prev <-> next
[2016-08-08 16:56:57] - Let me know if anyone sees any glaring mistakes on it! -Daniel
[2016-08-08 16:56:43] - if you are on track to get to your goal before 59.5 how much you need to save in order to get to 59.5. I don't know that anyone will want it or will understand it but I thought it was interesting. -Daniel
[2016-08-08 16:56:08] - I made a spreadsheet google doc thing about retirement savings! (It was a slow day at work) If you go download it (if you just make changes online everyone will see those) you can play with the numbers to see some info. I was trying to answer how long it would take to get to a savings goal, how long that $ would last, and ...
[2016-08-08 16:53:09] - a: Okay, so let me make sure I'm clear. You are saying that requiring anybody to drive to the DMV and spend $10 to get an ID is a terrible/ridiculous/overwhelming burden? -Paul
[2016-08-08 16:17:01] - xpovos: "Is getting to the polling place, as Paul suggested, an undue burden?" no. "Where's your line?" walking to the nearest public elementary school is my line. if you can't do that, then i know there are plenty of volunteers that will gladly drive you to the nearest public elementary school. ~a
[2016-08-08 16:14:39] - paul: anyways, the answer to your first question is: no, it's from 2006. and the answer to your second qustion is: i don't understand the question. ~a
[2016-08-08 16:13:43] - a: Thought experiment, what is an acceptable burden to place upon an individual in order for them to enact their right to vote? Is getting to the polling place, as Paul suggested, an undue burden? It could be argued so if we go far enough down that path. If it's not undue, some level is acceptable. Where's your line? -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 16:11:04] - i initially called it terribly burdensome, and later called it an incredible burden, also an overwhelming burden, but sure that works too, ridiculous burden. i'm totally serious. ~a
[2016-08-08 16:04:59] - a: Wait, aren't those just the numbers of people who don't have an ID currently? So you're basically saying that not having an ID right now (and thus having to get one) regardless of their circumstances or why they don't have an ID is a ridiculous burden (or whatever you called it)? -Paul
[2016-08-08 15:56:00] - paul: this small percent of the population, this less than a handful of people, is 18% percent of American citizens age 65 and above and 25% percent of African-American voting-age citizens. my argument is partially tongue-in-cheek, because obviously a good portion of those people don't have an id because they don't want one, but fuck, these aren't small potatoes. ~a
[2016-08-08 15:52:56] - a: I can see how, for some small percent of the population, it might be hard. It might even be really hard for a tiny percentage. I find it hard to believe it's an overwhelmingly burden for more than a handful of people. -Paul
[2016-08-08 15:43:04] - paul: ok, but i gave reasons i believe (seriously) that it is overwhelming burden, so it's my argument you hate. ~a
[2016-08-08 15:42:16] - a: I mostly don't care about voter IDs, I just really hate the argument that it's such an overwhelming burden on people.
-Paul[2016-08-08 15:41:02] - a: And this is all in a backdrop of a country where only half of eligible voters vote anyway. I wonder how many of these people are desperate to vote if only they could find a way to make it to their DMV and how many just couldn't be bothered. -Paul
[2016-08-08 15:41:00] - mig: i think paul was referring to a non-photo voter id card. ~a
[2016-08-08 15:40:26] - Paul: To be fair, it is usually within walking distance of your domicile. That doesn't address the homeless item from earlier, though. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 15:39:34] - paul: i read your lack of non-sarcasm as concession.
~a[2016-08-08 15:38:51] - * more than a little. -Paul
[2016-08-08 15:38:24] - a Not really, just pointing out that this incredible burden (a little sarcasm) is something they have to face anyway. Why isn't there outrage over people being forced to actually GO somewhere to vote? Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic now. -Paul
[2016-08-08 15:36:06] - xpovos: your statistics don't break it down by race or age, and my statistics don't break it down by virginia vs non-virginia, so it could be all of the statistics are correct. i imagine the african-american vs non-affrican-american percentages are different. i imagine the under-65 vs 65-and-over percentages are different. ~a
[2016-08-08 15:32:21] - "Don't they already have to try so much harder to vote anyway?" so you want to make it harder?
~a[2016-08-08 15:25:04] - FWIW, Prince William County is one of the worst on the list with an 8% of registered voters not having a driver's license. I could make some statements about that, but they'd probably be out of line. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 15:24:52] - paul: http://elections.virginia.gov/Files/CastYourBallot/VotingInPerson/VoterIdentificationChart.pdf according to this, yes, if it's a photo id? - mig
[2016-08-08 15:23:48] - a: I find those statistics suspect. Virginia put out these: http://elections.virginia.gov/Files/VoterRegistration/Information/Voters_Registration_and_No_DMV_ID_Statistics-July.pdf Basically, only 3-4% of voters don't have a driver's license. OR, at least 96% of voters have AT LEAST one valid photo ID. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 15:22:50] - Paul: Negative. It must be a photo ID. In addition to the DMV, Virginia also permits the Board of Elections to create a valid-for-voting photo ID. This obviously still needs to be done in-person, and at the Board of Elections office, but there's never any line. And there's no fee at all. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 15:02:48] - a: "whey do they have to try so much harder than you or i do to vote" Don't they already have to try so much harder to vote anyway? They still have to make it to the voting place on a specific day (when most people are working). That seems just as hard as going to the DMV to get an ID. -Paul
[2016-08-08 15:00:28] - a: extrapolating a sample size of 987 across a nation of 300+ million seems makes me skeptical of the survey's assertion. It cites some census data, which I'm interested in seeing but not sure how valuable it would be considering how infrequent that's polled. - mig
[2016-08-08 14:44:27] - Xpovos: Does the vote registration cards that we get in the mail satisfy the ID requirement? -Paul
[2016-08-08 14:43:01] - a: Without at all intending to imply that this applies to you, one thing that amuses/frustrates me is that I find that many of the people talking about how a trip to the DMV and $10 is such a ridiculous burden are the same people who claim that thousands of pages of new regulations are reasonable for businesses to comply with. -Paul
[2016-08-08 14:31:13] - mig: you've basically cut out 100% of the people in this situation that aren't *very* *desperate* about being a voter. whey do they have to try so much harder than you or i do to vote? ~a
[2016-08-08 14:28:30] - mig: so now they have to be able to afford two bus tickets. and in a rich suburban area, this is going to be easier, try it in a poor urban or poor rural area: total bullshit. audrey had a super hard time getting a virginia drivers license, you'd be surprised the simple problems that will make it a pain in the ass to get a drivers license. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:28:18] - mig: they have to think about it with enough time to get it done before election day, which might be a problem. they have to be able to afford the $10, which might be a problem. they might need to make multiple trips if their paperwork isn't all in order (i've had to do this before), which might be a problem. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:28:13] - mig: "My opinion - not terribly burdensome" ok, you already know they can't drive. so they have to take time off of work, which might be a problem, they have to figure out the bus schedule, which might be a problem. they have to be able to afford a bus ticket, which might be a problem. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:19:05] - like, wtf, i'd hate to see the percentage of people who are *both* african american, and age 65 and above. probably like a million percent. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:17:22] - 18% and 25% is like, seriously pretty fucking shitty. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:16:44] - mig: "Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued photo ID" "Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID" source ~a
