prev <-> next
[2016-03-04 15:10:30] - Oh, I just realized that my most recent 401(k) numbers (for 2013 on) probably DO include the employer match, since I pulled those from my 401(k) statements... -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:09:30] - Daniel: So finding somebody who the entire political establishment and/or the media thinks is crazy might be a selling point to somebody like that. -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:08:48] - Daniel: I completely see your point, but when you said, "the whole political world is against", I think that could potentially be a big selling point to these people. In my mind, these are people who don't really follow politics at all, quite possibly because they're just disgusted with the whole system. -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:07:30] - Unfortunately, that's without the match, which I believe is not insignificant. Not sure if there is a good way to estimate that, though. Is there an average match number I can use? -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:06:32] - Anyway, if I assume no employer match (which I realize is a bad assumption), and roughly run my yearly numbers up against the performance of the S&P, I end up with pretty much the value that I had near the beginning of the year. So it looks like my 401(k) has about matched the S&P (about a 7% return) since 2003. -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:05:47] - Paul: Yeah I was going to ask how matching from employers fit in. Those are a big boost. -Daniel
[2016-03-04 15:04:47] - I was able to get data for 9 out of the 13 years I was looking at, and I filled in the holes with educated guesses based on the years before and after. The only problem is those numbers only count my own contributions and not employer matches, unfortunately. -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:04:32] - I mean I get where you are coming from Paul but I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure that either of us can super prove our points though because I'm not sure I see the more people voting in the R primaries as being a good substitute for the general populace if we required everyone to vote in the general election. -Daniel
[2016-03-04 15:03:33] - I doubt anybody cares, but I finally got some definitive data for my attempts to analyze my 401(k) performance over the past decade plus. I was able to get some of my old tax returns and old copies of turbo tax (thanks Dad!). I installed the previous versions, loaded up my tax returns, and grabbed my 401(k) contributions. -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:03:25] - I think there are a lot of people out there who see a reality tv star running for president and is a rude loud person and who the whole political world is against. I think if someone described that person to me I would also not like him. -Daniel
[2016-03-04 14:57:52] - mig: That's partially what I am thinking. I think there are a lot of uninformed people out there who see (what they think is) a successful businessman who is a straight-shooter and is un-PC and is giving the establishment fits while fighting with the media. If somebody described that candidate to me like that, I would probably like him too. -Paul
[2016-03-04 14:38:02] - It seems like whatever they vote would be unpredictable at best, or you'd see most rally behind whoever is the flashiest candidate (i.e. Trump). - mig
[2016-03-04 14:37:08] - a: can the apathetic vote really be catered to, at least when you're talking about the uninformed? - mig
[2016-03-04 14:04:35] - http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2016/02/who-is-voting-for-trump.html I think this also backs up my point a bit. Trump seems to be appealing more to the less educated (not surprising) and the more moderate (perhaps surprising to some). -Paul
[2016-03-04 13:55:09] - a: "we'd get more politicians forced to cater to the apathetic". I don't think this is the case at all. I don't think very many politicians cater to me at all, and I'm pretty non-apathetic. The problem with the apathetic is that I suspect they're usually pretty uninformed as well. Why bother trying to cater to somebody who might not even notice? -Paul
[2016-03-04 13:04:42] - paul: but i think this isn't a new hypothetical. the general one is: if you want to get out the vote, you realize that lots of those people are going to vote for someone who you don't like, right? that's not the point. the point is that if the apathetic voted (or even, were required to vote) then we'd get more politicians forced to cater to the apathetic. ~a
[2016-03-04 13:02:57] - paul: yes. ~a
[2016-03-04 12:57:17] - aDaniel: Hypothetical for you two: Let's say you have an acquaintance/coworker who you know doesn't vote. You've been harping on them to vote because, I believe, you think that everybody should vote. They finally relent and announce that they're planning on voting for Trump. Are you still pleased that they're voting? -Paul
[2016-03-04 12:51:04] - Daniel: "Trump is winning because he is bringing in new people to the Rep. primary" I'm not sure I follow your logic. If those new people are voting for Trump, then what makes you think the "everybody" group won't vote for him? -Paul
[2016-03-04 12:45:16] - I think if everyone was required to vote that Trump wouldn't win in the general. Trump is winning because he is bringing in new people to the Rep. primary and because the other side is still fractured. -Daniel
[2016-03-04 12:17:14] - a: Maybe. I never like trying to read too much into comparing across countries, though. Doesn't it seem like the extra people voting this cycle are fueling Trump's rise? -Paul
[2016-03-04 12:09:53] - paul: i disagree on this one. if more people vote, i think we'll get less extreme candidates not more extreme candidates (source, australia). ~a
[2016-03-04 12:06:23] - mig: I suspect/hope that he might not be as bad as he seems in terms of domestic policy, but I'm terrified of what he might do in terms of foreign policy. -Paul
[2016-03-04 12:05:23] - By most accounts, Trump has brought in a bunch of people who don't normally vote and these people are playing a large role in why he's doing so well. Do people on the other side still believe that people should vote no matter what? -Paul
[2016-03-04 12:05:11] - So, I share the worrying about Trump actually winning, but am I alone in thinking if he does win that it won't be the end of the world as we know it? - mig
[2016-03-04 12:02:52] - Although this Trump phenomenon has gotten me to think about a debate we've had here in the past about whether we want to encourage people to vote or not. I think Trump is a glaring example in favor of my stance (I don't want want to encourage people to vote who are ignorant or disagree with me). -Paul
[2016-03-04 12:00:55] - a: Oh, I am as well.
-Paul[2016-03-04 11:50:00] - "i'm really hoping Trump blows up the party" i'm hoping the same, but i worry that he'll still become president somehow. ~a
[2016-03-04 09:30:50] - After all the talk about him being a con man with Trump University and having a small penis and everything... how can you then say you would support him? Undercuts his argument. Of course, I'm really hoping Trump blows up the party, so I'm a little biased. -Paul
[2016-03-04 09:29:22] - Oh, and I really REALLY wish somebody had NOT pledged to support the Republican nominee if it was Trump. I'm looking at Rubio, who frankly has nothing to lose (he's given up on being a Senator and pushed all his chips in on becoming president) and has been the strongest attacking Trump lately. -Paul
[2016-03-04 09:27:31] - Personally, I thought Cruz did the best by mostly deflecting Trump's attacks and also occasionally treating him like a child ("count to 10"), so that probably doesn't bode well for Cruz.
