prev <-> next
[2016-02-02 16:12:25] - Clinton still touts military actions in Libya as an "achievement". - mig
[2016-02-02 16:07:24] - a: That's a little surprising to me, since Trump actually doesn't seem all that hawkish compared to other candidates. To me, Clinton and Rubio are the most hawkish, although it sounds like Cruz is trying to catch up with his comments about making sand glow. -Paul
[2016-02-02 15:29:18] - paul: every time i hear about a politician bombing countries, it's trump. i guess he isn't the only one? ~a
[2016-02-02 13:07:05] - Daniel: I'm going to be really sad if it's Clinton vs Rubio. It'll be a competition over who can threaten to bomb the most countries.
-Paul[2016-02-02 12:53:11] - I don't know if I've said it here or not but in talking to people I've thought Rubio had the best chance of winning for awhile. He seemed the best of the viable candidates so unless one of the people I think of as unviable end up winning more (Trump or Cruz) then I think Rubio wins. -Daniel
[2016-02-02 12:51:32] - mig: I guess that's bold because Trump has a big lead, but I could totally see that happening. Trump's aura of inevitability is shaken, Rubio has shown he is the clear "anybody but Cruz or Trump" candidate... I wouldn't be shocked at all (especially since I'm done underestimating him
). -Paul[2016-02-02 12:44:23] - I think what you're going to see starting now is lots of conventional republicans who would support a combination of Bush, Kaisch, and Christie, and maybe even some Carson supporters start flocking to Rubio. - mig
[2016-02-02 12:42:49] - paul: bold prediction - Rubio wins NH. - mig
[2016-02-02 11:38:42] - mig: I'm super torn on Cruz winning. I'm thrilled Trump lost. And ultimately Cruz just might be my (very distant) #2 choice among the Republican candidates, but it makes me sad to think that people who voted for Ron Paul might've jumped ship (from Rand) for him and I worry his win might give a boost to Rubio. -Paul
[2016-02-02 11:36:57] - mig: Yup. You whooped my guess. I had honestly forgotten about Rubio, but I still tremendously underestimated him (and clearly overestimated Paul). I guess it's time to start accepting the fact that Rubio might be our next President. How depressing. -Paul
[2016-02-02 10:01:21] - Not that he wasn't doing some shameless pandering on evangelicals, but it's nice to see you can reject some of the shameless pandering and still get an electoral win, particularly when all your rivals are hammering you on it. - mig
[2016-02-02 09:40:59] - one happier note (for me) from last night. While I'm no fan of Cruz, it was kind of heartening to see him win while rejecting Iowa's sacred cow of ethanol. - mig
[2016-02-02 09:02:27] - daniel: free state project (which is supposedly supposed to happen in new hampshire). ~a
[2016-02-02 08:59:41] - mig: clinton got one more delegate than sanders. ~a
[2016-02-02 08:32:33] - Paul: Whats FSP? -Daniel
[2016-02-01 23:17:03] - Results - 1) Cruz, 2) Trump 3) Rubio. Almost had it, though Rubio was pretty close to Trump. Sanders and Clinton virtually tie. Clinton is ahead slightly, but it looks like they'll receive the same amount of delegates according to the results page i'm looking at. - mig
[2016-02-01 17:17:07] - mig: I would like to think Rand could get a top 3 finish and that would propel him to a nice finish in New Hampshire, but he's polling horribly in NH. What's the use of the FSP if they can't even give a boost to candidates like Rand Paul?
-Paul[2016-02-01 17:16:19] - mig: I'm more interested in seeing what the "establishment" candidates (Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio) do. At some point they have to combine forces to try to take down Trump, right? I think Carson might carry on until South Carolina at least. -Paul
[2016-02-01 16:46:49] - Is Carson actually still running? I thought he left to sell his book like two months ago? -Daniel
[2016-02-01 16:26:14] - paul: I'm interested in seeing the fallout from the results, at least from the GOP side. Carson's campaign should probably end after today, along with Huckabee and Santorum. If Rand puts a strong showing (relative to expectations) in Iowa and sticks around maybe he could "surge" possibly. - mig
[2016-02-01 14:08:07] - a: Yeah, I'm getting excited that Bernie just might be able to pull off the upset (not just in Iowa, but for the nomination). $10 here I come! -Paul
[2016-02-01 13:43:35] - paul: the polls on clinton vs sanders are super close. 45C/42S (i think) is what i heard from npr this morning. ~a
[2016-02-01 13:39:42] - I think that's the case with all of the primaries. - mig
[2016-02-01 13:12:47] - paul: both are today as far as I can tell. - mig
[2016-02-01 13:09:17] - Is the caucus (caucuses?) for the Democrats today too? I feel like there's so much less media coverage of that. I guess because of the lack of Trump and that people still feel like Clinton is inevitable? FWIW, I'm going Bernie with the upset. -Paul
[2016-02-01 11:45:33] - mig: Somehow Rubio slipped my mind, but I still don't know if I see him placing top 3 in Iowa. Even if Trump and Cruz lose support, I don't see them going to Rubio. -Paul
[2016-02-01 11:43:56] - yeah. i think nurikabe is more fun, but it's still a different and fun game. the fact that it's 100% javascript is cool too. ~a
[2016-02-01 10:30:22] - a: oh, very cool! i'll have to check it out more when i get home, that's an interesting unique rule set - aaron
[2016-02-01 10:12:09] - 1) Cruz 2) Rubio 3) Trump. - mig
