prev <-> next
[2016-04-06 09:47:49] - Daniel: I can't say for certain, but I don't think much at all. In fact, if it hurts us, it's only because it erodes some of our competitive advantage because one of our selling points is that for all(?) of the services we offer, they're offered in such a way as to remove any potential conflict of interest. -Paul
[2016-04-06 09:11:57] - Paul: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/06/473201924/the-obama-administration-wants-savers-to-keep-more-of-their-money - How much does this affect you guys at the fool? - Daniel
[2016-04-05 17:18:07] - a: Yeah, Berkshire class B shares are definitely on my watch list, but I have no cash to deploy. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of things are up since the horrible start in January. I've got a few things that are up 15%+ YTD. -Paul
[2016-04-05 16:33:01] - paul: oh shit, in scottrade if you click on "positions" then "gainers and losers" then click on the "%" in the sort column and you can see what did well and badly YTD. for instance, i didn't realize that vz went up 20% since january. ~a
[2016-04-05 16:28:53] - paul: my ira is up 2% in q1. compared to the s&p, brk/b did well and gpro did badly. ~a
[2016-04-05 15:31:22] - a: Heh, I'm not at all going to rule the competition over after one bad quarter any more than I ruled it over after my IRA outperformed my vanguard funds by a lot the previous quarter. It's a long term test. I'm not even going to consider calling it until a few years have passed. The stock was LinkedIn. -Paul
[2016-04-05 15:21:27] - wow that sucks. i guess the fool was wrong. which stock went down 50%? ~a
[2016-04-05 15:11:54] - Update on my retirement fund competition. The numbers for 2016Q1 are in. My vanguard funds outperformed the S&P with a 1.98% gain vs a 0.78% gain for the S&P. Unfortunately, my IRA (where I buy individual stocks) was down a whopping 15.22%. Considering one of my stocks went down 50% during the quarter, though, that doesn't seem bad. -Paul
[2016-04-05 14:06:25] - paul: given the recent interest in heroes among some of you, just thought it'd be helpful to spread info about promos/events/etc. - mig
[2016-04-05 14:03:10] - mig: So you're saying maybe we should try to do Heroes of the Storm this weekend? I don't think I can find time for any Blizzard games during the week this week, but I might be able to make a weekend evening work... -Paul
[2016-04-05 14:03:09] - paul: hey, i think you can back me up better than that. how about daniel has a clearance. and i hear he speeds on the interstate. and plays poker for money. among . . . other things . . . or so i've heard. ~a
[2016-04-05 14:02:31] - a: It's okay, you would just be literally taking food out of my kids' mouths. I mean it. I feed them $100 bills. -Paul
[2016-04-05 14:01:56] - Daniel: Snowden had a clearance.
-Paul[2016-04-05 14:01:29] - paul: i hope he loses. among other reasons, i'd feel really shitty taking $100 from a father of two. ~a
[2016-04-05 14:00:58] - daniel: ok, buzz killington. ~a
[2016-04-05 14:00:39] - http://us.battle.net/heroes/en/blog/20079817/ just so everyone is aware this weekend Blizzard is making the entire Heroes of the Storm roster available for play this weekend. - mig
[2016-04-05 13:58:23] - a: Do you not have a clearance? I thought you did. Your statement would seem to go against a lot of the conform! obey! aspects that go along with those. -Daniel
[2016-04-05 13:51:08] - a: And then I will be paying Miguel in worthless USD when Hilary wins the Democratic nomination. -Paul
[2016-04-05 13:50:40] - a: I'm looking forward to taking my winnings from you in bitcoin when Trump doesn't get the nomination at the brokered convention.
-Paul[2016-04-05 13:39:15] - title is apt for this discussion. mod your devices! run a tor node, a bitcoin node, a bittorrent node, an openbazaar node, p2p everything, protest unjust laws, question authority. disobey. ~a
[2016-04-05 13:35:35] - Yeah, I thought the main takeaway from the article was that google was being a dick, but I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt until/unless I hear more about this. -Paul
[2016-04-05 13:35:23] - mig: agreed. is google actually shutting down the devices though? or are they just shutting down the service that the devices require? if it's the latter, it's not like they're actively bricking things so much as passively bricking things. ~a
[2016-04-05 13:26:04] - a: it's certainly possible that google may just not go after people who do try to revive their now bricked gadgets. There would still be concerns of a "chilling" effect either way though. - mig
[2016-04-05 13:22:05] - xpovos: i also like google. and this move is despicable. devils advocate though: are we sure that google is actually pushing the dmca route? the article you posted didn't actually state google is intending on prosecuting anyone modding the revolv. right? ~a
[2016-04-05 13:19:59] - daniel: agreed. congress seems to be ignoring the "traditional safety valves". i suppose the courts could help out even if congress is being dumb. alternatively you could get people outside the united states to distribute software. ~a
[2016-04-05 12:59:58] - -Daniel
[2016-04-05 12:59:56] - I'm not sure when but I think at some point the DMCA falls or at least changes substantially where we own more of the things we buy. When more and more things start becoming illegal I think at some point Congress will realize there is a change needed. Although relying on Congress to not be stupid isn't a great idea either.... -Danile
[2016-04-05 12:54:13] - a: Yeah, I didn't think the article would generate much debate, but it's a pretty awful action by Google, a company that I largely like, and which has an ethos and motto of "Don't be evil". Hard to say how this is in keeping with that. -- Xpovos
[2016-04-05 12:50:37] - nice. definitely don't remember that line, but i guess it's probably at the end. ~a
[2016-04-05 12:36:18] - a: http://www.moviequotedb.com/movies/who-framed-roger-rabbit/quote_93.html -Paul
[2016-04-05 12:28:21] - regardless, i'm guessing everybody here thinks the dmca is bullshit? ~a
[2016-04-05 12:28:18] - what's red car from? i don't see it in the link. this was all i found and i doubt that's what you meant. ~a
[2016-04-05 11:44:15] - "I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it!" -- Xpovos
[2016-04-05 11:43:33] - http://boingboing.net/2016/04/05/google-reaches-into-customers.html -- Xpovos
[2016-04-04 10:04:48] - paul: another recent example i've seen is column "V" on this vpn comparison chart, so tons of companies at least think the idea is worth merit. and if reddit's canary died, apparently reddit's lawyers think it's worth going to court for. ~a
[2016-04-04 10:03:05] - paul: when apple did it in 2013 was where i heard about it (apparently the concept was created in 2006). ~a
[2016-04-01 13:40:25] - a: First I had heard of it. Even if it's illegal, I still like it. -Paul
[2016-04-01 13:33:11] - (i could create a similar system to a warrant canary to do all sorts of illegal shit. i'll put up millions of canaries and "kill" the ones that correspond to classified datum.) ~a