-Paul[2016-03-04 09:26:02] - The big knock on Romney back in the day was how he was formerly more liberal and was a flip-flopper. Trump was exposed as even MORE liberal in a previous life and was actually extolling the virtues of flip-flopping while being exposed as a liar and somebody who will say anything to win... and the crowd cheers. -Paul
[2016-03-04 09:24:45] - Daniel: If there was any sanity to this race, last night would be crippling to Trump. But of course, there isn't any sanity and so last night probably somehow boosted him. It's crazy to me that tiny gaffes like Perry's "Oops" can sink a campaign but Trump routinely getting called out on his ridiculousness does nothing. -Paul
[2016-03-04 09:23:28] - Daniel: I watched a lot of it, but I also watched a lot of it on mute. I can't stand it when crowds are rowdy (they were last night) and candidates interrupt each other (hello, Trump) and talk way over their allotted time (Kasich!). -Paul
[2016-03-04 08:47:19] - And I continue to be mystified as to why John Kaisch is still running, and even more mystified by the grapevine talk of him maybe angling for a VP nod or endorsing Trump. - mig
[2016-03-04 08:46:22] - daniel: trump's a complete and utter buffoon. Oh wait, we knew that already. Anyways, his buffoonish-ness was pretty front and center tonight. Not sure if anyone else will be able to take advantage. - mig
[2016-03-04 08:38:54] - Anyone watch debate last night? Any take aways? -Daniel
[2016-03-03 12:48:59] - aaron: Yeah, it was weird, the wig joke seemed like it should be funny, but it just didn't hit for me. Maybe the timing was off? Still, I try not to judge a movie by its trailer TOO much. -Paul
[2016-03-03 12:21:19] - paul: one joke landed for me (the wig joke), but yeah a lot of it was poorly/predictably paced at least within the scope of the trailer. but i'm still interested - aaron
[2016-03-03 09:53:48] - http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2016/03/03/ghostbusters-reboot-drops-first-trailer.html The trailer looks disappointingly unfunny, but I feel like I still have to see this. -Paul
[2016-03-02 16:07:26] - roommate needed for relaxed household ~a
[2016-03-02 11:43:38] - 's time to finally load up Heroes of the Storm? -Paul
[2016-03-02 11:43:24] - mig: If only I played some of those games. Guess it
[2016-03-02 11:36:58] - https://esports.yahoo.com/ it's happening. - mig
[2016-03-02 09:41:45] - a: oh okay cool. yeah that's a weird distinction which that video changed my mind on. - aaron
[2016-03-01 17:22:37] - aaron: also, in your first post about this, you distinguished between "technical luck", and "practical luck": we probably agree on those differences. ~a
[2016-03-01 17:17:39] - aaron: are we using miguel's definition of luck? "an output that is outside of the players control"? ~a
[2016-03-01 16:58:45] - a: rats. well now i can't tell if we agree or not anymore. i think chess has luck for human players, even if you ignore who goes first. i want to talk about this in person though! maybe we just agree. - aaron
[2016-03-01 16:56:26] - Daniel: I honestly don't really remember. It was an argument from probably 15 years ago. While I don't remember the specifics, I think my problem was I was using the wrong word. I think I was more talking about if games had chance in them. Is chance different than luck? I can't even remember anymore. -Paul
[2016-03-01 16:08:34] - maybe if we said this instead: "there's no luck in chess, also play is deterministic, as long as you ignore who plays first." is that better?
~a[2016-03-01 16:05:12] - mig/aaron: yes, if you're playing multiple games you do alternate sides. also yes, it's a very minor distinction, even if you play only one game. regardless, there's luck because somebody will always play white more times (unless you play some huge number of games). ~a
[2016-03-01 16:00:25] - Paul: You claimed no luck in battleship? -Daniel
[2016-03-01 13:24:42] - paul: it started with stratego. but after someone pointed out the parallels to battleship, you claimed battleship has no luck as well - aaron
[2016-03-01 13:07:30] - Aaron: I thought it was Stratego, but either way...
-Paul[2016-03-01 12:58:51] - paul: because of the infamous "battleship doesn't have any luck" debate where everyone decided you were crazy - aaron
[2016-03-01 12:34:53] - if it was a "best of" wouldn't they just alternate sides after the first game? It wouldn't make sense to do a flip for every game, since the whole idea of a best of is to see who the better player is. - mig
[2016-03-01 12:33:32] - aaron: Is it called a "Paul debate" because usually everybody thinks that I am crazy?
-Paul[2016-03-01 12:30:11] - a: and yeah it sounds like we're on the same page which is surprising! i expected this to be another "paul debate" where i was on one side and everyone thought i was crazy - aaron
[2016-03-01 12:28:56] - a: but you're right, if there's a coin flip then the outcome of a single game of chess might have luck to it -- it depends on whether black is guaranteed a draw with perfect play. for example you could determine the starting player of tic-tac-toe with a coin flip, but there would still be the same deterministic result regardless of the coin flip - aaron
[2016-03-01 12:25:32] - a: i was under the impression that real chess matches were always done in a "best of 3/best of 5" format to offset white's advantage. but perhaps that's not always true, or perhaps the "best of" format doesn't fully negate the advantage if one player still gets to play white 3 times to the other player's 2. - aaron
[2016-03-01 11:17:21] - aaron: i agree with everything else that you said. distinction without a difference?
~a[2016-03-01 11:15:06] - aaron: "there is no luck between two players who have a full understanding of every caveat of a fully solved game" for chess you're ignoring the decision on who gets to play first, the decision on who is white and who is black, that's a "coin flip", and it's 100% luck. ~a
[2016-03-01 11:12:20] - In case anybody cares. I did end up voting today. Put in a vote for Rand Paul, who was still on the ballot. If Trump wins Virginia by 1 vote (or Bernie loses by 1 vote), then feel free to blame me.
