolio tips etf). inflation was *terrible* in 2022, i think we can all agree. both funds dropped in 2022 by similar amounts. apx -17% in both funds. shouldn't the opposite happen? ~a
"not" the onion? not, not the onion ~a
paul: "A denied claim isn't necessarily unjustified or directly leading to death or injury" are you ignoring the denied claims that are unjustified? ~a
paul: "Can anybody point to actual evil stuff this guy has actively done?" how about my example? it feels cut and dry to me. again, def wouldn't gun him down for it. but pretty evil, or at the least super evil-adjacent. ~a
mig: troll? you're saying the president is trolling both republicans and democrats? if you look at the replies (yes, this requires you to create an account), the republicans replying are NOT seeing this as a troll. they're ALL 100% like "waaait, didn't democrats want to do the opposite in 2016?" ~a
a: I’d just file it under troll and move on. I *kind* of get it but eh. - mig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno&t=12 a 10 minute video I think you'll like about partisanship and how people ignore facts they don't like (ignore the first 12 seconds: he starts with clickbate bullshit). ~a
But even putting all of that aside... he was a father and husband... I just don't really get celebrating that and encouraging more murders of similar people. -Paul
Can anybody point to actual evil stuff this guy has actively done? Is he worse than Presidents who have actively ordered drone strikes that kill masses of innocent people? -Paul
I'm obviously no insurance expert, but stuff I'm hearing about this anesthesiologist / insurance conflict from people I trust seems to indicate that maybe the insurance companies were justified here and this is a cash grab by the anesthesiologists. -Paul