[2016-04-01 13:31:49] - yeah, it's nothing new. reddit isn't the first one to do this. it's a violation of the spirit of a law, so it's pro'lly illegal. of course the laws involved are probably unconstitutional too so it's supreme court material for sure. ~a
[2016-04-01 13:23:38] - http://qz.com/652570/no-more-warrant-canary-reddits-big-hint-that-it-got-a-secret-surveillance-order/ The warrant canary is pretty clever, I think. -Paul
[2016-04-01 10:56:55] - mig: Sounds good. Thanks. -Paul
[2016-04-01 10:26:39] - paul: your team gets xp. It's incremental. Killing someone early only gives your team little XP relatively. And it goes up as the level gets higher. Mostly the big advantage of killing someone early is they can't cover a lane while they run back so you'll start making gains from creep kill xp they aren't getting. - mig
[2016-04-01 10:24:07] - So, does taking out a hero in Heroes of the Storm affect anything other than taking them out for a minute or so? Does the team get experience? -Paul
[2016-03-31 13:10:42] - Yeah I think I would agree with X's assessment. In general I think we need to spend some $ on our infrastructure but I also think the Metro is more jacked up than a lot of other stuff as well. -Daniel
[2016-03-31 12:57:29] - Metro is uniquely bad not just because the tunnels are in the age range of likely needing more maintenance then they have, but they have a cultural (and probably financial) problem with handling maintenance. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-31 12:56:39] - I think it's fair to say that our infrastructure is older now than it has ever been before. Much of the stuff that we consider to be our necessary infrastructure is 50-150 years old, from roads to bridges to sewer systems, etc. These things are engineered to last, but engineering only goes so far. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-31 12:48:09] - I'm not sure I can say bigger than ever before either. I just know there are issues with bridges and other infrastructure elements around the US that need to be dealt with. There could have been similar issues before though. -Daniel
[2016-03-31 12:39:01] - Daniel: Maybe? I know it's something that Democrats like to harp on, but is there any clear evidence that it's a bigger problem now than it has ever been? Honest question, I'm not necessarily saying that's not a problem, just that I don't know. -Paul
[2016-03-31 12:27:03] - Paul: I think the entire US is coming to grips with that problem. -Daniel
[2016-03-31 12:18:17] - mig: Years of not keeping up with required maintenance is finally catching up with them? -Paul
[2016-03-31 12:10:32] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/2016/03/30/fba8ae0a-f688-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html I guess I haven't been paying attention since I haven't been using Metro in almost a calendar year, but what the fuck is going on here? - mig
[2016-03-29 15:57:47] - aaron: I understand why they're doing it too, and I even agree that it's probably good. My point is that this seems like a violation of the very NN rules that Netflix was pushing before. -Paul
[2016-03-29 14:23:38] - paul: i understand why they're doing it though, they want the best default experience for a typical user. but, it should be customizable for expert users. and, they're making it customizable soon, so that's good. - aaron
[2016-03-29 10:44:25] - To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that this was a bad thing that Netflix did. It actually sounds reasonable, but isn't this exactly the kind of activity that goes against NN standards? -Paul
[2016-03-29 10:42:46] - http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/netflix-throttles-video-on-att-and-verizon-to-keep-users-under-data-caps/ Just in case the horse isn't dead yet, I'm going to beat it some more. NN champion Netflix admitted that they have been throttling certain video streams. -Paul
[2016-03-29 08:51:58] - Heroes. -Daniel
[2016-03-29 08:24:21] - are you guys talking about heroes of the storm or heart of the swarm? - aaron
[2016-03-28 15:38:35] - mig: Good to know. Wish that had been explained during the tutorial. Or maybe it was, and I missed it. -Paul
[2016-03-28 15:36:58] - paul: correct. - mig
[2016-03-28 15:24:10] - mig: Ah, so the team gets XP for enemy minions that die, but only if a Hero is close by? -Paul
[2016-03-28 15:08:12] - Or if you aren't careful and end up taking a lot of damage and are forced to hearth back, your team will lose out on any XP from enemy creeps during the time it takes for you to get back. - mig
[2016-03-28 15:07:27] - During the early phases of the game you want to have at least 1 person on your team in every lane. If you abandon a lane early to get a gank off or something, you may actually fall behind the enemy team in terms of XP since the creep XP is more valuable early on. - mig
[2016-03-28 15:06:27] - paul: generally it refers to maintaining a presence in a lane for the purposes of your team gaining XP from enemy creeps that die. - mig
[2016-03-28 14:51:49] - What does experience soaking mean? I hear it referenced a bunch, but can't find an explanation. -Paul
[2016-03-28 14:11:40] - paul: milazzo was asking at poker if anyone played. - mig
[2016-03-28 12:06:34] - I don't know that there is one, but it would be fun if we could get one. -Daniel
[2016-03-28 11:09:56] - Who else plays HotS? Is there a weekly/monthly game? -Paul
[2016-03-28 10:28:45] - Daniel: Yeah, I'm sure it's mostly just me not understanding the complexities of it, but it reminded me of those "hero" missions in Starcraft where it just felt like you could use you special powers to get through it without having to put much thought or strategy in it. Probably because I was Artanis and Raynor. -Paul
[2016-03-28 09:47:26] - I don't think HotS ever gets as complicated as StarCraft but it certainly can get more complicated as your play harder AI or against people. -Daniel
[2016-03-28 08:52:00] - Paul: I would probably agree that HotS is simpler than Starcraft. I think almost everything though is simpler than Starcraft. -Daniel
[2016-03-27 17:41:09] - Daniel: I would be good with playing it more, though, if more people were on board. -Paul
[2016-03-27 17:40:52] - Daniel: I still enjoy SC2 better, but much of that could be because I'm still new to HotS. HotS felt much simpler to me, but I'm sure that's just because the strategy of what was going on was going over my head. -Paul
[2016-03-25 14:13:51] - Paul: What did you think of HotS yesterday? Better or worse than SC2? Though I had fun playing sc2 I might be easier to rope into HotS currently. -Daniel
[2016-03-21 17:02:39] - gotcha. i guess it doesn't need to be exact. ~a
[2016-03-21 16:37:34] - a: Yeah I guess I don't know how to say to code it offhand but I'm pretty sure lots of HR departments use code that does it so somewhere they get it right. So just did the math and we get 19.02 days off a year. So maybe make it a weird number like that? -Daniel
[2016-03-21 15:59:54] - https://goo.gl/maps/sfKV5vEz6BB2 is this a real park in virginia? city planners are so immature - aaron
[2016-03-21 15:48:22] - paul: "sounds weird" . . . "little weird" yes it's this weirdness . . . or possibility of miscommunication . . . that i'd like to avoid. ~a