[2016-08-08 14:15:47] - my opinion, terribly burdensome. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:15:14] - a: http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/id-cards.php a trip to the DMV, having some documents, and $10. My opinion - not terribly burdensome. - mig
[2016-08-08 14:12:56] - mig: "the cost of getting a bare minimum photo ID is not terribly burdensome" citation needed. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:12:22] - a: the cost is obviously > 0, but I do think at least in VA, the cost of getting a bare minimum photo ID is not terribly burdensome. - mig
[2016-08-08 14:10:40] - "i think people who don't drive and don't go to bars, most of these people do not have a government id." citation needed. - mig
[2016-08-08 14:07:34] - elderly and poor people don't have drivers licenses either. the other part i disagree with is: "no cost". you're discounting the cost of getting to the dmv. ~a
[2016-08-08 14:06:47] - i disagree with two parts: "integral part of modern society's day-to-day for most people". i think people who don't drive and don't go to bars, most of these people do not have a government id. elderly, poor, and homeless. for instance, homeless people don't have an address, so voting in general gets pretty hard for them. ~a
[2016-08-08 13:57:59] - a: Why, do you hypothesize? Particularly when IDs are such an integral part of modern society's day-to-day for most people AND when these laws (at least when upheld) include multiple opportunities for acquiring an ID at no cost, including from the Board of Elections. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 13:44:57] - ah, you mean the formal protest. my bad. ~a
[2016-08-08 13:33:16] - a: From the wapo article, the court's opinion seems to care a lot about intent. - mig
[2016-08-08 13:27:12] - "it's not the changes themselves that are problems, but the perceived intent" nah, it's both (imo), but i even think it's more the former than the latter (imo). voter id laws cause people who don't have ids to stay home on election day. ~a
[2016-08-08 13:13:27] - where I do think there may be problems with the court decision, is the attempt to divine intent. It seems, as is usually the case in protesting voter law changes, it's not the changes themselves that are problems, but the perceived intent. - mig
[2016-08-08 13:10:35] - *sigh* http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/08/08/trump-voter-shot-after-political-debate-spurs-shooting/ -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 12:28:50] - mig: I haven't looked at NC's laws specifically, so I'm not qualified at all to answer that in any way that is informed. But people are just as adamantly against Virginia's law, despite it having, so far, been upheld. So the broader question is still open, I think. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 12:27:33] - Isn't voter id requirements a red herring here? the NC law has other elements to it that people are objecting to. - mig
[2016-08-08 12:07:27] - a: I think a lot of those unfair criticisms are just as fair when used in this circumstance. So I personally think they're unfair in both cases (or at least in most cases for Voter ID laws) and I like how this is shining a light on that. -Paul
[2016-08-08 12:05:31] - a: I'll start by saying I don't think it's a serious comparison (or at least I didn't take it that way), it was more the optics of it. I liked it because I think too often anti-voter-ID-law people leap to nefarious motivations when it comes to the other side (racism, voter suppression, etc) and I enjoy the turnabout. -Paul
[2016-08-08 11:59:22] - ID laws requirements are a "punishment" on poverty, it's more of a racist coincidence that means they're a punishment on minorities, I think. Meanwhile, the DNC's requirement is similarly a "punishment" on poverty, but none of the delegates coming in to the convention are going to be at that level of impoverishment. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:55:08] - When the dead vote, they don't vote from the suburbs. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:54:45] - Ironically, the areas with the lowest ID posession rates are also the areas where voter fraud, if it is happening, is likely to happen: densely populated and minority precincts are going to be much more susceptible to the type of fraud being described in that article. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:53:35] - Probably because he wasn't panicked about it being missing... but that could just be my ego. Obviously, not EVERYONE has ID, but those who don't are so few, at least among people I know and in my county, as to be a non-factor. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:52:41] - Generally speaking it's never that someone doesn't have ID, it's that they don't have ID with them. They forgot their wallet, or something. I had a friend who lost his wallet the day of the Presidential primary. Big Bernie backer and he was super-frustrated. So I calmed him down, showed him the provisional process and he found his wallet a few minutes later anyway
[2016-08-08 11:43:53] - very cool info, thanks, xpovos. ~a
[2016-08-08 11:33:42] - So I went searching, the Virginia strict-photo ID law became law in 2013, but wasn't enforceable until 2014* so we've had two primaries and a general that I've worked under the new laws. Plus I worked a special election in December, 2014 so the law would be in force then too. So 4 elections. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:29:00] - a: I think three elections? Not exactly sure, honestly. And it's been at least one per election, but never more than three. So... between 3 and 9? Which given that these have been very low turnout elections is about 0.5-1.0% of the turnout? -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:27:08] - xpovos: wow, that's really interesting. not the first part, but the fact they all returned! how many people over how many elections? ~a
[2016-08-08 11:25:58] - nah, i don't buy that equivalence either. voter-fraud being a non-problem isn't negated by some jackass participating in voter-fraud for the purposes of backing up voter-id-laws. (i like hyphens today, i'm not sure why) ~a
[2016-08-08 11:24:47] - I'll note that Virginia has a voter-id requirement that I have to help enforce, and it's been the law for several elections now. I have had to turn away voters for not having ID. None has taken the provisional option (thankfully) and all have actually returned later with ID and voted. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:23:32] - a: I agree they're not the same, it's merely an amusement. The other two are much better linked as a true equivalence. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 11:16:29] - paul/xpovos: this is dumb. being able to participate in internal-party-bullshit != voting. this is a very stupid equivalence you've made. honestly, i think having a photo-id required at a democratic event is stupid: but it's not even close to half as bad as a voter-id *law*. law vs rule. ~a
[2016-08-08 11:00:06] - http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DNC-voter-ID.jpg There we go. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 10:59:10] - Paul: I went looking for something like that when I got the breitbart article, but I couldn't find exactly what I'd seen; and frankly the breitbart article has very disappointing pictures. Let me try again and see if I can find a better image, even if unsourced. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 10:56:41] - Xpovos: I saw a clever Facebook post with a picture of that DNC sign that said something to the effect of "I guess Democrats are racist and don't want minorities to come to the convention". -Paul
[2016-08-08 10:05:05] - ... and this http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/09/04/dnc-requires-ids-to-enter-convention/ Not to mention our previous discussion about the nature of air travel requirements, etc. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-08 10:04:41] - So... this is going to go to the SCOTUS, probably. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story Meanwhile we have this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438754/james-okeefe-voter-fraud-videos-prove-voter-ID-laws-needed (...)