[2016-02-01 10:04:56] - Any Iowa Caucus predictions? I'm not into making any more bets, but here's my prediction: (1) Cruz (2) Trump (3) Paul. I think Rand outperforms a bit (similar to his father 4 years ago) and I think Trump under-performs a bit. Wouldn't be surprised if Carson is third and Rand slips to fourth, though. -Paul
[2016-01-29 11:08:06] - http://0hh1.com/ . . . similar to nurikabe and nonogram and whatnot. ~a
[2016-01-28 15:06:28] - "new words: linuxcirclejerk" -Paul
[2016-01-28 09:55:42] - If Ubuntu came from Debian, then why is there still Debian? ~a
[2016-01-25 14:22:01] - http://wcs.battle.net/sc2/en/?utm_source=battle.net&utm_medium=internal&utm_campaign=wcs&utm_content=sc2-nav#schedule probably a good as place as any to find things to watch, but quite honestly, Starcraft has kind of peaked in viewing popularity. Though very oddly, all 3 of the big mobas (Dota2, LoL, and Heroes of the Storm) have good and growing viewership. - mig
[2016-01-25 13:54:55] - I know there's ways to watch it now, but I'm looking forward to watching some serious Starcraft 2 coverage once the sport matures. Or maybe I should just get into LoL or HotS? -Paul
[2016-01-25 13:10:47] - paul: but yes, most of the coverage seems centered on the various mobas and hearthstone. - mig
[2016-01-25 13:07:59] - paul: there's some starcraft 2 coverage. - mig
[2016-01-25 12:47:49] - Hopefully a Trump nomination would ruin the Republican party beyond repair, at least, and maybe Bloomberg and Sanders/Clinton might cause some rifts with the Democrats as well. At the very least, maybe we'll see some party realignment. -Paul
[2016-01-25 12:46:29] - Also, I've been giving this some thought, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that maybe having Trump be the Republican nominee, with Sanders (or Hillary, not sure it makes a difference) for the Dems and Bloomberg running as an independent might be a good thing. -Paul
[2016-01-25 12:45:24] - mig: That's exciting (the ESPN thing). Do you know if they have Starcraft stuff, or is that exclusive to another medium (Twitch?). It looked like most of their stuff was League of Legends and Hearthstone? -Paul
[2016-01-25 08:47:56] - http://www.heroesnexus.com/news/1599-new-diablo-heroes-revealed-wizard-li-ming does this mean the necromancer will make the next diablo expansion? - mig
[2016-01-23 20:54:17] - http://espn.go.com/esports/ it's happening? - mig
[2016-01-23 00:09:29] - Daniel: Yeah, it's a shame, because the vanguard stuff sounds a lot like what I want to do. Instead, I'm stuck guessing and estimating just to get a crazy inaccurate guess. -Paul
[2016-01-22 13:45:28] - Paul: Oh, I gotcha. I missed the across multiple companies part. Or read it and just didn't process it. Yeah I can see how it would be hard w/o them doing it for you. -Daniel
[2016-01-22 12:43:58] - Daniel: So I have to piece together the info a different way, and even then it's hard. -Paul
[2016-01-22 12:43:32] - Daniel: That's super cool. Unfortunately, my 401(k) money hasn't been in vanguard for long at all, and it hasn't been at any one place for more than a few years. It's been following me from job to job and even at the same job, they would sometimes switch 401(k) providers. -Paul
[2016-01-22 10:37:16] - Paul: Fidelity has a way for me to track personalized performance as well. For my account total since initial purchase (in 2010 I think) my return rate is 11.5%. So if your math is showing 14% thats really good! -Daniel
[2016-01-22 10:24:26] - Vanguard also breaks it down by "Net Transactions" and "Investment Return" which add up to your ending balance. It also has the 5 year rate of return and 3 year rate of return but not rate of return since inception. My 5 year rate was 8.2% and 3 year was 10.7%. -Daniel
[2016-01-22 10:21:28] - Paul: Just looked at my vanguard portion of retirement stuff. It has a very handy view where I can see on the same graph a green line that is my contributions and then in blue the total value of the account. This doesn't give me a % return breakdown but I can see the blue line almost doubling from 2010 to now though coming back down in the last little bit. -Daniel
[2016-01-20 16:35:37] - a: Yeah, totally agree. I actually had this thought (my investments hadn't doubled) a few months ago when it probably should've been true, but didn't have time to look into it. Still, my estimates are way off from even a 46% gain. -Paul
[2016-01-20 16:16:02] - "S&P500 doubled from 2009 to 2015" vs " doubled in the past 5 years" are two completely different statements. the S&P500 has only gone up 46% in the past five years, not 100%. *big* difference.
~a[2016-01-20 15:58:53] - What a wild swing in the market today. I had a portfolio go from being down around 5% to ending up actually up a tiny bit. -Paul
[2016-01-20 15:31:27] - Daniel: That's what I get for falling behind on my rss feeds. -Paul
[2016-01-20 15:30:59] - Daniel: Oh, wow, apparently I did not see that. Whoops.
-Paul[2016-01-20 15:30:29] - a: Yeah, and I knew I wouldn't get a perfect results, I was just hoping for some rough numbers. I keep hearing about the magic of compounding and how the S&P500 doubled from 2009 to 2015 and thinking: shouldn't I have more money in my retirement funds than I currently do? It certainly hasn't felt like my investments had doubled in the past 5 years. -Paul
[2016-01-20 15:28:18] - Apparently Paul didn't see Miguel link that exact article? Or are we reposting for more karma here now too?