-Paul[2016-03-01 09:20:10] - (and i suppose in case someone brings up the deck of country cards, we could avoid shuffling them or shuffle them with a similarly opaque deterministic algorithm) - aaron
[2016-03-01 09:10:06] - the second version of risk has literally zero luck, but why does that matter? games are made for humans, so if humans can't fully analyze them, then for all intents and purposes there's luck in them - aaron
[2016-03-01 09:09:05] - a: like we could play two versions of risk -- in one version we roll dice to win battles, in the other version the dice rolls are determined by sequential digits of pi in base 6, beginning with a digit chosen by the cake cutting algorithm (player 1 chooses the 51,329,152th digit of pi, and player 2 decides if he wants to go first or second) - aaron
[2016-03-01 09:05:19] - a: i guess the question is more -- do you draw a line between an absolute definition of luck from a theoretical standpoint, and a practical definitino of luck for human players?? and if so, why bother? from a game design standpoint there's not really any difference between the two - aaron
[2016-03-01 09:03:29] - a: but yeah "output outside of the player's control" isn't a complete definition of luck, there are games which have no output outside of the player's control but which still intuitively have luck, such as stratego, battleship, rock-paper-scissors, "the pi game" or the "pick a complicated door" game - aaron
[2016-03-01 08:59:16] - a: there is no luck between two players who have a full understanding of every caveat of a fully solved game. so, if we ever "fully solved" chess (it's only partially solved) and pitted two computers against each other, there would be no luck in that game, because chess doesn't have any "output that is outside of the player's control" - aaron
[2016-02-29 18:29:36] - aaron: rereading your last comment, i believe you're saying the same thing. i'd remove "for human players" though because i believe there is the same luck for any type of player. ~a
[2016-02-29 18:27:02] - aaron: i think we have to differentiate between luck and nondeterminism. i agree chess and pi-game are deterministic. i don't agree that chess and pi-game lack luck. ~a
[2016-02-29 17:52:27] - I'll watch the video and ponder it during my time working the election tomorrow. I'll let you know if any awesome insight hits me. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 17:51:41] - Another simplified version. Two human players have to name the 10,000th digit of pi. One of them has no help. The other has a card on which the answer is written. Is that a game of luck? One player has a 1/10 (maybe slightly higher) chance of 'winning', the other a 100% chance of at least tying. It's a game of luck for one player only. Is luck asymmetrical?
[2016-02-29 17:49:46] - aaron: Your pi game analogy is an interesting one. Is a game "choose a number between 0 and 9" a luck game? It seems that way. So why isn't this pi game? Hmm. It probably still is. But I need to think about it for a while. Maybe it somehow breaks the definition of 'game'? -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 17:46:47] - aaron: A lot of the highest level of chess is psychological. They'll play a certain line because they believe the opponent hasn't studied thoroughly, thereby increasing the skills gap and giving them an edge. White does have the advantage, so I agree with a, the luck in chess is in who goes first, as in many games. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 16:58:49] - mig: It reminded me of Colbert at his best. Just throwing a bunch of mockeries at a subject even if some of them are as ridiculous as the thing he's mocking (he also harps on Trump's short fingers). -Paul
[2016-02-29 16:57:18] - mig: I can give you a recap. The video is basically 22 minutes of Jon Oliver mocking Trump for a wide variety of things. Some of them legit, some of them not, most of them funny. He hits Trump about the Drumpf thing because Trump specifically called out Jon Stewart on a similar thing and then lied about it later.
-Paul[2016-02-29 16:54:58] - mig: I find that particular CNET writer to be horrible when it comes to... well... writing. I probably should've just found another source for the video. In fact, I didn't even really read the article, just watched the video. -Paul
[2016-02-29 16:42:48] - Now, it may be an important thing to point out in game design to at least keep in mind things that might make aspects of your game SEEM like luck, but I don't agree with the idea of defining things like your opponent's understanding of the rules as luck. - mig
[2016-02-29 16:26:22] - aaron: in the space of game design I would define "luck" as: "an output that is outside of the players control" (a dice roll, knife juggler proc, who goes first in chess, etc). - mig
[2016-02-29 16:25:30] - a: there is luck in the pi game, but the outcome is completely deterministic. a computer can win (or at least, not lose) the pi game with perfect play 100% of the time, and a computer can win chess 100% of the time. similarly, chess and the pi game have deterministic outcomes, but there is still luck for human players. - aaron
[2016-02-29 16:22:14] - in my defense, I feel like that additional context should have been in the article because (at least to me) very much changes my impression of that bit. - mig
[2016-02-29 16:22:08] - xpovos: if you strictly define luck as, "the likelihood that the best player wins" and "the ability to predict the outcome of a given game", then chess must have some luck, right? because chessmasters play each other over and over but the games have different outcomes - aaron
[2016-02-29 16:21:13] - aaron: *i didn't watch your video yet*
anyways, i disagree on both. with chess and pi game, there is luck. with chess the luck is who starts first. with the pi game, the luck is which digit of pi the questioner chooses. ~a[2016-02-29 16:19:31] - xpovos: chess is similar to that "pi game" because humans can't really analyze chess enough to know every outcome, they rely a lot on recognizing patterns and memorizing openings. for a computer there is no luck in chess, and for grandmasters there is very little luck in chess (but still some), and for two children or novices there is a lot of luck in chess - aaron
[2016-02-29 16:16:56] - a: so, yes i should have watched the video and understand the point much better. I'm not sure why that context wasn't in the article. - mig
[2016-02-29 16:16:07] - xpovos: but that "pi game" has a lot of luck when played with human players. and you might be able to reduce your luck by say, memorizing the first 10,000 digits of pi, or by knowing trivia like, "55% of the digits of pi from 300,000-350,000 are odd" or things like that. but, the game inherently still has some randomness when played by humans, similar to chess - aaron
[2016-02-29 16:14:41] - xpovos: technically chess is a zero-luck game, but practically speaking between two human players there is luck -- just like there is luck in rock paper scissors. he poses another "toy game", where I ask two players, "what is the 327,165th digit of pi" and they both have 30 seconds to guess it, if they are right they win. similarly, that game has zero RNG but, - aaron
[2016-02-29 16:13:36] - mig: anyways, you should watch it. ~a
[2016-02-29 16:13:13] - mig: "I don't think that's a particularly fair thing to mock" yeah, that was the point. ~a
[2016-02-29 16:05:38] - OK. New theory. Is any sufficiently advanced level of skill indistinguishable from good luck? -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 16:05:36] - a: i didn't watch it. so I guess I'm corrected on that end. - mig
[2016-02-29 16:04:47] - Also considering that the name was changed 2 generation ago when his grandfather immigrated to america, and typically changes like that are sort of involuntary, I don't think that's a particularly fair thing to mock. - mig
[2016-02-29 16:03:54] - mig: huh? did you watch the john oliver thing? he mentioned leibowitz twice! once at the beginning and once again at the end. it's basically why he did the drumpf thing. ~a
[2016-02-29 15:54:02] - paul: only one quibble on the Drumpf thing - is this something he would criticize Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz for? - mig
[2016-02-29 15:49:10] - For those message board veterans: I'm definitely staying out of any discussion of luck in games.