[2016-08-08 08:03:40] - https://github.com/noidontdig/gitdown a script which moderates your git committing activity based on your BAC - aaron
[2016-08-05 22:43:05] - Also, we're looking for a logo right now. I was going to hit up Fiverr to get some examples there but figured I would ask if anybody here was interested in working with me first. Thanks all! -Paul
[2016-08-05 22:42:18] - things consistently either. Ideally we would have enough writers that people can write when they want and we'll still have new stuff on a relatively consistent basis. Let me know if you're at all interested. -Paul
[2016-08-05 22:41:19] - as models that we're looking at in the sense that they have multiple people writing about all sorts of different stuff. I'll probably write a fair bit about politics, but also sometimes about sports or games. The goal is for there to be absolutely no pressure for people to write... -Paul
[2016-08-05 22:39:57] - Hey, guys. So I'm starting up a blog (and trying to drag along Travis and Xpovos with me) and wondering if anybody here would be interested in contributing as well. There's not necessarily any "theme" yet. The Ringer and Grantland have been mentioned a few times... -Paul
[2016-08-05 16:09:53] - Paul: I don't think it's Krugman individually, but I grock the concept that attacking a mainstream idelology as "extreme" continuously diminishes the value of such proclamations and invites a genuinely extreme response. The fact that the author of the article was able to pull a large number or Krugman hit pieces does some nice damage, though. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-05 15:15:20] - Xpovos: Interesting. I had seen that headline before, but dismissed it as ridiculous (and riding on the wave of "Blame X for Trump" articles that I had seen). I still don't know if I buy the premise that Krugman helped to lead to the rise of Trump, but I do think the comments about the double standards and overheated rhetoric are on point. -Paul
[2016-08-05 14:51:12] - Interesting take. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html -- Xpovos
[2016-08-05 14:36:47] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/ralph-nader-did-not-hand-2000-election Another reason to not fret about "wasted" votes on third party candidates causing elections to be thrown to the greater of two evils. Votes don't "belong" to candidates the way people often think. -Paul
[2016-08-05 12:50:58] - a: The human trafficking angle was from another article I was reading about this issue--can't find it right now, but apparently it's related to his involvement with this issue previously. Drugs for sex is simple prostitution, but the pimps getting him his girls have been traffickers. It might be speculation, though. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-05 11:06:36] - he works as a substitute teacher. i doubt he's rolling in the money. ~a
[2016-08-05 11:03:57] - This is why we need that restaurant tax. How else is the mayor supposed to fund his meth and group sex habit?
-Paul[2016-08-05 11:01:30] - human trafficking? you're talking about the "[mayor] agreed to bring other men to the engagement"? ~a
[2016-08-05 10:44:42] - And human trafficking. Awesome. -- Xpovos
[2016-08-05 10:14:37] - http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/City-of-Fairfax-Mayor-Arrested-for-Distributing-Meth-Police-Say-389282112.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand -Paul
[2016-08-05 10:09:54] - a: As I understand it there is still no conclusive proof that it causes cancer (in fact, I believe the US funds its use in some foreign countries now) but we DO know it helps out a ton preventing malaria. Basically, I saw it as another instance to where there was an overreaction to possibly bad science which ultimately resulted in more deaths. -Paul
[2016-08-05 10:07:28] - a: Not necessarily. I put it in there because there is a belief now that there was an overreaction to its use which ultimately resulted in many more people dead because it wasn't used. -Paul
[2016-08-05 08:34:32] - paul: did you slip in ddt to see if we were paying attention? we're not sure it causes cancer, but it does mos-def affect the environment when you spray it everywhere. or, you know, if you eat it (the rat LD50 is 113 mg/kg). ~a
[2016-08-04 11:35:32] - Seems like Stoessel has gone a bit Rational-Anarchist as well. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/03/beyond_two_evils_131408.html -- Xpovos
[2016-08-04 11:22:56] - Daniel: Eating breakfast doesn't help people lose weight. Dietary cholesterol and high fat diets don't increase risks of heart attack. DDT, BPA, Transfats... The lists go on and on. -Paul
[2016-08-04 11:19:19] - Daniel: I guess time will tell. I'm also not sure how involved the government was with promoting this idea and passing regulations regarding it vs just dentists badgering patients about it. It's a little crazy, though, how so much stuff that we thought we knew is turning out to be wrong. -Paul
[2016-08-04 11:09:42] - http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/dentists-forgot-to-study-flossing-for-a-century-recommended-it-anyway/ Does this fall in the same broad category as the gov trying to recommend diet stuff Paul? -Daniel
[2016-08-03 23:24:15] - paul: balloons. <last-word/> - aaron
[2016-08-03 16:09:30] - daniel: a real-life scenario is: a criminal and two normal citizens all agree to buy a diamond. then the diamond is sold, and divided up into three piles of money. you can see where the three piles of money go, but you're not sure which of the three piles of money is "owned" by the criminal. ~a
[2016-08-03 16:09:26] - daniel: you are correct in your understanding. you're wondering what happens after bitcoins are stolen? yes, that can be tracked to a degree, but "mixing" is something that bitcoin allows. a transaction with three inputs and three outputs, you're not sure which of the outputs contains the "stolen" money. ~a
[2016-08-03 16:01:26] - a: I admit my understanding is low but I thought there was a historical element to bitcoins where something stored transactions of what amounts went to who. Maybe thats not true though. I could be very wrong. -Daniel
