prev <-> next
[2014-01-08 10:58:57] - Daniel: My thinking being that should provide enough time for a person to figure out that they're not going to get a job at comparable pay anytime soon and to make arrangements accordingly. This 2+ years business just seems excessive all around. -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:58:37] - paul: "Why should businesses provide severance" well i'd prefer something like unemployment insurance (but optional i guess) where you pay into it during the good times, and it pays out to your employees (over a period of months/years) after you've laid them off. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:58:22] - Paul: I can imagine some incentive to pay severance. You want to keep a good relationship with the people you are laying off. Maybe you will want to hire them back in the future? You want your current employees to not think you are a douchebag company? Non fiscal reasons like that. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:58:13] - Daniel: But, like I said, I don't really know enough about it to provide a good argument supporting that. And if I was running for office, my more palatable answer would probably be something like cutting it off after 4-6 months. -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:57:21] - Daniel: To answer your original question, my knee jerk reaction is to say we don't need unemployment insurance at all considering the other programs the government has to help the poor and other stuff. -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:56:13] - a: Why should businesses provide severance, though? I've always thought it was strange that a company that is theoretically going through tough times (otherwise why would they be laying people off) would voluntarily pay people who aren't even working for them anymore. What incentive do businesses have to pay severance? -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:56:05] - "is it enough to live on?" it depends. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:55:31] - "Like take a worse job? Downsize your living arrangements? Something?" yes of course. there were times in the past (i'm thinking like '05) where if i had lost my job, i'd consider moving. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:55:06] - Daniel: Yeah, that's my initial thoughts. If somebody can't find a job for years, then maybe it's time to take a lower paying job or spend less or downsize your house or find a roommate or something. -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:54:46] - on*
[2014-01-08 10:54:39] - mig: Is it supposed to be enough to live one? -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:53:59] - a: Well it would definitely suck for us, since I'd imagine it would be relatively smaller payouts than what we are all currently making, but is it enough to live on? - mig
[2014-01-08 10:53:38] - "Weren't businesses offering health insurance as a benefit before the government forced them to" yes. but almost nobody was providing severance (or . . . something like unemployment insurance where it's spread out in time). ~a
[2014-01-08 10:53:18] - Part of my question is at what point is not being able to get a job the fault of the person looking? If you haven't been able to find work in 6 months of trying to get what you want, shouldn't you start to make adjustments? Like take a worse job? Downsize your living arrangements? Something? -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:52:14] - a: As for the selling their home part... isn't that why everybody says to keep a rainy day fund of a couple of months expenses just in case? Also, if you're out of work for multiple years and can't find a job, and what point should you consider selling your home and downsizing? -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:51:05] - a: Apparently the actual qualifications vary by states, so dont think I'm going to find a quick overview online. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:50:46] - a: Weren't businesses offering health insurance as a benefit before the government forced them to (in fact, in response to the government enacting wage freezes)? Also, I think a large part of our problem with health insurance in this country is because we get it through our employers instead of shopping on our own. -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:49:32] - a: " this is actually something that companies probably should have been providing to their employees as a benefit but weren't" Well, isn't that what a severance is supposed to be? Also, I totally disagree about the life/health insurance thing on multiple levels. -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:48:48] - daniel: audrey couldn't go on unemployment. her household income was too high. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:47:56] - "is there really going to be an incentive for that person to find a job?" ha. yes. being on unemployment sucks. you don't really get that much money. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:47:21] - daniel: i'm not 100% sure that things in '13/'14 are much better than '09. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:46:37] - a: yeah I don't know what the "right" time would be. At some point, though, incentives do matter. If it's something really long like 3-5 years, is there really going to be an incentive for that person to find a job? At the same time, I don't know where you'd find the right balance. - mig
[2014-01-08 10:46:34] - a / Paul : I think you can get unemployment benefits even if you are rich or if you got a severance. Wikipedia just says as long as you are out of work through no fault of your own and had been working awhile already. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:46:22] - paul: for unexpected unemployment. for the middle class. so they don't have to (say) sell their home when they get fired. this is actually something that companies probably should have been providing to their employees as a benefit but weren't. much like life/health insurance. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:44:27] - a: I think maybe extra years under extreme circumstances like 2009 or like the 1930s or something but I'm not sure I get why we need extra years currently. I know that getting a job isn't always the easiest thing to do but I'm not sure that if you haven't been able to get one in a year that extra months are going to make the difference. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:43:07] - a: What's the rationale for unemployment insurance? I feel like we have a lot of programs to help out poor people, so it's not like we're worried people are going to be starving in the streets. Isn't this just encouraging people not to save for a rainy day (and maybe lessen incentives to find work)? -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:41:13] - paul: "Even rich people or people who got a severance?" no. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:40:38] - i've dealt with unemployment on a semi-personal basis. i think a year might not be long enough in some environments. maybe two years? i feel that two years might not be long enough either, but you've got to pick some amount of time. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:36:13] - Daniel: Either way, though, I wonder what the rationale is for having them go on this long. It's kinda like the debt ceiling to me. At this point, why even bother with a limit? Let's just let it go on forever! Wait, no, that was a joke. Don't take that seriously! -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:33:24] - Daniel: I mean, I guess I don't know exactly how it functions or why it's needed. Can anybody who is out of work collect it? Even rich people or people who got a severance? I need to look some stuff up.