-Paul[2016-02-29 15:48:38] - http://www.cnet.com/news/john-oliver-slams-trump-for-22-minutes-creates-new-hashtag-for-him/#ftag=CAD590a51e I know John Oliver is supposed to be great, but I just haven't had the time to watch his show at all. This, though, was 22 minutes of awesomeness. -Paul
[2016-02-29 15:39:07] - Maybe they get to that at some later point in the video, but I find the starting points to be kind of silly. - mig
[2016-02-29 15:34:34] - Luck is the wrong word. Luck can be ascribed to just about anything as the video seems to be defining it. Really, this should be a discussion about RNG and Skill. - mig
[2016-02-29 15:29:08] - Maybe I'll be swayed by his rhetoric. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 15:28:58] - aaron: Interesting. But I think I disagree with that premise. The differential between the levels of non-perfect understanding of the outcomes is the "skill". If that's also "luck", then those are no longer independent variables. I rather think they are independent variables and that Chess is similarly a zero-luck game. But I'll watch the video when I get a chance.
[2016-02-29 15:08:53] - what if the doors told you what was behind them, but in such a complicated way that you weren't smart enough to decipher it? then that's random too, for your current level of understanding. similarly, since chess is never played between humans with perfect understanding of the outcomes behind every move, chess inherently has a little randomness too - aaron
[2016-02-29 15:07:26] - i recommend listening to the audio, the video isn't necessary. but he also had a good argument for how games like poker have more randomness than chess, but chess has more randomness than tic-tac-toe, which took me awhile to understand. but, he explains a game where you pick one of two doors, and one has a prize -- clearly random - aaron
[2016-02-29 15:05:19] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSg408i-eKw long interesting video about randomness and skill in games, and what makes games fun. it had some really interesting tidbits, like how a game can have a lot of luck and a lot of skill, or no luck and no skill, they're independent variables - aaron
[2016-02-29 13:49:51] - Xpovos: Great, thanks! Looks like it's the same place. -Paul
[2016-02-29 13:33:43] - Paul: Yes. You would have been mailed a new registered voter card. You can also confirm your polling place with this: https://vote.elections.virginia.gov/VoterInformation/PollingPlaceLookup -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 13:28:43] - Xpovos: If my voting location changed, I would've gotten something in the mail about it, right? -Paul
[2016-02-29 13:26:55] - They implemented a voter loyalty pledge there too, and I think that's why they wanted to bring it into the state-run election this year. And fun fact, some voters did have to sign the pledge. Absentee voters who voted early had to, but later ones and at-polls voters will not. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 13:26:00] - mig: A primary for a party does not have to be run by the board of elections.E.g. last year the Republicans (you had one job!) botched the paperwork filing for their primary, and rather than just caucus as was their right, they chose to hold their own primary. They did all the legwork, provided the volunteers and ballots, everything. It's called a "firehouse primary"
[2016-02-29 13:21:31] - LP primary doesn't seem to be tomorrow. Does VA election law apply to just Dem/GOP primaries or all parties? Either way, I don't think the LP primary for VA is tomorrow though, so I'm not sure how the enforcement would work. - mig
[2016-02-29 13:18:19] - Polls are open 0600-1900 and the Republican primary no longer requires submission of the signed oath form. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 13:17:56] - Paul: You will vote in your normal voting location. However! Your normal voting location may have changed since the last time you voted, even if you haven't moved; and your normal voting location may be in a different room of the same building, particularly if your normal voting location is a school. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 13:17:08] - I ended up not voting in the primary at all. I can't vote tomorrow due to the fact that I'm working the election and will be outside of my home precinct. I never could decide who I was going to vote for; or even which primary to vote in. It seems increasingly likely I'll vote third party/write-in for the general in November. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 13:16:05] - a: I actually had a similar and very long conversation with my father about the morality of voting in a primary in this sense. He was taking the 'moral commitment to vote the party in the general' line, and I was taking the 'always vote the least bad option' line. I'm not sure either of us was wrong and I don't have a clear answer... more I feel your pain. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-29 12:38:43] - a: That seems completely fine to me, since presumably there is no third party primary that you can vote for instead. I'm almost certainly voting for the libertarian candidate at this point, but I wouldn't feel bad voting in the R or D primary. -Paul
[2016-02-29 12:34:39] - daniel: imo, voter fraud is not on the same level. voter fraud is worse than voting for someone who you hope will lose. to be clear, though, my situation is very much different: i'm planning on maybe voting for someone who i think is the best of the nominees, but maybe isn't as good as a third party candidate. ~a
[2016-02-29 12:31:34] - mig: Oops, true story. I'm not sure where it fails on the unethical scale. I think trying to get a nominee elected for the sole purpose of them losing in the general is unethical but I'm not sure 'how bad' it is. Maybe on the same level as voter fraud? Or ballot box stuffing? Same principle of subverting the democratic process applies? maybe... -Daniel
[2016-02-29 12:27:30] - daniel: that's why I posted it as a hypothetical. - mig
[2016-02-29 12:19:08] - Yeah I don't think Trump needs any D's help at this point. -Daniel
[2016-02-29 12:11:13] - mig: Side note: I read somewhere that Trump is considered by many Republicans to be the most electable candidate among the group. I clearly think that's insane, but I've also thought Trump getting this far was insane, so I would think very carefully if anybody wanted to try that.