[2016-08-03 15:50:29] - daniel: there is no concept in the protocol for "ownership". think about it, how would you prove you own bitcoins? it's decentralized, so you have nobody to appeal to. the only thing in the protocol is a set of private keys. public-private-key signatures, no more. if you keep lots of money in an online "hot-wallet" (discouraged) you're going to have a bad time ~a
[2016-08-03 15:31:07] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/gary-johnson-survives-hillary-bounce-sti "Hillary Clinton is thumping Gary Johnson among conservatives. The CNN/ORC poll is brutal on this score, with Clinton nabbing 21 percent of cons versus just 8 percent for Johnson." This is maddeningly mind-boggling to me. -Paul
[2016-08-03 13:46:53] - aaron: What if he drops out the day before election day and endorses Hillary? That would be amazing and actually not as surprising to me as it might sound. -Paul
[2016-08-03 13:46:22] - aaron: I suspect and hope that win or lose, Trump heralds the destruction of the Republican party and the ride of at least one (but hopefully multiple) third parties. I don't know if a disastrous Trump presidency would be worse or an election where he gets blown out would be worse. -Paul
[2016-08-03 13:44:46] - aaron: I've said my piece (peace?), though, so I'll let you have the last word if you want it.
-Paul[2016-08-03 13:44:03] - aaron: I do agree that, theoretically, if everybody thought like me then my vote could sway the election from Clinton to Trump... or to Gary Johnson or even Mickey Mouse, depending on how many millions of other people we're ascribing to me, I just don't see how that's relevant to the real world, though. -Paul
[2016-08-03 13:42:38] - aaron: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see my voting and X million other people voting as independent variables. Just because people might think like me doesn't mean my vote has any effect on theirs, and because of that, I just don't see how my one vote somehow "matters" on the scale of millions of votes. -Paul
[2016-08-03 13:02:01] - also i can't figure out whether it would be more devastating to the republican party for trump to win or to lose. i feel like either way like... there's going to be some serious soul searching for that party in the next few years - aaron
[2016-08-03 12:53:10] - paul: if the election is decided by fewer than 100,000 votes, 100,000 like-minded non-voters could each say "it didn't matter if i voted, and i couldn't control whether the other 99,999 non-voters voted"... but the second statement being true doesn't make the first statement false - aaron
[2016-08-03 12:46:01] - paul: i think what i'm saying is practical. you don't control X million votes, but X million people vote for similar reasons you do. i guarantee you for any rationale you can think of for voting, not voting, voting for a certain candidate, your opinion is echoed by a not-insignificant percentage of the voting population, - aaron
[2016-08-03 11:37:19] - Daniel: I will probably be voting for him instead of Hillary. In my mind, both of them are votes "against" Trump since in neither case am I voting FOR him. -Paul
[2016-08-03 11:36:31] - Daniel: I actually do care who wins this election. Hillary would be a terrible president in almost every imaginable way.... but I think Trump would be a complete disaster. If it has to be one of them (and I believe that's a false choice), then I would much prefer Trump lose. But I also prefer Johnson win (over Clinton) so... -Paul
[2016-08-03 11:34:53] - aaron: Okay, I think we're on the same page mostly, and I agree with you in theory. I just don't know how practical what you are saying is. I only control my own vote, so from a practical sense, who I vote for basically doesn't matter. Yes, if I controlled X million votes, it would make a difference, but I don't. -Paul
[2016-08-03 11:32:58] - a: Hah, no. No hard feelings. I don't try to "time" things like the market or bitcoin prices. I bought knowing full well it was near a high and likely to see lows in the near future. I wish I had more capital (and a safe place to store it) so I could consider buying more on the dip, though. -Paul
[2016-08-03 09:49:51] - paul: but you're right, if X is very large then it will matter in both cases. but no matter what the value of X is, it's *more* likely to make a difference for a major party candidate - aaron
[2016-08-03 09:47:21] - paul: yeah that's why i specifically was referencing X million instead of a concrete number. for some values of X it matters for a major party candidate, and for some (but not as many) values of X it matters for a minor party candidate - aaron
[2016-08-03 09:27:33] - I kind of jumped in late though so I don't want to speak for Aaron really though. -Daniel
[2016-08-03 09:27:18] - paul: If you don't care who wins b/w Trump or Clinton then I don't know that it matters for one vs the other. But if you secretly hoped Trump would win but assumed your vote didn't matter so you voted for Johnson instead. Well if you and 8 million others made the same decision then maybe that would have been enough to swing something. -Daniel
[2016-08-03 09:25:29] - a: I heard about the bitcoin thing. How does someone steal bitcoins? I thought the whole public chain part of it or whatever made that tough? hard? impossible? -Daniel
[2016-08-03 07:59:19] - but i still think it's a really clever solution for the slightly different game of firing at randomly placed ships - aaron
[2016-08-03 07:58:34] - http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/december32011/ writing an AI for battleship. it ignores the idea of strategically positioning your ships though -- if you know your opponent is using this optimal strategy, can't you weight your ship placement towards the edges? and if you know your opponent weights their ship placement, does that negate the AI? hmmm - aaron
[2016-08-02 23:11:46] - paul: yah, i can send you another $10 worth so there are no hard feelings. i just lost 12k, what's another $10?