-Daniel[2016-01-20 15:27:04] - Bonus: In the comment section, some people call out Ars Technica for a significantly more slanted article about Trump over the same issue. -Paul
[2016-01-20 15:26:42] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bernie-sanders-campaign-sends-dmca-notice-to-wikipedia-over-logos/ "A lawyer representing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has demanded that several of the campaign's logos be removed from Wikipedia". -Paul
[2016-01-20 15:13:49] - paul: yeah, i came to the conclusion in 2008 that measuring the rate of return on a group of funds that are constantly going through buys and sells on multiple accounts . . . is pretty hard. ~a
[2016-01-20 15:10:04] - parroting daniel's answer: writer, director, producer, and leading actress of a very very popular show that touches some very controversial subjects, but also has gotten attention in other ways: read the "Other Work" and "Personal life" sections of her wikipedia article. i'm a vague fan of her, but i haven't seen much of her shit. ~a
[2016-01-20 14:50:39] - HBO show*
[2016-01-20 14:50:33] - Xpovos: She made a show on HBO called Girls that I've never seen but I think is about being an unmarried woman in their 20's. She acts and directs(?) in it I think. Thats all I know her from. -Daniel
[2016-01-20 14:22:31] - Can anyone (briefly) explain who Lena Dunham is and why I would ever have cared what she had to think about something? -- Xpovos
[2016-01-20 14:20:22] - Paul: Oh I gotcha. Yeah I'm not sure what my return rate is, I can look at home though at some point -Daniel
[2016-01-20 14:11:15] - Daniel: Which is probably something closer to a 1% a year return (although that's probably an oversimplification since I had a lot lower balance earlier). -Paul
[2016-01-20 14:10:24] - Daniel: Sorry, I explained it poorly. I am not nearly averaging 14% (according to my probably-wrong numbers). Best way I can explain it is by using a hypothetical example. Let's assume my combined total 401(k) funds are $100k. I'm saying that I am estimating that I've personally and directly contributed $86k of those $100k over my 12 years of saving. -Paul
[2016-01-20 13:57:47] - Paul: 14% would be pretty great average so if thats correct you should definitely be happy. I think people generally shoot for 6-8% on average. I think I can see the amount I've contributed online but I'd have to check on that. -Daniel
[2016-01-20 13:15:35] - Xpovos: Good thought, thanks. -Paul
[2016-01-20 13:10:56] - Paul: If you call and get a representative, they can probably go back further than 2 years. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-20 13:10:42] - Also, I guess it's worth noting that I'm looking at the value on a day where the market is crashing hard. My 401(k) funds were 25% higher about 6 months ago. -Paul
[2016-01-20 12:58:37] - Xpovos: Thanks. That was helpful advice. I'll keep digging around. -Paul
[2016-01-20 12:58:14] - Xpovos: Interesting, I was able to check my account from my previous employer (although sadly it only went back 2 years), which helped a lot. Apparently I contributed far less in 2014 than I thought I had.... probably in an effort to re-build some savings after buying the house. -Paul
[2016-01-20 12:47:27] - My best suggestion is to just take your quarterly statements from your 401(k) account(s). They'll have a list of contributions for each period which you could sum. That's a lot of work, but it's probably easier than a lot of the guess work you're talking about. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-20 12:46:35] - Paul: Sadly I don't have an answer. I've kept data on my own side of things from the start because of concerns about that kind of thing specifically. If it makes you feel better, though, even having all of that data, the answer isn't really obvious. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-20 12:30:27] - Does anybody have any thoughts on how I could get a better handle on my 401(k) contributions over the years? I've switched jobs a few times and unfortunately haven't been using Turbo Tax the entire time, so I can't imagine a single source that I could check. -Paul
[2016-01-20 12:26:22] - And the numbers I got seem so wrong that I have to imagine I did something wrong. According to my estimations, out of the total accumulated value of my 401(k)s over the years, my contributions represent 86% of the value and employer matches/investment gains only accounted for 14%. -Paul
[2016-01-20 12:24:09] - Which is really difficult to figure out, because it involves trying to remember (or guessing) what my salary was a decade ago and also trying to remember (or guessing) what kind of contribution rate I had. I didn't even try guessing what kind of 401(k) match I might've gotten. -Paul
[2016-01-20 12:22:59] - I've been trying recently to figure out what kind of return I've gotten on my retirement investments over the dozen or so years I've been saving, because I've had the nagging feeling that I should have a lot more gains. So I tried to figure out a rough estimate of how much I've contributed over the years... -Paul
[2016-01-20 11:56:34] - http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/verizon-wireless-selling-data-cap-exemptions-to-content-providers/ Addressed in the comments, but isn't this about the most blatant abuse of net neutrality imaginable? Does Verizon think this won't grab the attention of the FCC? -Paul
[2016-01-20 09:52:48] - a: Ah, sorry, misinterpreted that. Yeah, it definitely hurts Palin more in my eyes. Like I said, I didn't have a ton of respect for her before, but now I have virtually none. Trump was already there.
-Paul[2016-01-20 08:32:36] - I'm not saying this wouldn't have happened under Cuccinelli, but this is exactly the kind of thing we knew would happen under McAuliffe. http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/virginia-taxpayers-on-hook-for-million-given-to-chinese-company/article_350e056d-64f0-5b23-8a0d-f1efe8f12c4d.html -- Xpovos
[2016-01-19 17:45:32] - paul: "in my eyes". Not that it matters; I can't imagine a likely scenario where I'd vote for either. But I agree, this doesn't hurt trump at all in the polls. It mosdef helps him. ~a
[2016-01-19 17:37:12] - mig: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-cnn-wmur-poll-democrats/ There is hope for my bet yet.
-Paul[2016-01-19 17:35:42] - Personally, I mostly wrote off the tea party when it was backing guys like Santorum over Ron Paul in the previous primary. -Paul
[2016-01-19 17:34:59] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/19/would-sarah-palins-endorsement-of-donald Maybe not of any interest to anybody besides Miguel and I, but some thoughts from libertarian-ish / tea party-ish politicians and other individuals about if the tea party is (or should be) dead at this point. -Paul
[2016-01-19 17:24:37] - a: I can't imagine this hurts Trump in any way. Are there Trump supporters who can't stand Palin? -Paul
[2016-01-19 16:38:10] - jesus christ. i don't know who this hurts more in my eyes, palin or trump. ~a
[2016-01-19 16:26:59] - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html?_r=0 Not like I had a ton of respect for Palin before, but this pretty much squashes what little I had.