[2016-03-21 15:46:55] - daniel: python and java (commons) both have a "Fraction" class, but i didn't feel like adding that complexity. most implementations of this kind of thing won't handle fractions correctly regardless. ~a
[2016-03-21 15:23:22] - a: Which, again, is a little weird to have considering the unlimited vacation time policy, but I think part of the rationale there is to encourage people to actually use it. -Paul
[2016-03-21 15:22:42] - a: Where if they win, they HAVE to take a vacation where they completely unplug from work for some amount of time (I think one week). -Paul
[2016-03-21 15:21:51] - a: I don't necessarily disagree, but I haven't seen many (any?) people here who it seems are afraid to take time off work if they need to. Also, there's a "Fool's Errand" perk where once a month, an employee's name is picked at random (based somewhat on seniority, only for people who have been here for a year)... -Paul
[2016-03-21 15:20:21] - Daniel: I haven't used it at the Fool, yet, but according to that link, here's the paternity policy: "Paternity Leave: Up to 5 weeks off at 100% pay. Plus $200 to spend as you see best at this special time." I know that sounds weird considering the unlimited vacation time policy... but I think it's there so people feel comfortable taking time off. -Paul
[2016-03-21 15:18:33] - daniel/paul: i'm with daniel. giving people infinity doesn't set a reasonable expectation of what you *should* take. it's like a wireless plan with no limit. if you use more than the provider thinks you should, then bad things happen! ~a
[2016-03-21 15:17:01] - a: You're writing it by hand? Yikes! -Daniel
[2016-03-21 15:16:07] - daniel: you try writing the software that handles the pto balances.
~a[2016-03-21 15:14:08] - Paul: I'm pro leave if people use it. So if the company supports it then I'm all for more leave. So like with infinite leave how do things like paternity leave factor in? Like if you wanted to take two months or something for a new baby is that all still paid? -Daniel
[2016-03-21 15:12:54] - a: Reasonable. Seems sad to not give them 20 though just cause its not divisible by 24. -Daniel
[2016-03-21 15:07:58] - daniel: "dropped from 20 to 19 recently" which is a big reason against picking 21: backing off from a high number would disappoint people. and a small company like mine doesn't exactly have a lot of cash/hedges/risk-management to float above a bad economy. ~a
[2016-03-21 15:03:17] - Daniel: A true advocate for the employees would go with infinity.
-Paul[2016-03-21 15:02:08] - a: I think 15/20 is the general average or standard that I'm aware of. So going 21 is a bit of a bonus and 18 would be notably under (if I were considering it). I was already pretty upset when Prag dropped from 20 to 19 recently. -Daniel
[2016-03-21 15:00:47] - a: As an advocate for the employees I vote 21! -Daniel
[2016-03-21 14:58:25] - daniel/aaron/mig=14,19 xpovos=13,20 paul=∞ adrian=15,?. not sure what to set ? at. probably 18 or 21 (so the hours are evenly divisible by 24) ~a
[2016-03-21 14:20:03] - 4 hours per pay period for the first (X) years. X is either 3 or 5. I'm way past both, so I forget. That's 13 days per year. 6.16 per pay period afterwards 20 days per year. Plus the full federal holiday schedule and bonus days I mentioned. Rollover is capped at 240. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-21 14:17:53] - a: Are you saying there are people at your place who take lots of time off now? You're worried they would take (excessively) more? -Paul
[2016-03-21 14:17:11] - To me (as a parent) the nicest thing is the flexibility. I often have to unexpectedly stay home to care for a sick child or go in late because of a doctor's appointment, and nobody blinks an eye if you say you'll be in a few hours late or are OOO but maybe checking email on occasion. -Paul
[2016-03-21 14:15:50] - Daniel: I can say The Motley Fool doesn't actually really know the answer to whether that happens here or not because they literally do not keep track of time taken off. As long as you get your work done, they don't seem to care at all. Also, people working from home or taking half days is very common, so it's hard to gauge exactly when a day is PTO or not. -Paul
[2016-03-21 14:14:06] - Daniel: Yeah, I've heard of the exact same studies, and anecdotally I can see how that could happen. I didn't really feel bad taking time off at previous places I worked because I "earned" those hours, whereas here I don't feel like I've earned anything. -Paul
[2016-03-21 14:13:50] - daniel/paul: yeah, i uhhh, can't imagine that working at my place. or any place for that matter. there would be strife between the people who take *lots* of time off and the people who take *no* time off. or like daniel suggests, people wouldn't treat themselves when they think they deserve it? i dunno, maybe it would work, and i don't have enough data. ~a
[2016-03-21 14:12:26] - a: I don't know how high it is. I've never had more than 3 weeks of leave at any one point. -Daniel
[2016-03-21 14:11:57] - Paul: My followup to that would be how much time do people take on average? I've heard some studies that having unlimited time ends up with people taking less because while they could do it the culture of the company ends up against it. Whereas with PTO you "earn it" so people are more willing to use it. -Daniel
[2016-03-21 14:11:28] - daniel: you're saying that your rollover is high? yeah, that's good and typical in our field (but not so much in others). ~a
[2016-03-21 14:10:16] - I'm not sure what our max is because I've never gotten anywhere close to anything like that. -Daniel
[2016-03-21 14:09:55] - -Daniel
[2016-03-21 14:09:52] - 14 days a year for first 5 years, 19 days a year after
[2016-03-21 14:08:44] - wow. ~a
[2016-03-21 14:05:39] - a: http://culture.fool.com/foolish-benefits/ Technically? Unlimited. -Paul
[2016-03-21 14:01:43] - . . . while we're on the subject of pto, what are you-guys' pto options? how many days/year? also how many days can you rollover? ~a
[2016-03-21 11:50:08] - Paul: Yes. Though that's probably not surprising. We observe ALL federal holidays and get a few bonus days like that to boot. I really can't complain about my PTO options. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-21 11:07:04] - a: Oddly enough, my current company and previous company both had Good Friday off, despite neither being any type of religious company. I believe The Motley Fool follows the NYSE holidays. -Paul
[2016-03-21 11:02:41] - no way. my company is run by a bunch of atheists. (also it's not a federal holiday) i'm sure chick-fil-a will be closed though
~a[2016-03-21 10:34:42] - Does anybody else have Friday off this week? -Paul
[2016-03-18 17:13:44] - something interesting i found out recently: LLCs and S-corps are very similar. apparently, though, an LLC can "die" (legally) and an S-corp cannot "die" (legally). ~a
[2016-03-18 16:54:01] - i didn't intentionally buy it, so it's not expensive. $20/year. totally not sure what it pays out. i'm guessing the beneficiary is the company. and companies can't die.