-Paul[2014-01-08 10:32:56] - daniel: a good question. I don't really know. It does annoy me that Dems seem to just shout "WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!!1!" at any sort of disagreement rather than engage in that discussion. - mig
[2014-01-08 10:32:02] - Daniel: I don't know if I'm educated enough on the topic to offer a well-thought out opinion yet. Is unemployment insurance just another benefit on top of others for people who are laid off? -Paul
[2014-01-08 10:17:20] - How long should unemployment insurance last? Currently being discussed in the Senate and normally I'm with D's on a lot of issues but at what point do you stop paying? I think it lasts a year which seems like a long time to look for a job. Is it realistic to think that if you couldn't find a job in a year you will find one given a few more months? -Daniel
[2014-01-08 10:10:08] - http://i.imgur.com/fcNcDsE.jpg
[2014-01-08 09:40:56] - a: Oh, ok. So it was pretty obvious they were climate scientists. Gotcha. -Paul
[2014-01-08 09:33:39] - well, that was close. ok, the setup: some jack-off, probably from fox news, was making climatologists out to be fancy-pants and frou-frou (i had to look up the spelling of that "word"). jon's punchline was centered around the thesis that climatologists didn't quite have such a lavish lifestyle and the image on the screen was the beached climatologist ship. ~a
[2014-01-08 09:11:20] - a: What was the punchline for the story, then, if not climate scientist stuck in ice? -Paul
[2014-01-07 20:19:30] - paul: yesterday jon stuart covered your "trapped in ice" story. he mentioned (well there was implication) that they were climate scientists. ~a
[2014-01-07 09:30:11] - a: I agree it looks more like saran wrap than ice. -Paul
[2014-01-07 01:39:04] - Does your pee freeze or melt it? I need to know for science ~a
[2014-01-06 17:21:07] - a: Yeah, I guess it's easier for me to compartmentalize and say that somebody like Cuccinelli can be good on some issues while being terrible on others. -Paul
[2014-01-06 17:11:54] - maybe+probably, hah oops. ~a
[2014-01-06 17:11:34] - cuccinelli pissed me off for reasons completely unrelated to the NSA. so, maybe, he'll probably do a great job against the NSA, whereas i think he'd make a shitty governor. maybe this is win-win. ~a
[2014-01-06 17:06:49] - a: Hehehe, what kind of non-awesome-ness are you worried about? It sounds like Cuccinelli said all the right things and even taking a weak stand against the NSA at this point is enough to piss off a lot of people. -Paul
[2014-01-06 16:49:45] - paul: yeah i noticed that. it kinda made me decide the rand paul suit might not be as awesome as i was hoping. funny how we saw this in such a different light. ~a
[2014-01-06 16:45:48] - mig: I'm fine with how things are now and don't think they need improving (even if it sometimes sucks for teams like the Cardinals), but 2 more teams doesn't seem like it's the end of the world. 14 out of 32 teams making the playoffs isn't as bad as what the NBA has going. -Paul
[2014-01-06 16:44:22] - http://reason.com/24-7/2014/01/06/ken-cuccinelli-to-help-rand-paul-with-ns I didn't see this one coming, but count this as another reason why I thought Cuccinelli had some positives to him that McAuliffe didn't. Hard to believe this guy was an attorney general sometimes. -Paul
[2014-01-06 15:59:35] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/two-wild-card-teams-coming-playoffs-2015-dan-175716997--nfl.html 2 more playoff teams? the nfl is denying it atm but it does seem like an inevitability at this point. - mig
[2014-01-06 11:26:43] - paul: of course not, it means homeland security will be twice or thrice as better! - mig
[2014-01-06 11:21:07] - "Doesn't this mean we don't need a department of homeland security, then?" i'd say it means we don't need a department of national security (or an *agency* of national security). ~a
[2014-01-06 11:18:24] - the xkcd made me smile. i've found myself in similar meta-situations where i'm looking for code that looks for stuff. ~a
[2014-01-06 11:02:46] - Today's xkcd is about regex golf and has some pretty impressive regular expressions, if they are accurate (which I assume they are). -Paul
[2014-01-06 10:44:44] - mig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSdJtNen-EA Looks like you were right about that hog-riding Zangief. Still never seen him in the game, though. -Paul
[2014-01-06 10:00:21] - http://reason.com/24-7/2014/01/06/fbi-changes-primary-function-from-law-en Doesn't this mean we don't need a department of homeland security, then? -Paul
[2014-01-06 09:48:49] - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/02/blog-posting/bloggers-say-obamacare-coding-system-could-usher-b/ was this really worth spending the time to debunk? slow news day? - mig
[2014-01-06 09:33:49] - a: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-suing-nsa I figure now is an excellent time to plug my preferred winner of the upcoming Republican presidential primary.