-Paul[2016-01-19 13:54:25] - mig/aaron: short article about paired-programming. actually, it's about being a deaf programmer. but the paired-programming part made me think of you guys. ~a
[2016-01-19 13:08:02] - paul/xpovos: (yes, at some point they're all mined. it does decay like xpovos said, but at a certain point the rewards do reach such a number, after you'll be dead, that it is actually zero) miners will eventually start getting their profits from transactions fees. read the paper. it's short and easy to read! ~a
[2016-01-19 11:42:40] - If mining was zero-profitability, no one would do it, and that would mean that the computers verifying the transactions--actually performing the decentralized work of transferring bits, would slow down or go away, and you wouldn't even have a store of value because without an ability to ever liquidate, it has no value. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-19 11:41:33] - Paul: My understanding is that the answer there is also "No". The mathematical algorithm is a decay, but it never reaches zero unless time reaches infinity. My understanding is also that it's designed this way to keep up with increases in processing potential in the future while also accommodating the need for transaction computation. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-19 11:16:00] - a: Gotcha. But there is a definite end in sight, right? At some point the bitcoins will all be mined. -Paul
[2016-01-19 10:44:35] - "keeps getting harder to mine until there are no more possible" this is not technically what happens, but it's a close approximation. (technically, the difficulty of mining keeps pace with the miners. the payout, on the other hand, decreases greatly every few years.) ~a
[2016-01-19 10:12:19] - a: As long as it's a pretty strong "no", I don't think I need further explanation. I guess I just don't understand what the difference between it being gold vs visa is, then. -Paul
[2016-01-19 10:10:43] - a: If there are always more ones being made, I could see that as being beneficial to its use as a currency, but less effective as a store of value. -Paul
[2016-01-19 10:10:04] - a: I'm trying to imagine what the difference would be in making bitcoin gold vs visa, and I feel like the difference is how restricted the supply of bitcoin is. If it's restricted the way I think it is (keeps getting harder to mine until there are no more possible), then it should be a pretty strong store of value... -Paul
[2016-01-19 09:11:58] - (counterparty and colored coins are also similar to those systems). ~a
[2016-01-19 09:10:25] - i can expand on "no" if you'd like, though. there are systems that are like how you describe: bitshares and ripple (yuck). but, bitcoin is intentionally not at all like those systems. ~a
[2016-01-19 07:49:17] - "Would one of the solutions to this blocksize problem increase the potential future number of bitcoins that can be mined?" no. ~a
[2016-01-18 14:55:42] - paul: just imagine how you would go about making bitcoin visa *or* gold (one without the other). my guess is you'll run into trouble trying to describe that system to me. ~a
[2016-01-18 14:53:51] - paul: bitcoin needs to be both. you can't have one without the other. not without loads of centralization or a bunch of moving parts. ~a
[2016-01-15 19:15:11] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bernie-sanders-campaign-sends-dmca-notice-to-wikipedia-over-logos/ is bernie sanders not the droid we are looking for? - mig
[2016-01-15 16:00:00] - a: https://avc.com/2016/01/bitcoin-is-dead-long-live-bitcoin/ I am interested in this tidbit, though: "Should Bitcoin be Gold or should Bitcoin be Visa." Would one of the solutions to this blocksize problem increase the potential future number of bitcoins that can be mined? -Paul
[2016-01-15 15:54:13] - mig: 88 times. ~a
[2016-01-15 15:43:46] - paul: so how many times is it now that bitcoin has been declared dead? It might be rivaling wow for that title. - mig
[2016-01-15 15:40:45] - paul: apparently I have exhausted my 5 free articles on newsweek despite never having visited the site on this computer. - mig
[2016-01-15 15:33:25] - a: http://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-price-crashes-cryptocurrency-branded-failed-experiment-416267 Failed!
-Paul[2016-01-15 14:42:34] - Also, I really wish I had some extra cash to invest in the market today. I'm not calling a bottom, but I am seeing a few stocks I would like to buy at these discount prices. -Paul
[2016-01-15 14:41:47] - Because you never know when somebody like Trump might be at the reigns of all that power. Maybe we can hope that Trump, similar to how he had no idea what the nuclear triad is, won't know how to use the nukes?
-Paul[2016-01-15 14:40:52] - If we didn't have nuclear weapons, Trump getting elected president might not actually be a disaster. Ideally it would usher in the end of the Republican party AND serve as a glowing beacon to everybody of why you don't want government (in general) and the presidency (specifically) getting too powerful. -Paul
[2016-01-14 15:45:05] - a youtube video (i listened to it instead of watching it). it's similar to the "other side" article. ~a
[2016-01-14 12:31:14] - everybody deamonizes the "other side" on occasion. tribalism is in our dna. i think we all need to do less of it. maybe we'll play "controversial opinion" next time we hang out? it sounds like a hippie game, and i love it. ~a
[2016-01-14 12:07:00] - a: Also, agreed on
to the title. -Paul[2016-01-14 12:06:20] - a: It's one thing if it's funny or trying to be educational, but so often it just looks like they're trying to demonize the other side, and I wonder what the point is. -Paul
[2016-01-14 12:03:53] - a: And I'm certainly guilty of demonizing the "other side" a lot, so I'm not trying to say I'm any better, but I do get really annoyed when I see stuff on Facebook whose sole purpose is: "Look how dumb all democrats are" or "Look how hateful all republicans are" without any attempt at all to appeal to the other side or understand them. -Paul
[2016-01-14 12:01:22] - a: I was only wondering if you saw any conflict between your stances on those issues (CFA, Eich, Barilla, etc) and the viewpoint espoused by the article. -Paul
[2016-01-14 12:00:11] - a: http://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=131000#131149 has a lot of talk about CFA and Eich where you seemed pretty unwilling to sympathize with somebody with an alternative viewpoint. Is that an ad hominen? Absolutely.