~a[2016-03-18 16:38:57] - a: And you can survive a terrorist attack on your business, yes. So maybe YOU do collect? Maybe? -- Xpovos
[2016-03-18 16:38:38] - a: Actually, I'm more curious about the amount of money (not necessarily specifically your policy, but like the rate of "return" on "investment" and then who decides whether an incident was terrorist or not. It all seems needlessly complicated. And probably very expensive (low return on investment). -- Xpovos
[2016-03-18 16:29:39] - it's like any other insurance, i assume. you get money? i guess you're wondering who gets the money if you die? i'd say then it's like life insurance. someone gets the money, just not you?
~a[2016-03-18 15:11:41] - a: What exactly is your 'payoff' when you lose the terrorism insurance lottery? -- Xpovos
[2016-03-18 11:04:01] - Daniel: Yup yup. That's exactly what I meant. Sorry. I was relying on context from the previous sentence, but it's better to be clearer. This is a case where I am in favor of the end result (Garland likely not getting confirmed) but not necessarily by the means being used. -Paul
[2016-03-18 11:01:33] - "a little better" shouldn't that say "more to my liking" ? Just as a point that better in this case seems very subjective. I agree though that I wish people would just vote on things instead of go through work to not vote. That applies to more than just SC nominations though. -Daniel
[2016-03-18 10:00:50] - Daniel: Having said that, it certainly seems like the Republicans are basically refusing the hold a vote based almost purely on partisanship instead of the merits of the nominee, which I find fairly ugly. -Paul
[2016-03-18 09:59:55] - Daniel: Obviously I'm biased since I don't like the Garland pick, and I'm hopeful a Republican president would pick somebody a little better, but I'm basically of the opinion that if Congress doesn't like a pick, they should feel free to not approve them. -Paul
[2016-03-18 08:28:06] - Mig/Paul: Yeah definitely no moral ground on this issue for anyone. -Daniel
[2016-03-17 17:09:23] - mig: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/merrick-garland-senate-republicans/ I was going to post this earlier today, but never got around to it. Not sure I agree that they're "perfectly justified", but I'm fully on board with there being hypocrisy on both sides. -Paul
[2016-03-17 16:33:49] - moral high ground here. - mig
[2016-03-17 16:33:41] - a: yes, it's political gaming. But I feel republicans are perfectly justified in it. Democrats threatened to do the same should a nominee have occurred in a similar situation with W. That the situation never came up is immaterial considering how they obstructed pretty much all judicial appointments during W's final year. So, as far as I'm concerned, Dems have no
[2016-03-17 16:11:10] - i have terrorism insurance. i wish this was the beginning of a joke. but it's not. i'm staring at a "terrorism premium" that i apparently paid earlier this year. wtf. ~a
[2016-03-17 15:31:13] - a: I'm mostly on your side, and I agree that this is a little unprecedented, but this is the latest a president is nominating a justice in 50 years, right? And the two right before that were both rejected. If I'm reading your graph right, it actually makes me feel a little more sympathetic to the Republicans here. -Paul
[2016-03-17 13:55:23] - supreme court nominees considered in election years are usually confirmed. ~a
[2016-03-16 21:42:41] - mig: It doesn't sound like I am as angry as Beck is, but perhaps equally incredulous. I could see if he also won some surrounding states like Michigan or Illinois, but he didn't even get second in those, right? What other states is he hoping to get significant delegates from at this point? -Paul
[2016-03-16 17:33:49] - paul: http://www.mediaite.com/online/beck-shreds-kasich-for-not-dropping-out-you-son-of-a-bitch-the-republic-is-at-stake/ - mig
[2016-03-16 15:35:43] - Daniel: My guess? It gets totally drowned out by the much more interesting (to me, at least) presidential race.