-Paul[2014-01-05 21:45:27] - and the answer (or non-answer as the case is here) ~a
[2014-01-04 09:24:12] - is the NSA spying on congress?. the answer they'll get is probably going to be a bold-faced lie. it won't be the first time they've lied to congress. ~a
[2014-01-03 09:15:23] - a: Yeah, I feel like the best way of addressing this would probably be to just casually mention once in the article that it was climate change researchers, although I still worry it might cause people to draw incorrect conclusions. -Paul
[2014-01-02 17:57:57] - mig: my sister lives in bloomington. (shudders) oh right, i always forget that she moved to indianapolis. ~a
[2014-01-02 17:55:03] - but i doubt most news "reporters" would stop at simply mentioning it. ~a
[2014-01-02 17:54:13] - no. ~a
[2014-01-02 17:51:10] - a: Well, would simply mentioning that they were climate change scientists have made it "sensationalist" in your mind? -Paul
[2014-01-02 17:37:02] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/you-peed-on-me-but-its-ok-this-nye-missed-connection-is-an-instant-classic/ on some level a story like this depresses me. - mig
[2014-01-02 17:34:21] - climate change researchers are likely to find themselves in and around icy waters often. so the sensationalist story (that we're for some reason surprised nobody was covering) would have pissed me off royally. ~a
[2014-01-02 17:31:52] - it's almost surprising that the media didn't jump at the idea of making it the sensationalist (childish/snickering) story. ~a
[2014-01-02 17:07:32] - But on the third hand, just because they got stuck in ice doesn't mean diddly-squat about whether or not climate change is happening, so including that information could incorrectly lead some people to believe there was some kind of connection. -Paul
[2014-01-02 17:06:32] - On the other hand, the story DOES seem much more interesting in a childish/snickering way when you learn they were on a climate change expedition. Who cares about people stuck in ice, but people who are worried about the Earth warming being stuck in ice? Comedy gold. -Paul
[2014-01-02 17:03:51] - http://reason.com/24-7/2014/01/02/conservative-media-watchdog-group-finds Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, the mission the ship was on is pretty irrelevant to the story of people being trapped in ice. -Paul
[2014-01-02 15:13:57] - Santa's reindeer after their post-Christmas celebratory kegger.
[2014-01-02 13:36:20] - "Where does the Bud Light factory get enough urine to supply the whole world with enough Bud Light for new year's eve?" -shittyaskscience
[2013-12-31 11:17:21] - a: i like it .) -amy
[2013-12-28 23:49:20] - i like this subreddit ~a
[2013-12-28 10:56:24] - ahhh, summer, right ok. ~a
[2013-12-28 10:08:12] - a: 2003 for the summer, I think. Might even have been 2002. -- Xpovos
[2013-12-27 21:15:49] - xpovos/mig/g: fixed! ~a
[2013-12-27 15:34:40] - mig: i kinda like the new ugly jerseys. This way we don't have to look at guys' armpit hair, or think less of them if they manscape them. -nina
[2013-12-27 14:45:38] - yep. ~a
[2013-12-27 14:29:33] - shouldnt mj and I have a line too?? Unless its not representing what I think. ~g
[2013-12-27 14:05:40] - hah, it is. ~a
[2013-12-27 14:05:16] - should be on not-the-onion if it isn't already: Danish Cinnamon Rolls Are Dangerously Cinnamony, Says the EU ~a
[2013-12-27 10:59:41] - mig/xpovos: you're both right. xpovos, i thought that was a possibility, but i wasn't sure. it was 2003/2004ish, right? ~a
[2013-12-27 09:59:26] - I think you can add a line between ar and th too. -- Xpovos
[2013-12-27 09:35:01] - a: you missed a connector between paul and myself if the graph is representing what I think it is. - mig
[2013-12-27 00:32:01] - i did another one of those graph things. this one is self-explanatory, by comparison. but i enjoyed making it anyways. i apologize if there are any mistakes. ~a
[2013-12-26 15:27:24] - "Quite late in the run-up to launch, the quality assurance teams started running into severe problems with many of the units - and when I say severe, I mean units literally bursting into flames."
[2013-12-26 15:26:56] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_cd I've seen stuff about the failure of the sega cd before, but there was some funny tidbits in here. - mig
[2013-12-26 13:45:17] - sample image of the ugly jerseys. - mig
[2013-12-26 11:25:41] - what was up with the sleeved jerseys in yesterdays NBA games? I thought they looked pretty awful. The ones for the Knicks and Warriors were especially bad. - mig
[2013-12-26 09:49:46] - a: interesting quiz. mine placed me firmly in NJ and south florida. I guess I haven't picked up any virginian in the past 7 years. -nina
[2013-12-24 23:26:35] - Arlington, with south Florida overtones. -- Xpovos
[2013-12-24 10:03:43] - My map is all red/yellow except for Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, some parts of New York and a tiny part of Mass that I assume is Boston. - mig
[2013-12-24 09:29:48] - a: total there were about four questions i just had to lie on because the answer i wanted to give wasn't an option - aaron
[2013-12-24 09:29:25] - a: aww it put me in San Jose, but that's OK, i travel there pretty often. i'll be there in january!! some of the questions were kind of dumb, like "do you pronounce crayon like cray-AHN", or like "two syllables, and the second syllable rhymes with dawn..." in my mind, "ahn" rhymes with "dawn" so i didn't know how to answer it truthfully - aaron
[2013-12-23 15:33:03] - Moreover, since this enrollment probably required a lot of hoops to jump through, since they mentioned his personal information is understandly not easily accessible, even more so I'm wondering why they bothered. I'd think they would have much rather have enrollment centers spend their resources enrolling people that actually need insurance. - mig
[2013-12-23 15:30:42] - http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/president-obama-enrollment-obamacare-101483.html i'm trying to make sense of this story. If they're admitting that the act of the president enrolling in healthcare.gov is pretty much just symbolic, then really why bother? - mig
[2013-12-23 12:36:03] - i thought it would be horribly skewed since both of my parents grew up in iowa and they talk very differently from the peeps around here, but i guess i've integrated in spite of this. ~a
[2013-12-23 12:34:01] - oh wow! this website quiz thing picked that i was in arlington. that's some accurate fucking work considering i'm sitting in arlington right now! ~a