-Paul[2016-02-29 12:09:10] - en masse went to try and brute force Trump as the primary winner in VA? - mig
[2016-02-29 12:08:52] - so I was thinking back to the whole primary situation democrats going to vote for David Bratt in hopes of saddling the GOP with an "un-electable" candidate. Now I doubt this actually will happen, because many dems have a stake in their own party's nominee and the Bratt thing kind of blew up in their faces, but where on the unethical scale would it be if dem voters...
[2016-02-29 11:12:08] - Ah, except it sounds like Rand Paul might not be listed for some reason? I guess if I picked a Republican ballot and found that out, I might consider voting for Cruz in that case. Or writing in a name. -Paul
[2016-02-29 11:09:42] - Daniel: I don't mind saying that the only people I'm considering voting for are (in no particular order): Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. I don't think there is any libertarian primary to vote in, otherwise I might save my vote for that. -Paul
[2016-02-29 11:05:12] - VA primary tomorrow. No one has to say who they are voting for if they don't want. I don't think its bad to vote in a primary and then vote a different way in the general. It might be bad if you are doing it just to try and screw with a party's results. But if you are still undecided and end up being swayed a different way by Nov that seems fine. -Daniel
[2016-02-29 10:36:37] - Daniel: Virginia's primary is tomorrow? Is it an open primary? I probably won't end up voting, because I wouldn't even know where to go (normal voting location?), but I suppose if I can find the time... -Paul
[2016-02-29 10:32:38] - don't ask me for who i'm voting for, though, i'm undecided. . . . also i'm trying to decide if it's moral/immoral to vote in the democratic primary if i don't know for sure that i'll vote for the candidate even if they win said primary. ~a
[2016-02-29 10:29:16] - me. ~a
[2016-02-29 10:25:39] - Who's planning to vote in the primaries tomorrow? -Daniel
[2016-02-29 10:24:32] - mig: Hmm I know about some of that stuff. Some seems like the normal wrangling that goes on in any contended primary. I'm not sure I think the rhetoric being used on the D side is on the same level as on the R but we'll see I suppose. -Daniel
[2016-02-29 10:18:55] - paul: well that would almost certainly lead to the House deciding the president if all that played out. - mig
[2016-02-29 10:13:03] - mig: Or if the Republican party implodes before that. I'm getting giddy just thinking of the Republican party splitting into Trump/Rubio factions (heck, maybe even a Cruz faction) while Bloomberg throws his hat in and Sanders runs as an independent. Death to the two parties! -Paul
[2016-02-29 09:58:52] - paul: Sanders has publicly stated he won't run as an independent because he doesn't want to throw the contest to whoever the GOP nominates. That was a really long while ago though, maybe his mind will change, particularly if the Democratic establishment keeps treating him like shit. - mig
[2016-02-29 09:57:20] - I originally thought several months ago that the Sanders folks would eventually come around to Clinton once the nomination was over. Now I'm not so sure... - mig
[2016-02-29 09:56:30] - mig: I'm secretly hoping that Sanders decides to run as an independent (technically a democratic socialist) after a contentious primary loss to Clinton (since he's not even a part of the Democratic party), but I don't think that is nearly as likely as Trump tearing apart the Republican party. -Paul
[2016-02-29 09:56:17] - I do believe the democrat party is possibly heading for a similar danger of being fractured as the GOP is right now. - mig
[2016-02-29 09:55:20] - daniel: Between all the Clinton surrogates trying to tie Bernie and his supporters to misogyny, the griping over superdelegates, BLM crashing the party, the griping over the DNC trying to tailor the debate schedule to favor Clinton. and a DNC vice chair resigning because she thinks the DNC head is rigging the contest towards Clinton ...
[2016-02-29 09:42:17] - I mean, we're pretty much having open political animosity within the DNC leadership over the nomination fight. - mig
[2016-02-29 09:41:05] - mig: Is it? Are there sources / articles on that? I haven't seen stuff on the D side as strong as the stuff I've seen on the R side. But maybe thats just based on where I'm reading and looking. -Daniel
[2016-02-29 09:29:12] - paul: so why isn't anyone talking about the democrat party imploding either? Maybe it's not as glitzy as what's going on with Trump, but it's just as contentious between the Sanders/Clinton camps. - mig
[2016-02-29 00:40:04] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/divisions-within-gop-over-trumps-candidacy-are-growing/2016/02/28/97b16010-de3a-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html The best thing to come out of the rise of Trump? -Paul
[2016-02-29 00:27:08] - First time in a long time that I've seen the "Best Picture" winner. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-26 18:54:36] - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-25/sifting-through-swiss-gold-vaults-for-clues-of-venezuela-default venenzuela is the new greece? - mig
[2016-02-26 15:30:04] - mig: I'm kind of enjoying it, but I also can completely enjoy watching the WWE, so that's not a ringing endorsement.