-Paul[2016-03-16 15:25:02] - daniel: certainly. I do think Democrats may be overestimating though how much they'll be able to make this into an issue for the general election. - mig
[2016-03-16 15:18:28] - Obama made a SC nomination. Garland. Senate already refusing to move on him. It will be interesting to watch this play out. -Daniel
[2016-03-16 10:57:27] - mig: Actually, I suppose there's a third option that I dislike considering: (3) Trump wins the nomination and is able to unite the party because Republicans are all far too willing to fall in line. In that case, Kasich should've pulled a Christie to lobby for the VP spot. -Paul
[2016-03-16 10:56:16] - mig: Both cases suck (for him), but at least in one he has a shot at being the nominee. -Paul
[2016-03-16 10:55:54] - mig: I suppose. If I'm Kasich, though, I only see two possibilities: (1) Trump wins the nomination and fractures the Republican party when the #NeverTrump people defect or (2) Trump can't win the nomination outright and it goes to a brokered convention, where somebody else is nominated (also fracturing the party when Trump leaves for an independent run). -Paul
[2016-03-16 10:25:15] - paul: I think there's a fear (probably warranted) that if the establishment is to overt about this sort of gamesmanship that there could be a really awful and fracturing revolt from Trump supporters. Though that may happen either way if Trump doesn't win a brokered convention. - mig
[2016-03-16 10:19:36] - paul: the problem could be optics I think. If Kaisch just drops right now, Trump and Trump supporters can just say, "OMG teh game is rigged!" because it's not really normal for a candidate to drop out right after what would be considered a major win. - mig
[2016-03-16 10:19:23] - paul: i should be able to ride my bike off of a moving bus. buses shouldn't have to stop at stoplights or stop signs. buses should be able to go down the wrong side of the road. if you're driving a bus, anything pictured in the film max max: fury road (warner bros. entertainment inc.) is allowed. ~a
[2016-03-16 10:11:13] - a: I dunno, it addresses the benefits of public transportation (especially relative to what most people do) and proposes some unorthodox ways to make public transportation more appealing. Just seems very you.
-Paul[2016-03-16 10:09:46] - paul: ummm, you're right, that is up my alley. but how did you know? what about me seems to like this idea? am i the only one here who likes public transportation? or is it something else? ~a
[2016-03-16 09:59:34] - a: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/03/make-buses-more-dangerous.html This seems like something up your alley.
-Paul[2016-03-16 09:58:37] - Paul: I would guess that dropping out lowers his chances of being the one chosen at a brokered convention maybe? That could be a reason to stay in if true. Hard to say anything with certainty though about how a brokered convention would go. -Daniel
[2016-03-16 09:50:45] - mig: Even from a purely selfish perspective, his chances of getting the nomination are probably higher if he drops out, so Cruz can force a brokered convention where anything can happen. -Paul
[2016-03-16 09:49:46] - mig: Can Kasich drop out now that he's accomplished his objective? Seriously, there's basically zero chance he wins enough delegates to win at this point. If his ultimate goal is to stop Trump, then he took Ohio, now the best thing to do is drop out so Cruz can become the sole anti-Trump vote. -Paul
[2016-03-16 09:43:31] - paul: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/16/daily-202-the-stop-trump-movement-s-last-realistic-hope-is-now-a-contested-convention- Kaisch did his job it looks like. Looks like Trump may have a hard time actually winning the nomination outright. - mig
[2016-03-16 09:39:28] - paul: I had a hard time believing the recent polling you cited because there was polling I had read a week or so ago that had them much closer. Not sure what happened to see such a big swing but it nonetheless happened. - mig
[2016-03-16 09:20:19] - mig: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/fl Rubio lost Florida 45% to 27%. It looks like even if he dropped out, Trump probably still would've won, but if both he AND Kasich had dropped out, then things might've been interesting. -Paul
[2016-03-15 19:25:04] - Here's way too much information on it. http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/04/republican-proportionality-rules.html -- Xpovos
[2016-03-15 19:22:40] - This new formula is like this: There are 100 delegates. Candidates D, E and F failed to reach at least 15% of the vote; instead of receiving 1-14 delegates each, they receive zero. Those delegates are then awarded proportionally among the remainder; or in the most egregious formulas are added as a bonus to the winner. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-15 19:21:20] - a: Proportional would be: There are 100 delegates. Candidate A got 35% of the vote. Candidate B got 25% ... etc. Candidate A gets 35 delegates, Candidate B gets 25%... etc. The situation in many Republican primaries, even those prior to the established date handle proportionality differently. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-15 17:54:09] - xpovos: "bastardize the definition of proportionally" can you describe this? or point me at a wikpedia page or something? ty. ~a
[2016-03-15 16:26:08] - mig: IIRC it used to be ALL winner take all and the proportional stuff is new, including a GOP requirement that primaries/caucuses before a certain date HAD to award things "proportionally". Now, many states bastardize the definition of proportionally and give the lion's share to the winner, but it is far better than it was. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-15 13:39:42] - also the GOP switching some states to winner take all contests also bring an element of FPTP to their process. - mig
[2016-03-15 13:37:46] - aaron: it's tainted by other things (especially on the dem side with their influence of super delegates), but yes, it does seem a little closer to an more idealized democratic process. - mig
[2016-03-14 14:31:01] - daniel: if the republicans end up voting for "not trump" during primaries in an effort to game the system, i would find it especially amusing because on saturday we had a length discussion about (among other things) how the primaries were a little closer to an ideal democratic system, untainted by "first past the post" 2-party dynamics - aaron
[2016-03-14 13:04:16] - paul: i can't believe i still have that dvd. so stupid.