[2013-12-23 11:21:35] - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/23/rand-paul-celebrates-festivus-tweeting-grievances-with-washington/?hpt=hp_t3 Rand Paul celebrates Festivus by airing his grievances. -Paul
[2013-12-20 16:17:14] - okay, i got 166 points on #6 for 1336 total... that's all i'm getting without internet help. #5 would be easy if i knew how to invert a regex! i'd just use my current anti-solution with grep -v if i were doing it "for real" - aaron
[2013-12-20 16:13:43] - man everything from #5 on was really tough for me!! i got #8, and #9 in a really dumb way (110 points)... right now i have 1169, and I think i can get #6 in a dumb way - aaron
[2013-12-20 16:08:30] - LOVE IT. ~a
[2013-12-20 16:01:43] - http://regex.alf.nu/ regex golf - aaron
[2013-12-20 14:36:12] - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/politics/white-house-exempts-some-from-health-law-penalties.html have we reached epic fail on ACA yet? - mig
[2013-12-20 14:02:21] - argh. i can't sign anything today properly it seems. - mig
[2013-12-20 14:02:09] - I guess you really can't have playoffs in that format because it would kind of defeat the purpose of the format in the first place (having bad beats suck less). - ig
[2013-12-20 13:58:56] - Anyways, I thought the idea of having you go h2h with the league average was a neat idea, but I'm sure there are lots of complications that idea causes. - mig
[2013-12-20 13:56:01] - if a defense scores you a lot of points, it's usually because the defense actually played well. - mi
[2013-12-20 13:55:07] - the red zone. - mig
[2013-12-20 13:55:04] - paul: here's what I find different about kickers than any other position, including defense. The kicker's actual value in fantasy has actually very little to do whether he's actually a good kicker. If Justin Tucker scores nets you 4 points next week, it's not because he necessarily had a bad game, but because the Ravens scored 4 tds instead of getting stalled in
[2013-12-20 13:16:30] - mig: For that matter, it's actually difficult to tell in advance what defenses are going to be good going into the year. Should we get rid of defenses too? -Paul
[2013-12-20 13:16:04] - mig: I understand his point about kickers, and while I kind of agree, I think it's somewhat arbitrarily picking on one position. The only reason kickers are significantly different from other fantasy players is that it's harder to tell in advance which are going to be good. -Paul
[2013-12-20 13:01:57] - http://sports.yahoo.com/news/splitsville--kill-the-kicker-230706796.html thoughts? - mig
[2013-12-20 11:47:44] - aaron: Pokemon probably pays an advertisement fee to McD's and then McD's pays a per-unit fee to Pokemon. It probably washes out, but the accountants love that kind of stuff. -- Xpovos
[2013-12-20 10:45:39] - 50/50?
let the market decide? ~a[2013-12-20 10:09:34] - xpovos: the burgundy/dodge thing is probably less murkier, I'd assume they just split up the advertising costs. - mig
[2013-12-20 10:05:27] - d3 expansion coming 3/25/14
[2013-12-20 09:59:02] - aaron: I guess it would depend on who needs who more. Does McDonald's really need pokemon toys to drive more happy meal sales (and by extension more values meals, probably) or does Nintendo need the happy meal promotion to steer more movie viewers. I'm guessing the latter but who knows. - mig
[2013-12-20 09:37:53] - aaron: I always assume it's just some mutually beneficial agreement where no significant sums of money change hands. McDonalds needs a Happy Meal toy idea, pokemon (or whatever kids movie) needs some exposure, so it's win-win. -Paul
[2013-12-20 09:20:12] - xpovos: i always wonder about that, like when mcdonalds gives out pokemon cards in their happy meals. is mcdonalds getting paid to advertise pokemon... or is nintendo getting paid to draw kids to mcdonalds? - aaron
[2013-12-19 15:57:08] - mig: I'll admit I got a little confused when Ron Burgandy became the spokesperson for the Dodge Durango. At that point, exactly who is paying who to advertise what? -- Xpovos
[2013-12-19 15:44:36] - I just get kind of wary when I see excessive advertising blitzs like this. - mig
[2013-12-19 15:39:23] - aaron: I'm not talking about the trailers per se, but referring to the various stunts with the character showing up to do interviews on actual shows on CNN and ESPN with everyone playing along. I didn't find any of those particularly funny or interesting, and I just felt it's the promotion of the movie trying too hard. - mig
[2013-12-19 14:50:57] - http://buttersafe.com/2013/12/19/santa-claus-santa-magic/ i know what present you've been hoping for this year! - aaron
[2013-12-19 14:33:33] - well if you're ever board, feel free to ask your questions. i love talking about bitcoin
~a[2013-12-19 14:10:30] - a: I have a lot of questions (I'm not going to ask them) about this, but that sounds very cool. -- Xpovos
[2013-12-19 12:55:52] - in case it hasn't been said, colored coins is still brand spanking new and the software isn't completely done. (full disclosure, i am tangentially involved with the colored coins project.) ~a
[2013-12-19 12:47:08] - xpovos: bitcoin is pretty impressive: very few people talk about what i'll call advanced-bitcoin-things. one of these things is ownership transfer. you can transfer (and trade) more than just money. you can transfer ownership of arbitrary things over the protocol. colored coins is one method. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmFjmvwPGKU ~a
[2013-12-19 12:17:03] - a: colored coins? -- Xpovos
[2013-12-19 12:17:01] - a: colored coins? -- Xpovos
[2013-12-19 10:51:58] - ah, it is fun to speculate! i speculate... that the *volatility* of bitcoin will continue to be high. there are ways of combating volatility that nobody (almost nobody) in the bitcoin community is discussing: options, futures, and/or colored coins. i'm actually thinking of turning this thought into a post on /r/bitcoin. ~a
[2013-12-19 09:33:21] - a: I know nobody knows for sure, but I think it's fun to speculate. I remember Xpovos and I speculating on where the SIRI stock was heading years ago. I think you're right that it hits $1k before $100, though. -Paul
[2013-12-19 09:13:14] - a: Wait, NTFLX will be sub $200 again? Why have you been withholding this information from me!? -Paul
[2013-12-18 21:55:28] - paul: bitcoin is the most volatile thing i've been involved in . . . maybe ever. so it's more likely that it'll hit some crazy ass numbers (high or low). having said that, if you want to place bets: i'll bet that it'll hit 1000 again before 100. ~a
[2013-12-18 21:54:07] - paul: heaven knows where the price of anything will be in the future!