-Paul[2016-02-26 14:39:51] - so I'm not of the opinion that presidential candidates have to act super dignified all the time, but ... this is getting really fucking sad. - mig
[2016-02-26 14:05:32] - and he may be angling for a VP nod. - mig
[2016-02-26 14:00:41] - mig: I... guess? It's always hard to tell with Trump, since the only policies he seems to have advocated are the Charlie Sheen ones (winning!), but I guess they're both more moderate on on certain social issues. -Paul
[2016-02-26 13:55:04] - paul: chrisite and trump share a bit personality wise, and honestly they are probably fairly close on political viewpoints. - mig
[2016-02-26 13:48:57] - Daniel: That's the only thing I can think of. It still boggles my mind. Christie is no Cruz where he's a hated outsider. He's a fairly establishment guy. -Paul
[2016-02-26 13:34:57] - Paul: I wonder if people are beginning to maneuver for possible VP / cabinet positions if they think that Trump is on the glide path to win. -Daniel
[2016-02-26 13:34:50] - did you guys know that your phone uses ipv6? this is a hosting box i can ssh to (use your phone, *and* make sure you have wifi *OFF*: you'll see "Feral Hosting Server" if it works). also, just google.com uses end-to-end ipv6 when you're on 4g. ~a
[2016-02-26 13:34:26] - paul: woah, shit. two days ago was trump's first endorsement and already he has a governor. crazy. ~a
[2016-02-26 13:33:54] - Paul: That is surprising. -Daniel
[2016-02-26 13:26:51] - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/26/nj-governor-chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president.html This is surprising. -Paul
[2016-02-26 12:34:30] - I had fun, but I'd probably be useless for Star Wars trivia. But I know a guy... -- Xpovos
[2016-02-26 12:24:04] - mig: I'm interested, although my knowledge of Star Wars takes a backseat to many people. -Paul
[2016-02-26 11:18:48] - ouch. ~a
[2016-02-26 11:15:51] - a: final question was 'What was the most printed basic land in Magic?' -Daniel
[2016-02-26 11:05:47] - is there any interest in the may 4th one? i think a combination of us could do very well, given the theme. - mig
[2016-02-26 11:01:17] - what was the final question? ~a
[2016-02-26 10:58:42] - paul: Eh I was happier with the end than I was expecting. We had a 20% change at getting 2nd! I think thats pretty good. -Daniel
[2016-02-26 10:47:59] - paul: Aside from Andrew I'm not sure who else would have known the answer, and only like 3 people got it right, ultimately. - mig
[2016-02-26 10:47:45] - Paul: No more trivia nights for you! Seriously, though, I had a lot of fun and am really glad I came. I still feel particularly bad about being so adamant about the Germany/China question when I was wrong, but overall I was pleased I could contribute. At least I seem to know my Muppets. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-26 10:38:01] - Congrats to team "Why didn't Leia hug Chewie". I thought we did okay, even if the final standings don't indicate it. Sorry for getting the final Jeopardy question wrong! -Paul
[2016-02-26 10:18:35] - I'm surprised that there hasn't been more mention of Bork. He got a few lines in a couple of the articles I read, but considering how much his precedent plays in, it's shocking. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-26 09:19:54] - xpovos: oddly enough, it seems like Sandoval's nomination wouldn't be the sort of "gotcha" for the GOP if that was the angle, as a lot of democrats were not happy about the potential pick. Though I'm unsure if Democrats who want a "true progressive" on the court understand the concept of leverage, or the fact that they don't have any in this current situation. - mig
[2016-02-26 08:21:03] - mig: And... he's already pulled himself from the process. That didn't take long. Not an unexpected result, though. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-24 22:08:06] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/ that's umm... wow. Pretty shocking if this actually goes through. - mig
[2016-02-24 14:27:35] - Sanders might be the only candidate who genuinely supports some policies that I would consider "positive". - mig
[2016-02-24 13:58:49] - Xpovos: "all three are dangerous, but Sanders is the least dangerous" I'll agree with you there. Sanders might even be my second favorite candidate left out of the remaining major party candidates. Heck, he might even be first. -Paul
[2016-02-24 13:57:08] - mig: That's an excellent question, and one I don't have an answer to at this time. I'm still not sure about the Sanders option, but I'm more sure of it than I am of the Clinton option. If we look at the Trump/Sanders/Clinton spectrum, all three are dangerous, but Sanders is the least dangerous. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-24 13:54:57] - Maximum chaos increases the chances that the two parties lose some power and/or people turn to other options (third parties). -Paul
[2016-02-24 13:54:31] - Xpovos: At this point, my best hope for the future of the country (assuming that Trump is inevitable as the Republican nominee and that Sanders can't overtake Clinton) is that legal troubles continue to dog Clinton and Bloomberg decides to throw his hat into the ring... -Paul
[2016-02-24 13:53:05] - xpovos: so you mentioned a moral imperative to possibly vote for Sanders should Trump be the GOP nominee. Will that same imperative apply if the dem nominee is Clinton? - mig
[2016-02-24 13:49:23] - I really think that the only thing that could make this primary season crazier is if Hilary does finally get indicted and/or pardoned. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-24 13:29:03] - Right now, I'm just hoping this means the destruction of the Republican party (at least) and hopefully two party politics in general. Even Justin Amash was musing as much on twitter. -Paul
[2016-02-24 13:28:24] - Xpovos: Yeah, it looks like I'm in line to lose a lot of bets. I thought the Republicans had a good shot at getting the presidency, but not if Trump is their nominee. Of course, considering my predictive power so far, that bodes well for Trump. -Paul
[2016-02-24 13:01:31] - [2015-08-21 14:17:01] - Earlier today and yesterday I was starting to go a bit into panic mode regarding Trump. [...] -- Xpovos
[2016-02-24 11:18:23] - mig: That seems ridiculous. -Daniel
[2016-02-24 10:53:19] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-brock-writes-open-letter-to-sanders-halt-all-negative-campaigning-against-hillary/ this might be the saddest and most pathetic thing I've seen this entire election season. You can sum this letter up as: "Pretty, pretty, please, just let Hillary win
" - mig[2016-02-23 23:15:35] - that episode is full of awesome. the inner light? Jonathan Frakes. Wallace Shawn? Love it. ~a
[2016-02-23 15:29:12] - a: it's a rather quotable show too, like in that same episode when bmo yells "braveryyyy!!!!" before leaping into a waterfall. i often find myself quoting the show in my head. my favorite episode is the one where finn goes into the pillow world. - aaron
[2016-02-23 15:26:45] - paul: that's interesting! we regularly shop for board games at barnes and nobles when we're in unfamiliar areas -- they tend to have a good reliable selection for board games, ever since about 2008 or so. i think it's a smart move for them to try and absorb some of the growing board game market - aaron
[2016-02-23 14:01:33] - http://www.mediaite.com/tv/comedy-centrals-nightly-show-rubio-and-cruz-arent-really-hispanic/ if Rubio or Cruz is the nominee I get to hear this repulsive sentiment echoed ad nauseaum for the next several months. Wonderful! - mig
[2016-02-23 12:05:23] - mig: Public companies almost always have an "Investor Relations" page in their "About" sections of their websites. I don't see one for FFG. That's not definitive, but they're probably still private. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-23 11:47:37] - Though I guess the caveat is we don't know how much FFG is paying Disney to use the Star Wars license. - mig
[2016-02-23 11:46:59] - paul: Is Fantasy Flight Games public? X-Wing has exploded in popularity and Android:Netrunner is pretty popular too. They've made shit tons of money off both. - mig
[2016-02-23 11:01:16] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/23/joe-biden-in-1992-no-scotus-nominations A brief recap of the hypocrisy (on both sides) regarding judicial nominations during an election season. -Paul
[2016-02-23 10:29:16] - Daniel: I keep telling Gurkie that I wish there was a clear way to invest in board games, because it does seem like it's a growing market. At least it seems to be growing more than the physical book market.