~a[2016-08-02 22:28:17] - I mean, I wouldn't vote for Clinton OR Trump this election. It would probably be Johnson, then maybe some other third party or a write-in or not voting at all. By your rationale, does my vote count at all?-Paul
[2016-08-02 22:24:34] - Even if I were to grant that my vote has something to do with how millions of others vote (which I think isn't practical), it still all depends on HOW many millions of others vote like me (and how I vote, I suppose). -Paul
[2016-08-02 22:18:49] - aaron (and Daniel?): I still don't quite get how that's relevant, though. Sure, if 8 million people thought the same way as I do, then it might cost one side the election (and thus, I guess, count, but only if it were for a major party candidate). But if 40 million people thought the same way I do, then it would make a difference for a minor party candidate. -Paul
[2016-08-02 19:38:11] - a: I bought my Bitcoin one week too early, it seems. -Paul
[2016-08-02 17:06:29] - a: Thats going to be tough... My mom would be mad if we moved away again I think. -Daniel
[2016-08-02 16:57:56] - daniel! we miss you. come back! ~a
[2016-08-02 16:40:56] - also hi!
[2016-08-02 16:40:54] - I agree with Aaron. -Daniel
[2016-08-02 16:26:45] - X million people could all write in a third party candidate, and they could all rationalize "if my one vote were changed to a major party candidate it wouldn't matter". but if all 8 million of them changed their vote it could matter - aaron
[2016-08-02 16:24:39] - paul: well, my argument isn't that your vote affects other people's vote. my argument is simply that you're representative of a group. your vote is representative of X million other people who will vote for the same candidate for similar reasons - aaron
[2016-08-02 11:28:06] - aaron: Sure, but I still don't agree that voting for a major party candidate carries more weight because voting doesn't happen by "X million like-minded Pauls" acting in unison. My vote for a candidate doesn't really have any effect on somebody else's vote. -Paul
[2016-08-02 10:55:24] - a: my niece/nephew and i play mental "skull" sometimes which is completely cheatable. but we just don't cheat. the hardest part is letting your opponent pick one of four random cards, but we hold out four fingers and mentally think about which finger has our skull before they pick a finger - aaron
[2016-08-02 10:54:15] - a: that's really cool! i was missing one step in the solution until i realized they assumed that the encryption algorithm was commutative. i don't know if i know any encryption algorithms like that which are commutative! - aaron
[2016-08-02 10:13:55] - aaron: you'd love this. it's basically what you're talking about, but for full-on-poker. also, it was written in the 70s! before smartphones, and before computers really. anyways, use both the POS and your smartphone to play the wendies game and confirm the randomness. ~a
[2016-08-02 10:05:05] - a: ha ha surprisingly i thought of that, but the problem is once it's anything more complicated than a coin flip it can be hacked or gamed. like obviously a smartphone app could do this trivially but then whose smartphone is it? is their app honest? what stops wendy's from making their POS system win 60% of the time - aaron
[2016-08-02 09:52:12] - aaron: you should put your system into POSes. and, now we don't have a need for change in our society. i imagine the receipt at wendies saying "you lose! you win! you lose! $20 please." ~a
[2016-08-02 09:20:00] - a: but you'd just flip two coins and the game would end. you'd have to give someone something of unusual value for the game to continue for any amount of time, "here i'll give you my heavily used PS2 controller which retails for $5.38, now we can play the game to see if you give me your $20.00" - aaron
[2016-08-02 09:16:05] - a: i don't think so! when you play with negative money there's a ceiling. you could create negative money, by saying "here i'll give you $5.00. now you owe me $5.00 and we can play the game for your $20.00 bill" - aaron
[2016-08-02 07:38:25] - aaron:
i wonder if you could do it with positive money instead of negative money? ~a[2016-08-01 20:27:12] - a: http://i.imgur.com/fN3okR2.jpg this is the weird little subgame i made you play at poker when you were drunk. we made it to "6b" - aaron
[2016-08-01 16:10:46] - or in other words, if there are X million like-minded pauls in america all deciding who they're going to vote for -- there's a better chance those X million people will affect the outcome of the election by simultaneously voting for a primary candidate, than a third party candidate - aaron
[2016-08-01 16:08:34] - paul: sure, i agree with that. anybody who honestly says "voting for a third party is a waste because they can't win" is just as wrong as anybody who says "my vote can't affect the election". that said, if you think of yourself as a representative of a larger whole -- your vote carriers more weight if you vote for one of the two major candidates - aaron
[2016-08-01 16:05:19] - Paul: sigh, and I was joking about voting for Stein
~g[2016-08-01 14:42:16] - g: Since you're tied between Clinton and Stein, I can't fault you for voting either, although I would personally lean towards Stein because (as is obvious) I like to see third parties do better. -Paul
[2016-08-01 14:41:10] - Aaron: Then hopefully third parties would actually get respectable percentages, because I feel like so many people WANT to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, but they're worried about "wasting" their vote. So we come full circle.