~a[2016-03-14 12:27:01] - a: Not sure if you care, but I think I found out why handbrake wasn't able to rip my p90x DVDs. Apparently the windows version doesn't decrypt protected DVDs. -Paul
[2016-03-14 12:09:39] - Daniel: And it appears like Cruz is actually trying to do the opposite: Help Trump win Florida so Rubio will finally be forced to drop out so support can coalesce around him (Cruz). -Paul
[2016-03-14 12:08:59] - Daniel: "people voting for the non Trump candidate". I mean, Rubio specifically asked his supporters to do it in Ohio (vote for Kasich), so I could see it happening there, but I don't think most people put that much thought into the political calculus to do that. Besides, in the case of Rubio, I don't think it would work unless Cruz supporters did it too. -Paul
[2016-03-14 11:41:33] - Paul: I think its to late for the candidates to drop out. I mean like right now. Marco can drop out after Tuesday. Is the 'it' in "I dont see it happening" refering to people voting for the non Trump candidate (ie Rubio in FL and Kasich in OH) or something else? -Daniel
[2016-03-14 11:12:01] - mig: Interesting. Trump is roiling up everything. Much like a knife storm. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-14 10:54:03] - Daniel: As long as all the candidates stay in, I don't see it happening (especially when there are things like Sanders winning Michigan where the polls have been proven way wrong), but if one or two of the candidates were to drop out.... -Paul
[2016-03-14 10:52:45] - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/14/poll-rubio-drops-to-third-in-florida-days-before-big-tuesday-primaries.html "New polls show Sen. Marco Rubio trailing Donald Trump badly in his home state of Florida – even dropping to third place behind Ted Cruz in one". Super, super seriously, now. I think it's time for Marco to drop out. -Paul
[2016-03-14 10:27:54] - Paul: I'm curious in Flordia if people go the Romney route and Cruz/Kasich supporters end up voting Rubio just to keep Trump from winning. I'm not sure it will happen but its one of the things I'm curious about. -Daniel
[2016-03-14 09:51:40] - xpovos: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/michelle-fields-ben-shapiro-resign-from-breitbart-220709 - mig
[2016-03-14 07:54:13] - mig: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/florida-republican/ To go with what we were talking about a few nights ago: 3 out of the past 5 polls have Trump ahead of Rubio by 20+. -Paul
[2016-03-11 11:35:49] - With the same caveat that my electronics understanding is not that great either
-Daniel[2016-03-11 11:35:32] - a: Yeah I'm on board with it normally being on or off but even with that its still very small differences. I thought that was part of the problem with continuing to shrink transistors was that we were near the point where any smaller started to give us weird results because the values we are dealing with get to be so small. -Daniel
[2016-03-11 11:14:48] - daniel: typically gates do not depend on these small variations. everything is all on or all off. but the genetic algorithm is using the gates in non-typical fashions: feedback loops in gates will often have unpredictable results and these tiny variations as you put it will have drastic changes in the result. (my understanding of electronics is elementary) ~a
[2016-03-11 10:53:17] - Wow, stuff like that is crazy! How much of computers and everything we do depends on such tiny variations in electrical charge in such tiny little things. -Daniel
[2016-03-11 10:41:02] - " But the lower stray capacitance made our circuit non functional. Once we figured out what happened, it was an easy fix. But a lot of time was spent before enlightenment." -- Xpovos' Dad
[2016-03-11 10:40:42] - "I ran into a similar design problem. Had a working circuit design that suddenly stopped working in newly made devices, Turns out a transistor formerly with x amount of stray capacitance had been upgraded by the manufacturer. It had less stray capacitance, which is a good thing. They hadn't even bothered to change the part number!" -- Xpovos' Dad
[2016-03-11 10:39:58] - Daniel: I loved that bit. The weird and unexpected interactions. It also perfectly explained why the format couldn't be transferred to an "identical" chip. I shared the article with my father and he sent me this: ... -- Xpovos
[2016-03-11 09:01:30] - aaron: Yeah the crazy part to me were the gates that weren't attached to the rest of the circut but were still important in determining the result. That blew my mind a bit. -Daniel
[2016-03-10 15:59:29] - daniel: oh cool, i'd heard that "100 logic gates audio tones" anecdote before but this went into a lot more detail. i love reading about ai - aaron
[2016-03-10 14:54:18] - http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/ Interesting read. Also AlphaGo won its next round. -Daniel
[2016-03-09 15:21:17] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/japan-s-yomiuri-giants-rocked-by-by-gambling-scandal-150033701.html is might be just me, but it looks like they really went out of their way to find an awful photo for the subject of this article. - mig
[2016-03-09 13:28:15] - Bura Bura is also apparently more commonly called Bujumbura. Apologies for the error, that's what I get for reading off a tiny map that may not have been precisely accurate. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-09 13:03:36] - aaron: That spike is at ~30 degrees East, which nails Cairo (Egypt), Harare (Zimbabwe), and is close to Khartoum (Sudan), and Kampala (Uganda) to the east and Bura Bura (Burundi) , Lusaki (Zambia) and Pretoria (South Africa) to the west. All of those are major or semi-major African cities. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-09 12:57:40] - aaron: Cairo, apparently. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-09 11:40:22] - aaron: seems like even money on whether he would win the championship. ~a
[2016-03-09 11:18:54] - Daniel: So, yeah, I don't know how common this "Bernie is sexist" thing is outside of political circles, but I DO think it's somewhat damning that a lot of people think that Clinton (and her campaign) keep trying to push this narrative. I think it speaks to the kind of person she is. -Paul
[2016-03-09 11:17:45] - Daniel: Having said that, the people who vote in primaries and who go to caucus and everything aren't really your average voter. They're probably the most actively engagement and politically knowledgeable people in the country, so my guess is that a lot of those people are aware of it. -Paul
[2016-03-09 11:16:36] - Daniel: I see your point, and I think I agree to a certain degree. This is stuff I've read a lot about because I follow politics (a lot?) more than most people. My guess is the average voter probably hasn't heard about this at all and probably hasn't thought about it at all. -Paul
[2016-03-09 11:16:23] - http://www.wired.com/2016/03/googles-ai-wins-first-game-historic-match-go-champion/ google's ai wins historic first match with go champion - aaron
[2016-03-09 11:12:57] - Ah ok that could very well be true. -Daniel