you don't ask me if i think NFLX will be sub $200 levels again. if anybody could answer that then they'd be some rich ass mother-fuckers. ~a[2013-12-18 16:27:31] - a: I hear bitcoin is back to around $500 thanks to some negative news in China. Ever think it'll hit sub $200 levels again? -Paul
[2013-12-18 15:56:48] - mig: i've only seen one commercial for anchorman 2 but it got me excited. looks like it's got some good jokes, i laughed out loud at brick turning invisible in front of the weather map. i don't think they exhausted the potential out of the franchise yet - aaron
[2013-12-18 14:36:57] - a: Yeah, admittedly it was a little bit of that. It was more like, "You guys want to see this movie? I've already seen it, but I'll totally see it again" instead of, "I just saw this movie and I already know I want to see it again in the theaters!". -Paul
[2013-12-18 14:30:17] - (minority report, star wars 3, the dark knight) all great movies, but not necessarily my favorite three movies coming out in that time period. ironically, my favorite movies i mostly didn't even see in theaters. hell, i didn't see the matrix in theaters. ~a
[2013-12-18 14:20:30] - "enough to see it twice in theaters" wow that is a ringing endorsement. though most movies i saw twice in theaters were just because i knew two groups of people that wanted to see it . . . not because it was like an all time favorite movie. ~a
[2013-12-18 14:19:37] - i did like the first one, yes. i guess i'll give it a try. ~a
[2013-12-18 14:15:37] - a: Kick-Ass 2? I completely admit it's an out-there choice, and totally not everybody's cup of tea, but I think it's the movie I enjoyed the most this year (enough to see it twice in theaters). If you liked the first one, I think you'll like the second. -Paul
[2013-12-18 14:12:47] - enders game, and gravity, (also anchorman) though i'm psyched to see. ~a
[2013-12-18 14:11:07] - paul: really? i saw the ~30% on rotten tomatoes and decided not to see it. ~a
[2013-12-18 13:57:17] - it is well rated. ~a
[2013-12-18 13:56:58] - Maybe it's just me though. I kind of abhor it when movies get promoted by blending them into real programs or events (the NBA playoffs is the worst offender, and the attempted tie-in with After Earth this year was probably the most awful one I can recall). - mig
[2013-12-18 13:55:10] - Speaking of movies, does Anchorman 2 have a feeling of dreaded dissapointment? It feels that way to me with the way Will Farrell has been trying to pimp the movie over the last few weeks? - mig
[2013-12-18 12:58:06] - mig: cool! i'm adding the movies too. one nom, please ~a
[2013-12-18 12:49:04] - no one put up a best movie of 2013. since I'm not sure I even saw any movies in theaters this year, I'd opt to discuss best game(s) of 2013 instead. - mig
[2013-12-18 11:13:51] -
~a[2013-12-18 11:13:47] - mig: latter. i didn't want there to be something we all agreed on. ~a
[2013-12-18 11:05:02] - a: are you serious or just being contrarian? - mig
[2013-12-18 10:59:45] - i hate it! horrible move. why oh why did he do this? ~a
[2013-12-18 10:45:51] - Dammit, there's not supposed to be an apostrophe there, is there? Stupid nonsensical possessive version of "it". -Paul
[2013-12-18 10:44:49] - aaron: Yeah, it seems like the best measured response. It's unlikely to escalate anything or harm anybody, but it also clearly makes it's point. -Paul
[2013-12-18 10:36:41] - paul: yeah, exactly, i think it's a perfect message. withdrawing athletes or protesting in a more formal way would be too political, i'm glad he didn't see a need to do anything that drastic - aaron
[2013-12-18 10:27:14] - aaron: Hahaha, that's kinda perfect. Not quite a full middle finger to Putin, but at least half of one.