-Paul[2016-08-01 14:40:23] - Aaron: Yeah, I think I understand your point now. We're just looking at things differently. Oddly enough, I think my overall point still stands with the way you look at things, though. Even if everybody thought the way I did (ie, my vote doesn't matter)... -Paul
[2016-08-01 13:49:58] - so the moral is I should vote for Jill right? ~g
[2016-08-01 13:48:36] - I side with -> Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton at 96% then Gary Johnson at 74% then Darrell Castle at 20% and finally 12% with Donald Trump.... ~g
[2016-08-01 09:35:34] - paul: as long as the pool of nonvoters exceeds the margin of the election, you can't point to a single nonvoter and say, "him, it didn't matter if this particular guy voted" - aaron
[2016-08-01 09:34:49] - paul: yeah "fungible" is a new word for me but that sounds right. and i agree it's confusing to think about but the problem is that votes are cast simultaneously. if votes were cast sequentially you could say, "well my candidate is already down by 2 votes and i'm the last voter so my vote doesn't count" but... - aaron
[2016-08-01 09:31:48] - paul: i think the difference is that you're thinking of yourself as like one individual with unique behavior, whereas i'm thinking of you as representative of about 1% of the population with a pattern of behavior - aaron
[2016-08-01 09:30:06] - paul: but in both cases, noticable changes occur if 100,000 other people also decide to behave the same way. everyone thinks, "oh my action doesn't matter here, because no election has been decided by one vote," and it's 100,000 votes that are affected that way - aaron
[2016-08-01 09:28:30] - paul: well that's true, and if you threw a cigarette butt in every single public park you visited for the rest of your life, nobody would possibly know the difference either - aaron
[2016-07-30 01:56:18] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfGD2qveGdQ&list=RDEfGD2qveGdQ deepmind artificial intelligence, a program which learns to play atari games just by looking at the pixels - aaron
[2016-07-29 13:05:22] - aaron: I think I understand your point, but it seems more like a theoretical or mathematical point than a practical one. You're trying to say that since most votes in an election count, and votes are fungible, then every vote counts, even though no single individual vote really counts? -Paul
[2016-07-29 12:59:21] - a: it's starting to pop up on reddit. I'm not sure I take it seriously because I think it's mostly bitter sanders supporters who never really were democrats to begin with (hence my question). - mig
[2016-07-29 12:35:11] - mig: who's talking about demexit? that seems manufactured to me. i imagine there's going to be seriously more repuxit over trump. ~a
[2016-07-29 11:47:46] - demexit? Is it really an exit if you weren't really a registered democrat to begin with? - mig
[2016-07-29 10:54:42] - aaron: I'm saying that in the real world, if I voted Republican in every single national and statewide election for the rest of my life, all of those elections would turn out the exact same way vs if I voted Democratic in every single election. -Paul
[2016-07-29 10:53:08] - aaron: Where it sounds like maybe you're approaching it from a math/statistics/probability problem kind of perspective where you're saying that if everybody thought my way, it would make a difference? -Paul
[2016-07-29 10:51:59] - aaron: I think maybe the difference is that we're approaching this from slightly different perspectives. I am approaching it from a purely practical standpoint, where my vote isn't going to make a difference at all because regardless of what I do, everybody else is going to do their thing. -Paul
[2016-07-29 10:43:10] - a: Sorry, I should've double checked with you since I know you have email issues. -Paul
[2016-07-29 07:53:54] - Paul: nm, apparently my email is broken. ~a
[2016-07-28 18:07:57] - paul: did we call off poker? ~a
[2016-07-28 16:22:33] - title:
- aaron[2016-07-28 16:09:25] - paul: but i don't think one logically follows from the other - aaron
[2016-07-28 16:07:20] - paul: i'm saying that paradoxically everybody's vote matters, even if nobody's individual vote affects the outcome of an election. if 60 people vote for a candidate and that candidate wins, i understand how you could rationally come to the conclusion that none of those 60 people needed to vote... - aaron
[2016-07-28 15:55:11] - "I often feel like there's the Hillary standard and then there's the standard for everybody else," she said.
[2016-07-28 14:41:04] - Paul: No!
-- Xpovos[2016-07-28 13:12:30] - http://www.thewrap.com/jerry-doyle-dead-babylon-5-actor-epictimes-founder-died-60/ Damn, another B5 actor dead. -Paul
[2016-07-28 11:54:49] - Paul: I figure pretty much everyone just gets a 50% "agree" with Trump stamp because it's pretty much a coin flip every time he opens his mouth on any policy. I mean, I probably disagree with more than 50% of what he's actually said about policy issues, but I'd be comfortable with a 50% rating, because... what basis do I have? -- Xpovos
[2016-07-28 10:50:34] - I'm surprised there weren't any direct questions (that I could see) about trade, which is kind of a hot button issue right now. -mig
[2016-07-28 10:46:34] - mig: I still don't know how you even grade a score with Trump. Which viewpoint of his do you use? The one he expressed yesterday or the one today? -Paul
[2016-07-28 10:46:22] - To be quite frank though, anybody's % match with Clinton or Trump should be suspect given their records and often self-contradictory stances. - mig
[2016-07-28 10:45:02] - I would probably be much lower with Clinton/Trump if I was allowed more nuanced than what the quiz allows, I think. - mig
[2016-07-28 10:44:22] - 92% Johnson, 72% Castile (Constituion party? That's still a thing?), 62% Stein, 59% Trump, 51% Clinton. - mig
[2016-07-28 10:38:08] - aaron: Also, I'm shocked you matched 93% with Clinton (and yet also match so highly with Johnson). -Paul
[2016-07-28 10:36:59] - aaron: It sounds to me (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out where we differ) that you're saying that if everybody thought that way (and hence didn't vote), then your vote WOULD count. Is that a fair description? -Paul
[2016-07-28 10:36:04] - aaron: My stance is that it's incredibly unlikely for any individual vote to make a difference in an election (particularly a presidential election). -Paul
[2016-07-28 10:35:18] - aaron: Okay, sorry to abruptly leave our conversation. I had a pounding headache and left work early and then slept for 14 hours. -Paul
[2016-07-27 17:13:04] - i matched 93% with hillary clinton and strangely, also strangely i also tied xpovos's 86% match with gary johnson despite the fact that he wasn't my top match. i guess my political views are more mainstream than xpovos's, i guess that makes sense but it's still funny. - aaron
[2016-07-27 16:53:50] - Paul: No surprise, but I side with Gary Johnson as well. 86% according to that poll. What was surprising was that Darrel Johnson, who I'll be honest, I've never even heard of, was right behind with 85%. Clinton was dead-last at 19%. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-27 15:04:25] - paul: because if it's the former then i think i can make logical arguments disproving it, but if it's the latter then sure, i agree it's kind of strange and unintuitive - aaron
[2016-07-27 15:04:09] - paul: i mean clearly that's a fallacy, right? i guess i'm trying to understand -- is this one of those things that you actually think is logically true, "nobody's vote matters," or is this one of those monty hall things, "intuitively nobody's vote matters, that's kind of strange that it actually matters" - aaron
[2016-07-27 15:02:13] - paul: let's imagine we hold a special kind of election: if a candidate wins by exactly one vote, we revote. what does that do to your lottery idea? doesn't that mean that literally, nobody's vote can ever possibly matter? - aaron
[2016-07-27 14:45:04] - aaron: I guess I just still see them as different scenarios. I can't see ANY consequences of candidate B winning by 1 million votes or 1 million and 1 votes. It won't even be a footnote in history. On the other hand, one cupcake DOES have an affect, even if it's minor. -Paul
[2016-07-27 14:42:40] - aaron: So doesn't that mean that people should play the lottery even if they almost certainly won't win for the same reason? -Paul
[2016-07-27 14:42:10] - aaron: I don't know if I understand it either.