[2016-03-09 11:12:04] - daniel: I think you misunderstand (or I misunderstood the actual question you asked). I'm not saying that "Bernie Bros" actually represents all of Sanders followers. I'm saying that there certainly is a # of Clinton supporters (including prominent ones) who believe or want to make others believe that "Bernie Bros" are representative of all of Sanders support. - mig
[2016-03-09 11:05:06] - mig: I guess I haven't seen stuff that would make me think that BernieBros are representative of all Bernie supporters. -Daniel
[2016-03-09 11:03:19] - Yeah I think in the blogsphere there is a lot of noise. Its hard to sort it all out and be sure of whats actually true. I think in general "we" (the american populace) should be careful about what we decide is true and what to feel outraged by especially when it comes to the internet. Maybe thats the cis white male in me coming out though
-Daniel[2016-03-09 11:02:24] - "Is there a thought that those are somehow representative of all his followers?" based on what I've read/seen, I feel comfortable asserting the answer, "Yes." - mig
[2016-03-09 10:47:11] - daniel: https://reason.com/blog/2016/02/01/clinton-shilling-journalists-should-stop - mig
[2016-03-09 10:19:46] - So BernieBros seems to be a label for some of Bernie's supporters that are crazy online. Is there a thought that those are somehow representative of all his followers? Or just the part of the crazy people online who support Bernie? That seems distinct to me than all Sanders followers being sexist. -Daniel
[2016-03-09 10:16:41] - "this is the prevailing sentiment among Clinton supporters" - do we actually know this? I know that went around but I thought it was pretty quickly shot down by others. I feel less comfortable with the assertion "this is the prevailing sentiment among Clinton supporters". -Daniel
[2016-03-09 10:11:26] - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html and it's kind of hard to ignore comments like this when they come from pretty famous women in the feminist movement. They both eventually walked back their comments but this is the prevailing sentiment among Clinton supporters. - mig
[2016-03-09 10:10:26] - daniel: google "bernie bros"? - mig
[2016-03-09 09:35:07] - xpovos: i understand most of that graph, but what cities/countries does that tallest vertical african spike correspond to? ....is it johannesburg? - aaron
[2016-03-09 09:01:04] - Ugh, stupid Facebook. Trying again. http://i.imgur.com/wmWKmjy.png -- Xpovos
[2016-03-09 09:00:04] - I love it when data is visualized in new and interesting ways. https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12804846_10154002661251133_4543269492505396072_n.png -- Xpovos
[2016-03-09 08:42:12] - Mig: I know there was a brief thing where women who supported Bernie were called out by some but those people got called out by even more people so I don't think it lasted very long. So I'm not aware of any lasting sentiment held by many that women who support Sanders are 'gender traitors'. -Daniel
[2016-03-09 08:36:18] - Paul: Like is the idea that Bernie supporters are sexist actually a real thing or was it something that just went across a bunch of websites for like 3 days to drive traffic? I think there is a difference about what is true and what people will say in the blogosphere to gain attention / traffic. -Daniel
[2016-03-09 08:34:44] - Paul: Bernie supporters were painted as sexist? I am either more out of touch than I think or someone along the way is making that into a bigger deal than it is? Either way I'm not familiar with that. -Daniel
[2016-03-08 16:39:30] - paul: sexist *and* gender traitors. - mig
[2016-03-08 16:27:28] - Daniel: I've also read stuff about how her campaign was the one pushing the "Bernie Bros" narrative with the media trying to paint Sanders supporters as a bunch of sexists. Sure, it's possible both are wrong, but that's a lot of smoke for no fire. -Paul
[2016-03-08 16:26:25] - paul: "i have to have my china"? did he actually say that? ha ha that is a great link - aaron
[2016-03-08 16:26:09] - Daniel: That's a good question. I've definitely seen it talked about on social media and the mainstream media (I think it was front page on both CNN and Washingtonpost before, might still be now). I assumed it was just the media making a mountain out of a molehill, but that previous article implies that it's her campaign. -Paul
[2016-03-08 16:24:30] - I just watched the Lazio thing again (referenced in the article). I don't recall the severity of the backlash (although I do remember there being some controversy over it), but I don't really see anything wrong with that. Yes, he was being a little aggressive, but that seems par for the course when you're the underdog in a debate. -Paul
[2016-03-08 16:22:30] - Is it Hillary turning this into a thing or is it other people doing it on her behalf? It certainly doesn't seem like a thing to me. I'm only talking about it because you are! -Daniel
[2016-03-08 16:20:36] - Hillary Clinton always seems to be able to turn what should be relatively minor and unimportant things (in my mind) into these claims of being a victim. This wasn't even 1/10th as patronizing as half the Republican candidates were last debate, and yet all people can talk about is this moment. Is anybody even talking about the issues debated? -Paul
[2016-03-08 16:18:38] - http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/07/excuse-me-im-talking-gasps-at-dem-debate-when-bernie-sanders-refuses-to-let-hillary-interrupt-him/ If you can ignore that this apparently comes from a Republican leaning site, I think it makes some good points towards what I'm talking about... -Paul
[2016-03-08 15:59:42] - a: if she had been doing this all night long, I really can't blame Sanders for getting really irritated and starting to use stronger language to tell Clinton to stop. And it's a tad irritating to see Clinton's rudeness getting rewarded by the now prevailing narrative that she's some sort of victim of the big meanie Sanders. - mig
[2016-03-08 14:59:25] - Daniel: He did say it with somewhat of a gruff tone of voice, along with a hand gesture, but I feel like that's just his style of speaking. -Paul
[2016-03-08 14:58:58] - a: Huh, I prefer "excuse me, I'm talking" to just talking over somebody else. Difference of opinion, I guess. -Paul
[2016-03-08 14:30:13] - anyways, the truth is, lots of people have just been turned off of sanders. and i don't feel sorry for him. it really doesn't change much since he was going to lose eventually anyways. ~a
[2016-03-08 14:29:07] - his words get tons of air time, so i doubt his message is getting squashed. he could have said "it's my turn to talk." that would have been less dickish. ~a
[2016-03-08 14:28:59] - "cultural baggage with a male saying that to a female" yes. and rightly so. . . . there are tons of other stuff he could have said. he could have pulled the same bullshit politicians always use in these shitty debates: he could just start talking and talk right over the other person. ~a