-Paul[2013-12-18 10:27:09] - aaron: I approve. It does seem like a good way to send a strong message. - mig
[2013-12-18 10:24:13] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/sochi/2013/12/17/white-house-sochi-olympics-delegation-to-include-gay-athlete/4051581/ President Obama selects openly gay delegates to Sochi Olympics in Russia - aaron
[2013-12-18 10:22:40] - mig: i can understand that, i agree it's a little subjective. i'd consider the right to bear arms to be evidence that the government is "pro gun", but i wouldn't consider the fifth amendment to be evidence that the government is "pro criminal". likewise, i don't consider zoning laws to be evidence one way or the other - aaron
[2013-12-18 10:15:44] - paul:
(i'm adrian)[2013-12-18 10:13:53] - i don't know what the "official" name for it is. Tooltip seems inaccurate in this case. I just go by the html tag name for it (alt). - mig
[2013-12-18 10:12:23] - paul: i refer to it as alt-text. - mig
[2013-12-18 10:09:45] - Today's xkcd reminds me of this message board for some strange reason. Probably because of the hover-over text (is there a better word for that?). -Paul
[2013-12-18 10:05:27] - aaron: it's still a political process, and ultimately people in government make the decisions, hence why I consider it a central government planning problem. - mig
[2013-12-18 10:02:14] - mig: i mean if homeowners changed their mind and all wanted to be surrounded by low-cost housing, then the exact same tools are there for them to accomplish that as well, right? it's just that people don't want that - aaron
[2013-12-18 10:01:16] - mig: the fact that the government allows these people to have a voice in their community doesn't seem like a "politicans don't necessarily want cheap housing" thing. it just seems like politicians are giving people the tools they need to make their opinions count, and prevent unwanted development - aaron
[2013-12-18 10:00:06] - yeah "housing" can mean a lot of things, I probably should have been more clear about what I meant there. - mig
[2013-12-18 10:00:01] - mig: the reason i still disagree with the spirit of your original argument, is that these are community problems -- not central government problems. it's not like the government passed a law saying, "you pay 25% less in taxes if you're developing a 3BR townhouse" or something -- it's just that people want to be surrounded by nicer stuff - aaron
[2013-12-18 09:57:57] - mig: yeah, this does refute that there's no financial incentive to build low-cost housing -- there's definitely people doing it sometimes. i guess when i thought about "housing" i was thinking houses, but you're right, low-rent apartments and senior centers count too - aaron
[2013-12-18 09:57:19] - Getting anything built anywhere requires an insane amount of political involvement. You have to get approval some all sorts of agencies, you have to hope residents don't object too much. Your assertion that developers don't want to build low cost housing is just flat out untrue. It's just easier to get higher cost housing and shopping centers approved. - mig
[2013-12-18 09:49:11] - But, there are political barriers to getting low cost housing built, and the article highlights an example of it. - mig
[2013-12-18 09:48:37] - aaron: ok, first off, I brought this up to refute your point about there being an oversupply of housing (in terms of low cost housing, there isn't). As I said earlier, I misspoke a bit when I said politicans don't necessarily want low cost housing, but I'll admit it's an oversimplication of the issue. - mig
[2013-12-18 09:37:28] - mig: it doesn't affect her (the pond can't be removed because it's a part of a local aquifer) but it affects a lot of her neighbors, and in this case they just kind of have to deal with it because it's whatever the golf course owner feels like doing with the property - aaron
[2013-12-18 09:36:41] - mig: doesn't the mere image of dozens of protesters impeding a sole developer, doesn't that evoke a sentiment different from "the government is forcing high-cost housing on us?" i mean i'm probably biased, my mom is currently in a townhouse adjacent to a beautiful golf course, and the golf course is possibly getting demolished to erect apartment buildings, - aaron
[2013-12-18 09:34:55] - mig: hmm i understand the point of the article, but it sounds like the locals really don't want that project developed in that location. it doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, that they're given a way to prevent it. to me.... - aaron
[2013-12-17 18:54:00] - aaron: there isn't an oversupply of housing in all places. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:47:49] - mig: well my point is still just refuting your initial point, that cheap housing isn't developed because the government doesn't want it. cheap housing isn't developed because it would have to compete with the large used housing market, similar to the automotive example you mentioned. - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:46:04] - anyways, my main point is that companies definitely do things with economic accessibility in mind. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:45:12] - aaron: is surface targetted at the middle class ... yeah, but I think it's accessible to lower income people, if their need is some sort of computing device. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:42:40] - mig: i don't think it's because there's some government/real estate agreement to only develop expensive housing so they can raise more taxes... - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:41:47] - mig: struggling to think of one. yeah, TVs might be a better example, i think there are some low-income families who might still buy a new TV. so, i guess it occasionally happens. but i think you said it, low-end housing isn't developed because there's such a large used market - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:40:32] - mig: wasn't the surface developed to compete with the iPad? i think that's microsoft's only tablet... it's not like they have a lower-end tablet. i don't know. i really think all these devices target the middle class. the best example i can think of is like, the iPod shuffle maybe, or maybe third-party mp3 players, or something like that... i mean, i'm really - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:39:08] - Also, TVs. There's a huge range of TVs available for people of all sorts of income levels. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:34:01] - Cars are a bit of a different market though. Nobody develops lower end new cars anymore because there's such a large used market. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:29:20] - ok, imac was a bad example. Surface, though. It's basically a laptop. It's definitely more than $80 ($250 i think), but I think it's certainly in the reach of just about anyone who has a need for a laptop. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:21:03] - mig: http://www.apple.com/imac/ this apple imac? the one that starts at $1,299? - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:19:50] - mig: hmm. i think the iMac targets the middle class. you think it really targets the lower class? the lower class people i know all have archaic hand-me-down computers from like 2003 with Windows XP and stuff. they wouldn't be able to afford an iMac. maybe i just don't know the right people - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:18:13] - smartphones too. not all of them are $200 snazzy iphones for snooty people. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:17:46] - paul: http://wamu.org/news/13/12/17/dc_does_pauls_thing_too D.C Council approved a bill to cap their spending to rise with inflation. hooray!! - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:17:07] - hell, even microsoft surface. Maybe it's not *intended* to be targetted for people on the lower end of the scale, but they are certainly priced within their reach. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:16:20] - aaron: actually that's not true at all. Why do you think things like the iMac or Chromebook exist? - mig
[2013-12-17 16:14:19] - let me amend that statement a bit. it's not that politicians don't actually *want* cheap (cheap in the sense of for those on the lower end of the income scale) housing, but it's that they're not necessarily going to push for it. And it is a government thing. Local governments and real estate development are pretty intertwined. - mig
[2013-12-17 16:12:50] - like, yeah people don't go out and build $125,000 houses, just like ford isn't developing a $3,500 pickup, and acer doesn't sell a $80 laptop. if you're poor, and you want a house, car, or laptop, you get your relative's old stuff, or something off craigslist, right? - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:10:39] - mig: oh i think i see. you mean like, which demographic it targets? well, i don't think that's a government thing, i think that's a real-estate thing... i mean, i don't see computers or cars being developed to target lower-class people either, they get handoffs. i think it's the same with real estate right? - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:09:12] - mig: i don't know what you'd call "cheap housing units" but randy just bought a house which was built this year, and it's pretty cheap for how much house he got. is that what you mean? - aaron
[2013-12-17 16:04:14] - the desire for more property taxes is a big driver of almost all the uses of emminent domain. - mig
[2013-12-17 15:59:20] - aaron: It was Adrian's wish. I only went along with it if DC also capped their spending to rise with inflation.