I don't want to disagree with the argument the article advances. I actually agree with the majority of it. -Paul[2016-01-14 10:41:42] - a: I'm not arguing that they are dumb, I'm just saying they're engaging in the same form of demagoguery the author is decrying. - mig
[2016-01-14 10:29:50] - mig: again, like your two arguments (biden is dumb, and people on your facebook feed are dumb), you're using the "other side" argument to describe a specific side on a specific argument. ~a
[2016-01-14 10:16:17] - a: well I guess I would amend his premise that the problem is more than people thinking the "other side is dumb" and more that "the other side is motivated by unspeakable evil". - mig
[2016-01-14 10:06:05] - title:
~a[2016-01-14 10:05:44] - mig: i suppose. it's not an argument i hear so generally made. usually the "other side" is not dumb is used to describe a specific side on a specific topic. ~a
[2016-01-14 10:03:10] - It certainly lines up with my expectations that I'll be seeing lots of facebook posts on my wall over the next few months about how the mean republican ogres are going to destroy the country and enslave all minorities. - mig
[2016-01-14 09:57:56] - a: You might be preaching to the choir with this one? - mig
[2016-01-14 08:21:48] - ... what's your thoughts about the article itself? ~a
[2016-01-14 08:21:03] - paul: link? part of me doesn't care though, this is an orthogonal statement. and you're mostly making an ad hominen anyways, right
[2016-01-14 00:04:47] - a: I'm surprised to see that article posted by somebody who (if I recall correctly) was in favor of booting CEOs who were have found to have donated to causes that were considered anti-gay-marriage. -Paul
[2016-01-13 23:37:29] - the "other side" is not dumb ~a
[2016-01-13 16:08:18] - mig: some of them are moderate or libertarian. none of them, or almost none of them, are liberals (IMO). ~a
[2016-01-13 15:56:14] - a: actually, maybe this is a better line of thought: out of the people I listed, and along with Greta and Shepard Smith - are they (IYO) "right wing" and if so, why? - mig
[2016-01-13 15:15:10] - http://www.endofprejudice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Left-vs-Right-US-Political-Spectrum-us-republican-party-22707903-1415-1022.jpg
[2016-01-13 15:14:01] - http://www.endofprejudice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AmericanPoliticalSpectrumInfographic.jpg as a starting point maybe? -Daniel
[2016-01-13 14:50:13] - a: you first? - mig
[2016-01-13 14:02:14] - let's. ~a
[2016-01-13 14:02:02] - ok. ~a
[2016-01-13 13:40:11] - maybe we need to agree on a definition on "right wing"? - mig
[2016-01-13 13:12:58] - Most of the people on Outnumbered I wouldn't consider necessarily "right wing" either. - mig
[2016-01-13 13:12:22] - But just off the top of my head: Kristen Powers, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Greg Gutfeld, Kennedy, John Stossel, Megyn Kelly. - mig
[2016-01-13 13:09:27] - a: again, this might go by how we define "right wing". I would disagree with lumping Shepard Smith and Greta with people like Hannity and O'Reilly. - mig
[2016-01-13 12:10:34] - mig: "they have a lot more diversity of political thought in their lineup than most people don't realize or don't want to acknowledge". ok, i don't realize or acknowledge this. do you have any specifics? i think you'll have to get a whole bunch of libertarains and liberals to come close to outweighing the primetime hanity/o'reilly/fox&friends/susteren/smith. ~a
[2016-01-13 11:53:58] - And I'm not saying they aren't mostly right wing. They are. All I'm saying is that they have a lot more diversity of political thought in their lineup than most people don't realize or don't want to acknowledge. - mig
[2016-01-13 11:50:47] - a: i suppose it depends on how you define "right winged" - mig
[2016-01-13 11:47:07] - paul: Hannity and Eric Bolling might be the only solidly pro-Trump people on Fox. O'Reilly has actually given him some tough interviews. Obviously, Megyn Kelly is not a fan. - mig
[2016-01-13 11:32:03] - What has Fox News' coverage of Trump been like? I got the impression they were very much not pro-Trump, but I don't know how accurate that is. -Paul
[2016-01-13 11:27:49] - mig: i disagree on #1 and #2. don't have much data to back it up my disagreement. only that tons and tons of people watch fox news exclusively and hanity+oreilly are very much not their only right-wingedness. ~a
[2016-01-13 11:23:03] - Daniel: I was mostly thinking of CNN/Fox News/MSNBC for cable and the various local news and national news programs that ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX have (don't know if they have names). I would throw in a lot of newspapers (WaPo, NYT) too. -Paul
[2016-01-13 11:21:43] - a: News articles online. I can't remember specific examples. -Paul
[2016-01-13 11:17:03] - mig: I'm not sure how much power Fox has - would be hard to define / quantify but I'm pretty sure their "right-wingedness" was on display last night after the speech. The stuff they were saying made me laugh more than once. -Daniel
[2016-01-13 11:16:13] - Paul: Who / what counts as mainstream media sources? What counts as acceptable news sources? I guess my main news sources are reddit and npr. -Daniel
[2016-01-13 11:13:10] - paul: used by whom? ~a
[2016-01-13 10:34:13] - aDaniel: I feel the same way about people who only get their news from mainstream media sources. I'm sure Fox News is bad, but I get annoyed with slanted opinions and bad reporting from CNN and other mainstream sources too. How long did CNN obsess over that missing plane? -Paul
[2016-01-13 10:33:22] - re 2) I would think the recent Trumpamania movement would make it pretty clear Fox News doesn't pull the string of republican politics. - mig
[2016-01-13 10:32:42] - daniel: Honestly, there are 2 things about fox news that are really overblown - 1) it's "right-wingedness", and 2) the "power" of its political influence. Re: 1) It has a lot more political diversity than people give it credit for (most people just assume Hannity and O'Reilly are the entirety of Fox News. - mig
[2016-01-13 10:32:30] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics) A successor doesn't have to be already elected, it sounds like. I've definitely heard the term used to describe Obama already. -Paul
[2016-01-13 10:24:27] - paul: #45 hasn't been elected yet. isn't it a little bit early to be calling 44 a lame duck? ~a
[2016-01-13 10:19:34] - daniel: my grandma watches fox news to get her news. as, i'm sure tons of people do. it makes me kinda sad. ~a
[2016-01-13 10:18:21] - daniel: in 2008-2009 i watched fox news a lot. it was mostly for entertainment value, and i rarely felt like i was becoming more informed. here's a link i posted to the message board back then about the fox news audience. it probably doesn't answer your questions though. ~a
[2016-01-13 09:37:46] - Daniel: I was under the impression that Fox News viewers are typically older and whiter, but I don't have numbers to back it up. -Paul
[2016-01-13 09:36:39] - Daniel: I don't even find the speeches meaningful at all. Historically, how often has the SOTU been a meaningful precursor to actual legislative action? Especially in a lame duck president. -Paul
[2016-01-13 09:35:56] - Daniel: I didn't watch, mostly because I was busy, but also because I usually can't stand them (for any presidents, not just Obama). Too many shots at opponents, overly idealistic statements, pauses for applause, etc. -Paul
[2016-01-13 08:54:54] - Watched Fox for a bit after the speech. They are interesting to watch and make me wonder about the segments of America that only get their news from them. Are there demographics somewhere for who watches which channel? Like age or area or anything like that? Just wondering. -Daniel
[2016-01-13 08:53:24] - Anyone else watch the SOTU? I watched it - thought it was ok. Lots of shots at Trump and his seeming way of thinking. Did seem to gloss over some foreign issues. Not sure what he could of said about the deal with soldiers and Iran but it does seem a notable absence. Probably a lose lose on that though since I'm not sure what he would say that would help. -Daniel
[2016-01-12 19:11:53] - a: He'll be gone soon.