-Paul[2016-02-23 10:20:13] - Paul: Seems like they are trying to get in on the game store market? -Daniel
[2016-02-23 10:14:59] - aaron: http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/33777/barnes-noble-plans-casual-game-gatherings -Paul
[2016-02-22 15:52:40] - are you come here by accident? ~a
[2016-02-22 15:23:41] - audrey and i do. audrey's friend jim introduced us to it. it has everything i love in a tv show. ~a
[2016-02-22 15:00:11] - title: wait, who else watches adventure time? - aaron
[2016-02-22 14:05:57] - xpovos: and while I don't know if this really will be the downfall of society, but the continuing trend of this sort of segregation is definitely making the world a less pleasant place to live in. - mig
[2016-02-22 14:01:15] - xpovos: in most respects, not a big deal I guess. I think there might be an issue (and possibly a legal one depending on the situation) if someone's work gets cited, copy/pasted, etc. by someone using this particular extension. Not sure how big of a deal it would be, though. - mig
[2016-02-22 13:52:19] - New words: crewed, balkanization. Interesting combo. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-22 13:51:40] - "I find the fact that anyone has a different world-view than me so obscenely offensive that I've developed a product to shield me from having to deal with the fact that they exist." Really? That's your solution? It's just another step in the balkanization of media which will ultimately lead to the downfall of all society, but hey, that's none of my business. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-22 13:48:32] - mig: It's an extension. People can choose to use it or not, so what's the big deal? I was talking to another friend about a similar extension which just replaced any instance of the word "manned" with "crewed". If people are so upset reading what other people write that they have to pre-emptively edit like that... frankly I don't much care what they do. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-22 13:30:00] - And the rationale behind the extension seems rather hypocritical. I mean, I'm sure the people who are being labeled "anti-choice" are obviously going to feel demonized, right? - mig
[2016-02-22 13:27:40] - http://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/542551-google-safe-space/ so I get that people don't like the whole labeling thing behind "pro-life"/"pro-choice" but is this really a good solution to it? - mig
[2016-02-22 09:25:59] - CEOs get fired/replaced with a fair amount of frequency and certainly can be removed by public pressure (i.e. Brandon Eich). - mig
[2016-02-19 16:30:07] - a: In fact, considering how little a person's vote matters, it's probably a lot easier to vote out a CEO than affect the government.
-Paul[2016-02-19 16:27:14] - "Can't vote out a CEO" you can totally vote out a ceo. maybe it's not as democratic as you want, but i can think of three scenarios where you vote out a CEO: public companies have shareholders vote for that, employee owned companies can have employees vote for that, even companies with just a board have board votes to get rid of a ceo. ~a
[2016-02-19 16:12:35] - Daniel: Again, I want to be clear that I'm not saying all companies are saints, but I just think that the free market has gotten a really horrible reputation in relation to the government and I can't figure out why. Everybody assumes that all companies are evil and out to do evil things and we need the saintly government to save us. -Paul
[2016-02-19 16:11:30] - Daniel: "But we can elect new people to our government. Can't vote out a CEO." I'm not sure how that's relevant. I would counter with: "I can choose not to do business with a company. I can't choose not to do business with the government." -Paul
[2016-02-19 16:06:50] - Daniel: It seems unfair to say that companies with unions are evil. The main unions I can think of off the top of my head are teachers unions and police unions. Does that mean the government was evil? -Paul
[2016-02-19 16:05:10] - Daniel: Same thing with monopolies. Does Google have a monopoly on search? I would argue they do, but I consider them one of the least evil companies I can think of. -Paul
[2016-02-19 16:02:58] - Daniel: A lot of those are moral grey areas. What counts as avoiding taxes? Is it what Apple does? Because I basically also avoid taxes every time I use tax loss harvesting or don't claim all the items I buy online (aren't I technically supposed to pay taxes on those?), but I don't feel at all evil for doing so. -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:54:24] - But we can elect new people to our government. Can't vote out a CEO. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:53:37] - All companies who strip mine? Strip logging? Avoid taxes? dump tons of oil all over the place? all companies who ever tried to participate in a monopoly? all the companies that made unions form up in the first place because they didn't care about workers? Massey Energy (the one I could think of the name of off the top of my head)
[2016-02-19 15:51:47] - Daniel: with some of the worst things the US government has done. In my mind, it's not even close. The government has done many more things that are much more terrible than any company has ever done. -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:51:07] - Daniel: Also, I'm approaching all of this not in a vacuum, but in relation to the government. Because that's what we're discussing, right? Whether we need strong government regulations to keep the "evil" corporations in check? To that point, I like to try to compare the worst things that a company has done in the history of the US... -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:49:29] - Daniel: "I think pretty convincingly history shows corps will be bad if they can get away with it" Can you give some examples? Again, I'm not claiming that all companies are perfect, but I'm arguing that the "corps will be bad if they can get away with it" are the exception and not the rule. -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:49:11] - Paul: Yeah I probably shouldn't have gotten side tracked into child labor. I totally concede its a more tricky issue than just a moral one. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:48:21] - Daniel: http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/case-against-child-labor-prohibitions "Children work because their families are desperately poor, and the meager addition to the family income they can contribute is often necessary for survival." -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:48:18] - I think pretty convincingly history shows corps will be bad if they can get away with it and put off consequences as much as possible. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:47:09] - Mig: Sure. I'm not trying to argue the free market is bad. I'm just trying to argue that I think the gov is essential in trying to keep corporations from being bad. My understanding is that Paul thinks that is unnecessary, that the free market would keep companies from being bad. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:45:49] - Daniel: Well, I think I disagree with your takeaway with that point though. Even in this instance (companies using child labor overseas to make things for cheaper), I think it's an example of what I was saying where people's lives are improved. -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:44:55] - I mean, the proliferation of cheaper, better smartphones has made a whole lot of people's lives better, but it's not like Steve Jobs was inventing the iPhone and being like, "Man I hope the humanity benefits from this". He was more like, "I'm going to make so much fucking money off this.". - mig
[2016-02-19 15:43:44] - ... children to make things for them. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:43:36] - Daniel: Yeah, sorry, I could've said it better. I didn't mean to say their motivation was to make people's lives better (although I do think plenty of companies have that motivation). I meant that regardless of their motivations, the end result is that most companies succeed by doing things that improve the lives of others. -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:43:36] - Paul: Right so I think we agree there. I think though that corporations would run certain people into the ground in order to make money off another group of people without a second thought. This is hard to refute since this is basically what labor in 3rd world countries to make stuff for the US is. Child labor is disallowed here so companies go elsewhere to get...