-Paul[2013-12-17 15:58:22] - Take merrifield for example. It's now all shopping areas for middle to upper middle class people plus corresponding housing units for them. - mig
[2013-12-17 15:55:54] - aaron: here's the thing. Look at what gets developed on unused land. When was the last time you saw any cheap housing units being developed anywhere? - mig
[2013-12-17 15:45:35] - also, after 2016, DC's minimum wage will be indexed to inflation, so i guess you guys get your wish - aaron
[2013-12-17 15:44:33] - http://wamu.org/news/13/12/17/with_little_fanfare_dc_council_gives_final_approval_to_minimum_wage_hike D.C Council approved a bill which will increase DC's minimum wage to $11.50 by 2016 - aaron
[2013-12-17 15:39:25] - mig: if computers are expensive or food is expensive it doesn't really matter to them, it's just squeezing different parts of a balloon. the only thing they *don't* want, is they don't want our money sitting in bank accounts, and they don't want money spent outside the country - aaron
[2013-12-17 15:38:39] - mig: "politicians don't want cheap housing because it means lower property taxes..." that doesn't really make sense to me. following that logic, doesn't the government want gasoline and condoms to be expensive too? and they also want salaries to go up, because of income tax... i don't think they really care if housing is expensive or cheap, they tax everything - aaron
[2013-12-17 14:58:08] - aaron: For some reason, people seem to realize that a $1,000 an hour minimum wage is ridiculous and wouldn't work, but doesn't realize that doubling the minimum wage (which is often what people are looking for) also causes major problems. -Paul
[2013-12-17 14:56:54] - aaron: Yeah, I love that counter-argument. If people really think that there's no real downside to raising the minimum wage in terms of increasing unemployment or prices of good, then all those people are being cruel by only wanting to raise it to $20 or whatever. -Paul
[2013-12-17 14:55:33] - a: I haven't done the math, but that plan just might work. -Paul
[2013-12-17 14:53:37] - "affordable") which is part of the reason for the housing bubble bursting. - mig
[2013-12-17 14:53:23] - as for housing, politicans don't necessarily want cheap housing because it means lower property taxes, but they want housing "affordable" which is why you see rent control schemes or the multitude of government loan programs and tax breaks for people to buy a home. Of course that's a bit of a paradox (trying to keep housing prices high, while at the same time being
[2013-12-17 14:50:53] - aaron: that's the obvious answer, but unfortunately fixing those issues would run counter to a lot of popular government policies. Agriculture is notorious for crony corporatist policies that keep the costs of basic food products higher than what the market would bear(milk, corn, and sugar are prime examples). - mig
[2013-12-17 14:45:26] - paul: i agree minimum wage is too low, but really, the problem is that the cost of goods/services is too high. i think the real way to solve these problems is cheaper housing, cheaper food, incentivizing people to live away from urban centers, things like that - aaron
[2013-12-17 14:43:19] - paul: yeah, i've spoken with people who think we should just increase minimum wage to $20/hr, that way everyone will earn a living wage. to which my counterargument is, well why not $1000/hr! i mean if we'll pulling numbers out of our ass why not pull really big numbers - aaron
[2013-12-17 14:19:07] - you run for office, and i'll vote for you. ~a
[2013-12-17 14:05:53] - a: Well, either way, now we just need to grab the reigns of government between the two of us so we can implement our plan. -Paul
[2013-12-17 14:01:07] - hmmm? i thought we were discussing per capita spending. my bad. ~a
[2013-12-17 13:40:05] - a: Even if it's just pegged to inflation and not population growth AND inflation? Sucka!
-Paul[2013-12-17 13:33:44] - paul: you shouldn't be surprised by this, but you probably will be: i'm fine with that proposition. ~a
[2013-12-17 13:30:28] - paul: peg government spending growth to inflation? What kind of nihilistic jihadistic terrorist mosnter are you? - mig
[2013-12-17 13:28:38] - a: I'll make you a deal. We peg government spending to only grow with inflation and I'll be fine with raising the minimum wage according to inflation.