I guess I'm looking at things in reverse. It seems to me you are saying that people should vote for candidate A or B even if their vote is almost certainly not going to be the "deciding" vote because of the cupcake theory. -Paul[2016-07-27 14:38:39] - paul: i don't understand your analogy. if 100 people vote in an election, and candidate B wins 60 votes to 40 votes -- which of the voters "won the lottery"? i think my garbage/cupcake analogy fits better. none of those 60 voters affected the outcome individually, but each one is a little piece of trash in our otherwise anarchical utopia - aaron
[2016-07-27 14:07:57] - Aaron: I think of voting only to try to sway the election between two people is like playing the lottery (presumably because you're trying to win the jackpot). The odds are incredibly unlikely. -Paul
[2016-07-27 14:06:13] - Aaron: I still disagree, and I feel like there is some lottery analogy here to be made, but I can't think of it. Something like how I should play the lottery every day because somebody has to win? -Paul
[2016-07-27 14:04:58] - Aaron: http://d3qvyul2tp4j8.cloudfront.net/i/aWUdkxnO8v.jpg Here is 48% Trump and 52% Hillary. -Paul
[2016-07-27 14:01:34] - paul: i'll confess after reading your message, i was temporarily fascinated by the idea of an "analog presidency" where a president might be 48% republican and 52% democrat until i realized i had just invented the senate
- aaron[2016-07-27 13:59:02] - paul: well, binary or not you can distill health and public parks down to a binary system if you want. i don't think it affects the analogy. if 1,000 people a day litter in central park, a park could objectively disgusting and any of those people could say, "well my one piece of litter didn't cause this" - aaron
[2016-07-27 13:55:44] - paul: yeah! ...think about it! - aaron
[2016-07-27 13:55:02] - aaron: "Matthew J. Franck is Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute. The opinions expressed here are not those of the Institute." ?
-Paul[2016-07-27 13:54:21] - aaron: Not sure I agree. Elections mainly have binary results. Somebody wins, everybody else loses. Health and a public park are much less binary. You're not either completely healthy or completely unhealthy. Most of us are somewhere in between. -Paul
[2016-07-27 13:53:32] - to me saying "my vote doesn't affect the outcome of the election" is the same as saying "this cupcake doesn't matter i'd be fat anyway". that said i still respect people who shirk the two party system and vote with their gut, i think you should read the last two sentences of the article if nothing else 'cause they kinda spoke to me - aaron
[2016-07-27 13:52:34] - title: Not sure how to save my results, but I got 95% agreeing with Gary Johnson. Bottom was... HRC with 33%. No idea how they scored my agreement with Trump, since he changes his mind every day. -Paul
[2016-07-27 13:52:24] - paul: well, an individual vote affects an election in the same way that an individual cupcake affects someone's health or an individual cigarette butt affects a public park - aaron
[2016-07-27 11:10:49] - Xpovos: Got too wordy for me, but I strongly agree with the first four paragraphs. I would also add that people in general seem to have this crazily high opinion on voting, always speculating that an individual vote could make a difference and also (bizarrely to me) claiming everybody needs to vote regardless of who they vote for. -Paul
[2016-07-27 10:56:30] - http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17420/ I've been thinking a lot about the moral consequences of voting in November. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-26 12:21:01] - best heckle of the night - during the Warren speech - "We trusted you!" - mig
[2016-07-25 15:10:14] - mig: It's particularly hilarious to me that the convention slogan is "United Together." As if just unity isn't enough, we have to be more than united. We have to be united... with each other! -- Xpovos
[2016-07-25 14:13:07] - paul: I managed to catch a bit of the Sanders pre-convention rally live. His call to his fans to vote for Clinton/Kaine was met with .... loud boos. UNITY! - mig
[2016-07-25 13:25:08] - caaaaaan do! ~a
[2016-07-25 12:59:19] - mig: I'm hoping the Bernie supporters are a little more vocal than the never Trumpers were. Burn down the two major parties! -Paul
[2016-07-25 12:58:56] - I mean you have the DNC head resign in disgrace, while somehow she is still overseeing the proceedings which is riling up Sanders people again. - mig
[2016-07-25 12:49:44] - paul: moreover, I'm not so sure this upcoming convention is going to be much more orderly than the RNC was. - mig
[2016-07-25 12:49:02] - a: there was plenty of concern about protests outside the RNC turning violent. - mig
[2016-07-25 12:03:59] - a: Agreed, but there was a time when Trump was alluding the violence at the convention if he had the most delegates but ended up losing the nomination. -Paul
[2016-07-25 11:45:03] - convention != political rally. i think they're very different. ~a
[2016-07-25 11:37:41] - It's interesting to hear that, after all the concern about Trump supporters instigating violence, the DNC convention might have worse protests than the RNC one. -Paul
[2016-07-25 11:37:00] - a: I'll check with Gurkie about Friday evening, then. Look for an invite later today hopefully. -Paul
[2016-07-25 11:23:53] - friday works best for me. ~a
[2016-07-25 11:12:00] - paul: YAY. let me check. i have family in town, so i'll tell you soon which night i'll be free. ~a
[2016-07-25 10:42:52] - mig: "who makes a supposadly widely antcipated announcement at 8:15ish on a Friday" The same people who scheduled all the debates for the least prime-time imaginable spots.