[2016-02-19 15:41:48] - I think that doing something for value doesn't mean they are doing it in order to make people live's better. So perhaps I parsed your words wrong? I don't think they exist TO make people's lives better but I would agree that they provide things of value to those that can buy them. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:40:26] - Daniel: Right, that's why I mentioned the "make money" part first, because that's (probably?) their major goal, but the way they accomplish that is by improving people's lives in some way. -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:40:10] - mig: If they can pay for it! -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:39:32] - Daniel: I think the main way (and possibly only way, in a free market) that a corporation makes money is by providing something that people value. Do you not agree with that? Can you give an example of a company that exists now that doesn't provide anything of value? -Paul
[2016-02-19 15:39:18] - Paul: I guess we would need someone who actually knew about this but I would think the vast majority of corporations existed to make profit and increase value for shareholders at the expense of almost everything else. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 15:39:16] - daniel: I think what he's trying to say is that there's lots of money to be made by making people's lives better. - mig
[2016-02-19 15:35:58] - Paul: I'm not sure that I understand you Paul, you think that corporations exist to make other people's lives better? I'm honestly confused by that. I do not think thats why corporations exist or that their goals are anything near that. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 14:08:58] - Daniel: Besides, I think that's the wrong question to be asking. The question isn't really if unchecked corporations look out for the general good, the question is if a big government handing down regulations is better. I wouldn't say the free market is perfect, but I think it's better than all the other alternatives that I've heard. -Paul
[2016-02-19 14:07:30] - Daniel: "corporations unchecked end up not looking out for the general good". I disagree. Sure, there will always be a handful of corporations who do bad things, but I think history has shown that the vast majority of corporations exist to make money by making other people's lives better. -Paul
[2016-02-19 13:33:16] - with donald trump's recent spat with the pope blowing up, I recall a while ago Trump bragging that he "could shoot someone in public and people would still like me". I'm now worried that he may, in fact, shoot somebody at this point. - mig
[2016-02-19 13:15:26] - That said, there is certainly room in the free market for environmentally conscious companies to make money off of environmentally conscious consumers. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 13:14:34] - ... to get that done. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 13:14:30] - I think I would agree with what you are saying. However I'm not sure that rises to the level of solving global warming. I think if we (humans) are going to try and lower the average global tempareture by 2 degrees in the next 10 years (the numbers from the last summit were somewhere around that but I don't 100% remember) then I'm not sure hte free market is going...
[2016-02-19 13:03:46] - as fast as some people would like, but they are in fact, dropping. And sure, private companies may have the health of the planet fairly low on their list of priorities, that doesn't mean the drive for profit won't net results that may be good for the planet overall. - mig
[2016-02-19 13:01:38] - daniel: I do take some exception to the notion that the free market can't or hasn't made any positive impacts on global warming. There's a natural drive in the market to make products more efficient ( less energy usage -> less emissions). Our carbon emissions have been dropping in part due to the uptick in usage for natural gas. Maybe the emissions aren't dropping
[2016-02-19 12:21:03] - .. but hasn't history also shown that corporations unchecked end up not looking out for the general good? Like how is the free market supposed to solve global warming? I think my faith in the ability of free market to solve things is less than him and that leads to a lot of other differences. -Daniel
[2016-02-19 12:18:53] - Paul: I think that its good to hear his position on some of these issues and its very interesting for me to read it. I think that yeah its the implementation where we differ. He says that "History has proven that a bigger, more controlling, more complex and costlier federal government leaves the disadvantaged less likely to improve their lives."... -Daniel
[2016-02-19 11:41:31] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/charles-kochs-friendly-letter-to-bernie I wish I could get everybody on Facebook to read this and understand this (not specific to the Kochs, necessarily, but to the greater idea that the world doesn't have to be black or white/republican or democrat). -Paul
[2016-02-19 10:16:53] - a: i suppose it's ironic, but even vicious violent demagogues must yield to practicality. - mig
[2016-02-18 17:01:45] - isis will only accept payment in u.s. dollars ~a
[2016-02-18 15:02:22] - Xpovos: Sounds tempting, but there were a few phrases which make me think the place is more liberal than libertarian. -Paul
[2016-02-18 14:56:40] - xpovos/mig: ah, gotcha. ~a
[2016-02-18 14:51:21] - Better than the FreeState Project? http://cbiftrumpwins.com/ -- Xpovos
prev <-> next