-- Xpovos[2016-01-12 17:54:21] - interesting. ok, it sounds like you should fire her boss then. ~a
[2016-01-12 15:28:28] - a: She's pretty much untouchable. Plus she does do a good job of riding herd on her staff and making them work very hard, which is all anyone results-oriented cares about. The fact that she has abysmal turnover is masked by the fact that the entire operation does too. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-12 15:18:42] - yikes. and he said that in front of the people he was talking about? you probably should fire that guy. ~a
[2016-01-12 14:49:22] - a: With this manager, probably not. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-12 14:42:10] - xpovos: as a joke, i assume? ~a
[2016-01-12 14:39:42] - Things overheard at the office. "You have a great staff." "Don't tell them that. They'll want more money." -- Xpovos
[2016-01-12 14:17:25] - xpovos: i certainly agree it's a genuine free rider in that case, I just don't view it as a genuine problem that requires government intervention to "fix". The unions could fix the problem by putting forth a better argument that paying dues is worth it to workers. - mig
[2016-01-12 13:46:15] - mig: The free rider is a problem IF the following conditions are met. 1) Negotiations for pay/benefits cost a significant sum of money (union hires outside lawyers, e.g.) AND 2) Non-union members get the same benefits. Then you do have a genuine free rider. You're right that the correction to compulsory dues causes problems, but it might be the less bad solution.
[2016-01-12 13:06:12] - I have a hard time reconciling the stance that being for "worker's rights" means stripping individual workers of their voice for the "greater good". - mig
[2016-01-12 13:03:59] - Also with compulsory dues, union power becomes concentrated at the top. There's no meaningful way for members and non-members to oppose certain things the union advocates on their behalf if they disagree with it, as is the case with the plaintiffs in this case. - mig
[2016-01-12 13:00:21] - xpovos: i don't see the free rider as a "problem". If the union can't convince members to keep paying dues, tough shit. It should be their job to prove their worth to prospective members. - mig
[2016-01-12 12:46:10] - I'm pretty pro-union, despite a lot of appearances to the contrary. I mean I'm also Right to Work, and those seem like opposites to a lot of people. As far as unions go, having compulsory dues is troublesome, but it's a reasonable response to a free rider problem. That's part of why I'm surprised about this "likely" decision. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-12 12:29:09] - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-takes-slim-lead-hillary-clinton-iowa/story?id=36240514 Come on, Bernie! Win me that $10.
-Paul[2016-01-12 10:41:21] - Which is find the other argument about "free riders" to be incredibly disingenuous because it's pretty obvious these teachers want don't want very little of what the union offers, but they can't oppose what they object to in any meaningful way. - mig
[2016-01-12 10:39:25] - merit, making it hard or impossible to fire bad teachers, etc). - mig
[2016-01-12 10:33:21] - daniel: As I've said before, I have always found it perplexing to be considered "anti-union" or promoting "union busting" to be against compulsory dues. Particularly in this case, where the plaintiff teachers not only don't support the same political causes of the union, but also oppose the work policies that the union has put in place (LIFO layoffs, seniority over
[2016-01-12 10:21:12] - In political theory I'm pro union - though not always in practice pro union - but its a very weak argument that the unions wont be able to function w/o these dues when so many other unions already do. -Daniel
[2016-01-12 10:12:09] - xpovos: It doesn't help that the government and unions have presented terrible arguments, and one of the lawyers really ticked off Kennedy. - mig
[2016-01-12 10:04:53] - mig: It does seem that way, but I've learned not to trust the tea leaves readers either. I'm a bit surprised, honestly. I thought it was solid that the justices wouldn't move to expand it last year, but striking it down almost entirely just a year later? -- Xpovos
[2016-01-11 18:12:12] - xpovos: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/supreme-court-public-sector-unions-fees-217572 abood might be going down? - mig
[2016-01-11 13:54:08] - it seems like most of your statements are hinged on "maybe 'incitement to harass'". so, maybe not? ~a
[2016-01-11 13:31:04] - Of course does that mean once you are popular enough, you can't ever post public opinions or critique anyone else ever again, lest your followers (who you can't control, most likely) start harassing those people, which means you "incited" them to do so. - mig
[2016-01-11 13:25:59] - Sarkessian herself has publicly complained that every time a popular youtube personality posts a commentary video criticizing her work, that she sees a spike in social media harassment, in a way implying that the act of posting that commentary video is in of itself harassment. - mig