-Paul[2016-07-25 10:30:05] - a: Poker sounds like a good option. I'll see if we can work out a poker night this weekend. Any night work better or worse for you? -Paul
[2016-07-25 10:25:07] - I think at the end of the day, I'm not sure if he was necessarily telling Republicans "don't vote for Trump", but rather "stick up for conservative principals even if this boob wins". -mig
[2016-07-25 10:22:47] - paul: that is a good question. It really depends on whether he thinks 2016 is a lost cause and is just angling for 2020. - mig
[2016-07-25 10:10:32] - mig: I don't at all expect Sanders to pull a Cruz, so I don't know if I would be disappointed. I would be pleasantly surprised if he did, though. Interesting thought... who do you think Cruz was implying people should vote for if not Donald Trump? -Paul
[2016-07-25 10:04:33] - to intimate he might be an *atheist* (the party of tolerance, indeed!). If he doesn't pull a Cruz tonight I will be very disappoint. - mig
[2016-07-25 10:03:34] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-national-convention-warren-sanders-to-speak-tonight-as-party-tries-to-move-past-disarray/2016/07/25/93d4faba- it feels kind of lame that Sanders will probably give an enthusiastic speech endorsing Clinton after the DNC hostility towards his campaign became public, going so far as
[2016-07-23 06:43:14] - Oh, I don't care. We could wait until a poker/game night. Or, if your bank does bill-pay, my new address is 5617 18th st n, 22205. ~a
[2016-07-22 23:24:28] - a: What's the best way to pay you (besides bitcoin)? -Paul
[2016-07-22 20:20:58] - title: officially its Tim Fucking Kaine. Side note: who makes a supposadly widely antcipated announcement at 8:15ish on a Friday? - mig
[2016-07-22 17:31:39] - $100. if you want to give me extra, i can give you the difference in bits. ~a
[2016-07-22 13:07:15] - a: Sounds like it's time for me to settle my Trump bet with you. What were the terms? -Paul
[2016-07-22 12:38:58] - a: And some civil liberties. He also wasn't as terrible on certain social conservative things (like drugs) because of his belief in federalism. -Paul
[2016-07-22 12:38:10] - a: Similar to what Miguel said. He seems pretty decent on the limited government front in terms of talking the talk AND (at least trying to) walk the walk. He also was pretty decent on things like criminal justice reform before he ran for president. -Paul
[2016-07-22 12:24:27] - title: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/hillary-clinton-is-getting-ready-to-pick-tim-kaine-as-her-vp-we-think/ probably tim kaine. maybe. probably. - mig
[2016-07-22 10:43:51] - And doing things like calling Mitch McConnell a liar on the senate floor. - mig
[2016-07-22 10:43:28] - a: not the worst person on foreign policy (at least questions the need for some military intervention, which is why neocons were freaking out on the prospect of a Cruz presidency). He a lot more principled about limited government than your average republican (aside from when it comes to some social issues). - mig
[2016-07-22 08:57:10] - what do you guys agree with him on? i liked ted cruz when I thought he was an alternative to trump earlier in the primary. ~a
[2016-07-21 17:33:31] - mig: Yeah, I don't hate him, but I do find myself never wanting to say the words "I agree with Ted Cruz" because even if I agree with some or most of his positions, he makes them sound so unpalatable.
-Paul[2016-07-21 17:29:06] - which includes some republicans, it seems. - mig
[2016-07-21 17:28:29] - paul: that's more of a policy difference though. I guess I'm more wondering about people who view him as some sort of Satan Incarnate, not just really for his policy positions but as a person. - mig
[2016-07-21 17:25:20] - mig: For instance, I probably agree with him more than most on the issue of religious freedom, but where I cringe at people like Kim Davis, he embraces her. -Paul
[2016-07-21 17:23:42] - mig: There was a really great example that I can't think of right now. Basically, on issues I agree with him on, it seems like we arrive at the same place but by VERY different means and he expresses his support for those issues by appealing to people in a very different way. -Paul
[2016-07-21 17:19:37] - paul: can you elaborate? that's the vibe of why I feel people dislike him but I don't really know what it is that gets people feeling that way. - mig
[2016-07-21 17:13:33] - mig: There's a lot of things I SHOULD like about Cruz (I think I actually support the majority of his stances on the issues), but he somehow finds a way to make siding with him feel repulsive.
-Paul[2016-07-21 13:16:23] - paul: It is kind of weird, the things that people dislike about Cruz are the things I kind of like about him (aside from most of his policy views). - mig
[2016-07-21 13:15:13] - Especially after Cruz flat out stated he wouldn't support someone who insinuated his wife was ugly and that his father might have been involved in the JFK assassination. - mig
[2016-07-21 13:14:23] - paul: I'm with you though, much respect to Cruz for this. Again, I'm amazed the RNC and Trump would give him an opportunity to do this. I think they might have thought they would come out on top looking better than Cruz in terms of optics, but I'm not really too sure about that. -mig
[2016-07-21 12:26:41] - mig: I'm a little surprised by the intensity of the opposition. Obviously people in the Trump campaign (like Christie) have to be vocal about being against it, but it sounds more widespread than that. The optics were great (or terrible), though. Republicans booing being told to vote their conscience.
-Paul[2016-07-21 12:13:48] - Cruz seemed to be in a no-win situation among the RNC crowd. He endorses, then people become aghast that he would endorsed someone who viciously attacked his wife and father. He doesn't endorse, then people become aghast he would meekly kiss up to Trump after he viciously attacked his wife and father. - mig
[2016-07-21 12:12:11] - paul: it's getting pretty silly. I'm a little puzzled that the RNC or Trump would want him to speak in the first place. And again, I'm puzzled as to why so many republicans hate him to this degree (even more so apparently than Trump). - mig
prev <-> next