-Paul[2013-12-17 13:26:33] - to just eat the costs. - mig
[2013-12-17 13:26:26] - paul: that is probably the #1 most frustrating thing in debating progressives about economic issues. For the most part they want to pretend that there's never any trade offs for any proposed regulations or whatever. Or when even they acknowledge the tradeoffs they just assume every company in existence is uberich (pun intended) and has some sort of moral obligation
[2013-12-17 13:25:55] - more seriously, i want minimum wage to stay consistent with inflation. i know i'm going off topic. but, i want it! ~a
[2013-12-17 13:24:39] - paul: YES. i want all the money, and for everybody else to also have all of the money. yes we can, paul. yes, we can. ~a
[2013-12-17 13:11:41] - aaron: Like how people want to double minimum wage, but not increase unemployment or prices of goods and services. -Paul
[2013-12-17 13:10:37] - I wouldn't even classify a normal taxi service that way. - mig
[2013-12-17 13:10:09] - paul: yeah I think it was pretty telling when the author referred to uber as a "utility". - mig
[2013-12-17 13:08:38] - aaron: I think you hit the nail on the head. People want "regulation" (in as vaguest terms as possible) to basically break the laws of supply and demand. Somehow Uber is supposed to offer the same service (with the same price) during snowstorms with the same availability. -Paul
[2013-12-17 13:05:46] - mig: yes, i think taxi service continues. but the number of taxis during a snowstorm is fixed, while the number of customers increases -- so eventually, there are no more taxis available. - aaron
[2013-12-17 13:02:56] - s/was/wasn't
[2013-12-17 13:02:42] - another question, since it was mentioned in the article at all: do "normal" taxi companies even operate during something like a snowstorm? if not, then realy what is there to complain about uber, then? - mig
[2013-12-17 12:58:10] - mig: yeah, it just seems juvenile, like people complaining about Diablo 3's launch, or the fact that gas is too expensive. they don't know how to fix it, they just want to complain - aaron
[2013-12-17 12:57:07] - mig: supposedly, most uber drivers are employed by other companies -- and just use uber to fill the downtime during their job. - aaron
[2013-12-17 12:56:54] - aaron: they want the convenience of it, but also want them to be exactly like taxis. - mig
[2013-12-17 12:56:16] - aaron: I think that's what the people who are hating on uber ultimately want. - mig
[2013-12-17 12:56:11] - mig: no, think they're not employees. anybody who has a car can sign up to be an uber driver. you pick up people and drop them off, and uber keeps track of your rating. if your rating is good, it'll offer you more customers in the future. - aaron
[2013-12-17 12:51:05] - paul: so i'm not sure 100% how uber drivers operate. Are they technically employees of uber or freelancers/contracted? if the latter then the extra incentives for having more drivers during adverse/conditions high demand makes even more sense. - mig
[2013-12-17 12:50:17] - paul: The article hints vaguely at "regulation" but I don't even know what that would mean. Regulation that they can't increase fares past 4x? Fine, then nobody would drive during a snowstorm. Regulation that drivers have to work a certain number of hours per day? Fine, but now you're just changing Uber to a taxi company... - aaron
[2013-12-17 12:49:22] - Paul: http://www.sbnation.com/2013/12/16/5215616/midrange-jumpers-shot-charts-wizards-bobcats-rockets -Daniel
[2013-12-17 12:48:25] - paul: Yeah the phrasing of that article really bothered me. it even presented all the facts, like the fact that if Uber didn't incentivize drivers by jacking up rates, nobody would drive. And then still came up with a really bizarre conclusion, that it's somehow Uber's fault for price gouging.... What's the alternative? - aaron
[2013-12-17 09:35:05] - a: Right. Either way, I feel the economics of it are distinctly different than Uber's. Seems like Uber is geared towards trying to best match supply and demand by altering prices, whereas metro doesn't seem to have much of a motivation to do that. -Paul
[2013-12-16 16:30:46] - "they don't need to entice more trains but their operating costs are probably increased" per rider, though, i feel the operating costs would be decreased during rush hour. i agree with paul's logic. otoh: they want to discourage ridership at the times they have the possibility of exceeding capacity. ~a
[2013-12-16 16:23:47] - mig: Yeah, as a non-Redskins fans, it's really hilarious that they can't even tank for a better pick very well since they traded away their top picks to the Rams. -Paul
[2013-12-16 16:22:02] - yikes. I was looking at the nfl standings and the redskins are in contention for the #1 pick as it stands right now (though houston will probably get it). That's gotta suck. - mig
[2013-12-16 15:59:11] - mig: Probably. But wouldn't the increased ridership be enough to make up for it? I guess this goes back to what we all discussed before about the Nationals having to bribe the metro to stay open later to handle baseball fans. I guess if the metro loses money for each rider normally, then it would make sense to increase costs during rush hour. -Paul
[2013-12-16 15:56:34] - paul: well they don't need to entice more trains but their operating costs are probably increased, aren't they? They need more train operators, security and staff when there's more people, right? - mig
[2013-12-16 15:54:19] - mig: I'm sure they do, but they don't need to raise fares to "entice" more trains to run. Metro controls their own trains, right? So they can just send more trains out. Uber doesn't control the drivers. They can't force people to drive other people around, they have to use economics to give them incentive. -Paul
[2013-12-16 15:53:28] - the gap between trains is definitely noticeable when it's not during the rush hour times. - mig
[2013-12-16 15:51:52] - paul: don't they run trains more often during rush hour though? - mig
[2013-12-16 15:48:29] - mig: Well, for starters, doesn't it make less sense for the metro? The increased fares aren't connected in any way to getting more trains on the track, whereas at least for Uber, the goal is supposedly to get more drivers on the road. -Paul
[2013-12-16 15:31:47] - I mean, how is this different in principle, to Metro having increased fares during "rush hour"? - mig
prev <-> next