[2016-01-11 13:24:01] - a: maybe "incitement to harass" according to some? He gets accused of getting people to "dog-pile" on people he criticizes. The idea being that every time he posts something critiquing someone like Anita Sarkessian or Brianna Wu, it's some sort of signal for his followers to start harassing the person. - mig
[2016-01-10 21:24:23] - there's also some allegations that the twitter employee behind the decision to un-verify Milo might be a friend of one of the people that Milo frequently criticizes. - mig
[2016-01-10 21:12:16] - a: that's the mystery, isn't it. While Milo's twitter activity is indeed provocative, I don't see anything there posted by him that would qualify as "violence", "abuse", or "harassment". - mig
[2016-01-10 10:06:38] - a: But if Trump ends up being the nominee, my opinion might change again. -Paul
[2016-01-10 10:00:42] - a: Well, it varies over time. At the time I made my wager with Miguel, I didn't even think she would be the Democratic nominee, so I certainly didn't think she would win the general election. Right now, I think she probably will be the nominee, but I still think she'll lose the general to Rubio/Cruz. -Paul
[2016-01-09 22:11:05] - mig: what's interesting about it? which rule did he violate? ~a
[2016-01-09 18:53:33] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-punishment-of-breitbart-journalist-sparks-revolt/ i don't pay much mind to twitter but this is quite an interesting story tome. - mig
[2016-01-08 18:19:31] - a: his wager w/ me was that he thought she would not be the Dem nominee. - mig
[2016-01-08 18:12:55] - paul: well to avoid this question in the future: you think clinton is going to lose (or not attend) the general. yes? ~a
[2016-01-08 17:06:05] - a: But I remember "Hope and Change" seemed pretty unstoppable during the first election and I remember thinking Romney seemed like a pretty blah candidate for the second. -Paul
[2016-01-08 17:05:30] - a: At what point in time? I think I remember pretty consistently thinking McCain was going to lose and I don't recall ever thinking Romney was going to win. I'm not trying to brag or anything, and I wouldn't be surprised to be proven wrong. -Paul
[2016-01-08 17:01:24] - paul: without hindsight, who did you think was going to win in mccain vs obama? or romney vs obama? ~a
[2016-01-08 14:59:52] - Honestly, I could see somebody like Christie winning a matchup with Clinton too. Maybe even Rand Paul. A lot of that has to do with how weak of a candidate I perceive Hillary to be, though. -Paul
[2016-01-08 14:54:06] - I think Rubio has a better shot at beating Clinton head-to-head, but I wouldn't write off Cruz in that matchup, imo. - mig
[2016-01-08 14:36:01] - Daniel: Yeah, Rubio could get establishment support more than Cruz, but I wonder if this whole thing where he's basically resigned as a Senator will hurt him. -Paul
[2016-01-08 14:28:54] - Paul: I could imagine a world where Rubio wins, I struggle more to envision the world where Cruz wins. -Daniel
[2016-01-08 13:54:48] - paul: i finally have a classification for you: NW-NH (no way. no how) ~a
[2016-01-08 13:48:24] - Daniel: At this point? I guess I'm thinking Rubio or Cruz. I still don't see Trump winning the nomination and it seems so hard for either party to hold onto the white house for a third consecutive term. -Paul
[2016-01-08 13:44:56] - Paul: Who do you have beating her in the general? -Daniel
[2016-01-08 13:38:03] - Xpovos: At this point, I'm kind of assuming she wins the primary and loses the general, but my predictions (outside of Kirk Cousins) have been piss poor lately. -Paul
[2016-01-08 13:21:16] - Paul: After she loses the primary or after the general (assuming she loses either)? -- Xpovos
[2016-01-08 12:46:24] - I need some place to log all of these wagers. Where is my prediction market!? -Paul
[2016-01-08 12:46:08] - mig: I'm tempted to throw on a follow-up wager of whether Hilary will get charged with anything before the election (I could totally see her getting charged after if she loses). -Paul
[2016-01-08 12:06:17] - paul: i dunno, this is getting to the point where it's getting difficult for the relevant authorities to not do anything, even if they are incredibly reluctant to do so. - mig
[2016-01-08 11:58:38] - mig: Not as nervous as me.
I still think, despite the seriousness of the issue, charges aren't going to be brought against her and this will ultimately not cause her to have to drop out. My wager was based mostly on her not being a candidate that inspired passion among Democrats. -Paul[2016-01-08 11:47:00] - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/ ok, so I'm getting a tiny bit nervous about our wager... - mig
[2016-01-08 11:25:52] - a: Oh, also, I spoke to Dave about your question regarding selling when one stock gets within a certain threshold of another. He said that should be definitely doable with Interactive Brokers. I can't remember the exact term he used, but I thought he said they offered something like a "programming interface". -Paul
[2016-01-08 10:49:15] - a: Ok, so can I get a bitcoin crash course from you in terms of me shooting you questions and you answering them? If I get satisfactory answers I might buy some bitcoin off you.