[2016-03-08 14:18:36] - a: I haven't watched the video so there may be other factors but in a vacuum it doesn't seem like a dick thing to say if someone is interrupting you and you want/need to continue. -Daniel
[2016-03-08 14:12:03] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHtKx2jk40U&feature=youtu.be I don't know why, but this makes me laugh. A compilation of Trump saying "China" accompanied by somebody playing the bass. Hard to explain. -Paul
[2016-03-08 14:07:36] - a: I think the reason it comes across as a dick thing to say is because of cultural baggage with a male saying that to a female. -Paul
[2016-03-08 14:06:59] - a: What could he have said that would've been less dick-ish? It's a debate with rules (presumably) about when people talk and a lot of importance attached to speaking time. -Paul
[2016-03-08 13:44:02] - paul: "excuse me, i'm talking" is a dick thing to say. and when he said it, it came across as a dick thing to say. i can see why people are pissed. ~a
[2016-03-08 10:28:39] - a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs4JbkWOMB8 Here it is on YouTube ("excuse me, I'm talking"). -Paul
[2016-03-08 10:16:28] - mig: i'm being serious though i didn't see his remark. does somebody know where i can watch it? ~a
[2016-03-08 10:07:23] - Daniel: Not simply because he had to defend himself. -Paul
[2016-03-08 10:07:07] - Daniel: Oh, I feel sorry for him because he seems to be getting a backlash against it by people who say it was condescending or sexist. -Paul
[2016-03-08 10:03:17] - Paul: I'm confused why they are contradictory. I don't feel sorry for him that he had to defend his talking time. I'm not upset that he did defend his talking time either though. I think all politicians in debates have to defend talking time to some degree (see Webb, Kaisch (he was the one in the R debate right?)) so it seems par for the course. -Daniel
[2016-03-08 09:51:08] - Daniel: I'm confused. "I don't feel sorry for sanders" and "If its his turn defend that" seems contradictory. As I understand it, it WAS his turn and Clinton was trying to interrupt. Are you saying he was just supposed to let her talk? -Paul
[2016-03-08 09:30:20] - a: I have a coworker who is interested in doing more biking in the Arlington area. She resides in Arlington and works in Arlington, but is not a biker (she's taking a class via REI, apparently). Are there any tips or resources I should point her to? -- Xpovos
[2016-03-08 09:22:51] - I don't feel sorry for sanders. Its presidential politics. People are going to try and talk a lot. If its his turn defend that. I certainly don't think he did anything wrong in telling Clinton he wasn't done, but in my head I don't have a gender based component to the opinion. -Daniel
[2016-03-08 09:20:01] - a: quick question, because it's hard to tell - are you actually being serious? - mig
[2016-03-07 12:23:19] - mig/paul: "how dare Sanders stand up for himself after being constantly interrupted" in our culture, guys have a horrible tendency to monopolize a conversation. and that pisses ladies off. i don't feel sorry for sanders, sorry. ~a
[2016-03-07 12:20:33] - I mean doesn't he know how the social justice hierarchy works? - mig
[2016-03-07 12:20:00] - mig: I can't help but feel like this wouldn't at all be a story if Clinton was a male, but because she's female people are adding this whole "sexism" component to it. -Paul
[2016-03-07 12:19:01] - mig: Well, that's what I'm wondering. I didn't see or hear it, so I don't know the full story, but my knee-jerk reaction is to feel sorry for Bernie. If it truly was his turn to speak, then Clinton should remain respectfully quiet, and if she won't, then what's wrong with respectfully telling her to pipe down? -Paul
[2016-03-07 12:15:05] - paul: Reading some of it now. That appears to be the verdict. With one mention of Sanders going full "BernieBro" on Clinton. Wow. I mean yeah, how dare Sanders stand up for himself after being constantly interrupted! - mig
[2016-03-07 12:07:34] - mig: I guess you couldn't hear, but do you know how Sanders' "excuse me, I'm talking" statements went over? Sounds like Clinton kept trying to interrupt (which I hate in debates) and Sanders was having none of it, but people said he came across as condescending? -Paul
[2016-03-07 12:05:45] - Though best line of the night by far from Sanders: “I don’t want to break the bad news, Democrats are not always right. Democrats have often supported corporate welfare. Democrats have supported disastrous trade agreements.†- mig
[2016-03-07 11:42:53] - the second question was "What racial blind spots do you have?" I didn't hear the answers but the question itself was cringe worthy enough (I imagine the answers were as well). - mig
[2016-03-07 11:40:49] - In particular 2 dumb questions that stood out was one to Sanders: The first being "Why did you side with Ted Cruz in voting against the export/import bank?" The tone of the question seemed less about the merits of the ex/im bank issue, but more of "OMG why did you agree with Ted Cruz on something!" - mig
[2016-03-07 11:35:51] - mig: I didn't catch any of it live (started Xcom 2 last night), but I read some of the recap. -Paul
[2016-03-07 11:03:18] - Did anyone catch the Dem debate last night. I was at Glory Day's for dinner and it was on TV. It had no audio but it displayed the questions being asked. Some of the questions were kind of dumb, but they did ask mostly good questions for both candidates. - mig
[2016-03-07 10:30:07] - paul: it thought i was married, so it was pretty accurate for me too i guess. i think i probably threw it off by having only four apps on my phone, two of which were preinstalled i think (youtube and google maps come stock on android) - aaron
[2016-03-05 10:21:54] - I got that result by not having Clash of Clans installed. When I "re-installed" Clash of Clans from my "history" I went from F->M. Everything else stayed the same. -- Xpovos
[2016-03-05 10:20:21] - "You are a married lady older than 32 who makes more than $52,000/year You're either a married, middle-aged lady ... or you use your phone like one." -- Xpovos
[2016-03-04 17:07:43] - paul: oops, mine said single. ~a
[2016-03-04 16:48:08] - daniel: to parrot what paul said, these are your only choices: male/female, over/under 32, married/single, over/under $52,000. ~a
[2016-03-04 16:45:47] - paul: "You are a single guy older than 32 who makes more than $52,000/year" same answer. ~a
[2016-03-04 16:02:55] - Daniel: Yeah, it seems like the only two age brackets are over/under 32 and the only two income brackets are over/under $52k, which isn't terribly impressive. -Paul
[2016-03-04 15:54:56] - "You are a married guy younger than 32 who makes more than $52,000/year" I'm almost 33.75 years old. So it got close. Though I wonder what its income brackets are and if it could have done better? I wonder what would drive the income number up or down. -Daniel
[2016-03-04 15:45:20] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/03/03/quiz-can-we-guess-your-age-and-income-based-solely-on-the-apps-on-your-phone/ "You are a single guy older than 32 who makes more than $52,000/year". Except for the single part, it was pretty accurate. -Paul
prev <-> next