-Paul[2016-01-07 12:30:26] - daniel: this involves a matter of actually interperting the law and contract and potential arbirtration, so I'm pretty sure this is going to be decided by a judge and not a jury. - mig
[2016-01-07 12:19:43] - mig: I get why they are involved / have a say but it seems like it would be hard for me to side with them as a juror. Though maybe its just judges for this type of case and maybe they are more impartial or better at sticking to contract/family law. -Daniel
[2016-01-07 12:12:34] - daniel: i have to agree with andrew. It's "her" body, but the babies aren't hers per the terms of the contract (as well in genetic material as andrew also mentioned), so it stands as reasonable that the would be parents would have a say in the matter. - mig
[2016-01-07 11:44:51] - Daniel: Actually, the law on this one is incredibly straight forward, IMO. The abortion has to happen if the DNA donors desire that, not just in terms of the contract but family law issues. -- Xpovos
[2016-01-07 11:34:05] - daniel: would the courts force the "lessee" (hahahaha) to continue with payment even though the contract specifically states they wouldn't need to continue payment? ~a
[2016-01-07 11:28:05] - xpovos: Yikes thats a crazy situation. Honestly though it seems like very few courts would side with the "selective reduction" side. Like both pro-life and pro-choice sides would seem to support her if she is choosing to not reduce. -Daniel
[2016-01-07 10:54:45] - "this is just not right" hah. she probably didn't read the contract. right? ~a
[2016-01-07 09:45:16] - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/19/her-body-their-choice-when-a-surrogate-refuses-to-abort.html -- Xpovos
[2016-01-06 16:47:56] - a: Actually, I just realized you probably want the tracking of their stocks and not services. I'm not sure if you can see that without being a member, because then you could see all their recommendations. Next time you're over I could show you using my login, though. -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:46:49] - a: Probably www.fool.com/ and scroll halfway down? They only have some of their services listed there, though. I'm not sure if there is a link so you can see all of them. They've been revamping their homepage recently. -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:44:45] - "The Motley Fool tracks the performance of their recommendations vs the S&P, though" that's *awesome*. where do i read *that*? ~a
[2016-01-06 16:36:47] - Daniel: And thanks! I'm pointing it out now because who knows if that'll continue in the future. As long as I'm beating the index fund 5+ years down the road, I'll be happy. -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:35:28] - Daniel: Not that I know of. The Motley Fool tracks the performance of their recommendations vs the S&P, though. -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:29:06] - more science-y. -Daniel
[2016-01-06 16:29:01] - Paul: I would say with certainty that an individual investor can beat the market. I'm not sure that everyone can beat the market on a regular basis though. Does any big company release any kind of average / median / etc stats for how individual investors did over the last year/month/whatever? Not that I'm aware of but I feel like thats what you would need to be...
[2016-01-06 16:26:29] - Paul: You are right on taxes. I was spacing on the IRA part. If you are just comparing the $ amounts in your two funds then expenses should be reflected in that. Sooo.... good job! -Daniel
[2016-01-06 16:23:01] - Daniel: I'm seeing if my employer is right and that an individual investor CAN beat index funds.
-Paul[2016-01-06 16:22:36] - Daniel: And, yeah, beat the index fund is more accurate. That's a more noble goal, though, right? Don't we generally agree here that low fee index funds (like the ones I think I picked from Vanguard) are better than actively managed funds and are basically the "ideal" way for people to invest for retirement? -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:20:24] - Daniel: As for fees, I think those should be accounted for too. I'm taking the total value of my portfolios from the quarterly (monthly?) statements. I'm assuming the fees are already taken out for Vanguard, and the commissions are definitely getting taken out for Scottrade. -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:19:23] - Daniel: Well, they're both in vehicles that should be tax... deferred? Is that the right word for both traditional and roth IRAs? That doesn't seem right for Roth. Anyway, I don't think taxes should be the same for both, right? -Paul
[2016-01-06 16:09:04] - paul: you could buy some btc from me, and i could hold it for you. pro'lly doesn't interest you, but there you go. ~a
[2016-01-06 16:07:38] - Paul: Don't forget taxes and expenses with your mutual fund challenge. Also it sounds more like a beat the index fund challenge and less a mutual fund challenge. -Daniel
[2016-01-06 15:41:54] - a: High frequency trading is definitely a thing too. Sounds like that is (in a way) what you want. -Paul
[2016-01-06 15:37:42] - algorithmic trading is a thing . . . i guess you'd have to have some sort of API with your broker. ~a
[2016-01-06 15:00:11] - a: There probably is a way to do that with options, but it probably requires you to keep an eye on the price of btc on a fairly constant basis. Or maybe not. I'm still pretty much a newb at options. -Paul
[2016-01-06 14:23:05] - my specific example is this: i want to short gbtc. but once the price of gbtc gets within 20% of btc, i want to cover the short. that way the price of both equities could freely go up and down together, but once one of them gets too close to the other, a trade would execute. ~a
[2016-01-06 14:20:51] - paul: so, i have a question about selling (a long, for simplicity). with a stop-loss (or a similar stop-limit), i can set a price i want execution to happen at. what if i want some expression to flip to true first? what if i want a sale to happen once one stock (say aapl) gets within $5 of another stock (say goog). is that something some broker can do? ~a
[2016-01-06 14:15:36] - paul: no. gbtc is basically your only "legit" choice as of today. and the 60% premium is completely insane, imo. since i actually hold regular bitcoin, it might actually make sense for me to short gbtc to capitalize on the 60% premium. ~a
[2016-01-06 14:07:59] - a: As soon as I can invest in bitcoin with minimal fees and even more minimal chance of losing it all due to a hack/me being an idiot, I'm all over it. I'm just too worried about investing more than $100 in a wallet that I still feel I could lose if I lose my phone. Is there some publicly traded bitcoin exchange company I could invest in? A more legit Mt. Gox? -Paul
[2016-01-06 14:05:40] - http://rare.us/story/worlds-number-one-weapons-dealer-worried-about-gun-show-loophole/ Thought this was a clever headline. I thought the article itself has a good point in equating gun violence here with weapon sales as part of foreign policy, though. -Paul
[2016-01-06 14:05:37] - paul: nm. i can't actually recommend gbtc. gbtc has a 60% premium over btc. ~a
[2016-01-06 13:55:08] - paul: GBTC. ~a
[2016-01-06 13:28:41] - We'll see if this is something that I can keep up.
-Paul[2016-01-06 13:27:36] - Both funds are basically static in terms of no new outside money coming in or going out (technically my vanguard account had an extra $900 deposited in the past month or two). For the fourth quarter of 2015, the vanguard IRA performed about as well as the S&P500 (3.13% gain) while my Roth IRA outpaced both (10.69% gain). -Paul
[2016-01-06 13:23:49] - Ok, so my own personal "beat the mutual fund challenge" is officially kicked off. I have a traditional IRA invested in vanguard funds (fairly evenly distributed between VEMAX, VSMAX, VTIAX and VFIAX if anybody cares) and a Roth IRA at Scottrade where I invest in individual stocks and options. -Paul
prev <-> next