prev <-> next
[2017-07-20 13:27:40] - patently false. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:27:32] - paul: incorrect. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:26:01] - a: Right, and if an insane tax proposal wouldn't make much of a dent, then a less insane one (even a reasonable one) would make an even smaller dent. -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:21:26] - stossal's proposal was insane. can we at least agree on that? ~a
[2017-07-20 13:19:51] - paul: one single contribution != n% of the top m%. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:19:05] - "If that's the case, then no sane tax proposal would not make a dent either and should also be discarded from consideration, right?" also no. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:18:31] - "My only point was that basically any sane tax proposals that those people (in the video) are likely to have been lobbying for are almost certainly not going to be putting any major dents in the deficit problem." i don't agree with this statement. also stossal's proposal != "sane tax proposals that those people (in the video) are likely to have been lobbying for" ~a
[2017-07-20 13:17:06] - a: which complicates things, but I think the same general point still stands because the federal deficit would still exist. I was just challenging your point about a single contribution not making a dent. If that's the case, then no sane tax proposal would not make a dent either and should also be discarded from consideration, right? -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:15:41] - a: Sorry, I guess I'm completely lost, then. My only point was that basically any sane tax proposals that those people (in the video) are likely to have been lobbying for are almost certainly not going to be putting any major dents in the deficit problem. At some points they might be talking about state government deficits... -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:12:15] - paul: no that is not what i am saying. replace "all" with "some" and then you'd have *one* *possible* sane proposal. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:09:26] - a: I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that instead of taxing 100% of income over $1 million, that we should just take all the income from the top 1%? -Paul
[2017-07-20 13:06:15] - mig: IMO in finance (be it retirement planning, or business finances), the difference between a good idea and a bad idea often comes out to a misunderstanding of what the numbers are saying. as an example, the difference between 1% fee and a .1% fee adds up quickly and compounds quickly, and people will often mistake the two for each-other. ~a
[2017-07-20 13:03:03] - mig: "simply illustrate that a 'soak the rich' tax policy doesn't generate nearly as much revenue as people think it will". his illustration is flawed. as i have pointed out. ~a
[2017-07-20 12:36:42] - a: I think you're misreading the intention of his example. I don't think Stossel's example is meant to be, "this would be the maximum possible revenue increase I can think of", it's more of an example to simply illustrate that a "soak the rich" tax policy doesn't generate nearly as much revenue as people think it will (which you seem to agree with). - mig
[2017-07-20 12:24:04] -
taxing N% (where N can be apparently any number less than 100) of 1% income earners [is NOT strictly less than] 100% of money more than 1m/year. i do believe though that taxing 100% of money made more than 1m/year [is strictly less than] taxing 100% of earners making more than 1m/year. i doubly doubt these numbers. ~a[2017-07-20 11:33:24] - a: Although I guess it's not your point, since you said taxing the rich isn't the solution. It helps makes your.... argument that you don't believe? I'm confused how to describe it.
-Paul[2017-07-20 11:24:48] - a: So if it's cherry picking anything, I would argue it's cherry picking to help make your point. -Paul
[2017-07-20 11:24:03] - a: Sure, lots of 1% people make less than a million dollars, but taxing 100% of income over a million dollars is also a wildly unlikely scenario that probably pulls in more hypothetical (because of the laffer curve) tax income (possibly by a factor of 10) than any realistic proposed tax increases. -Paul
[2017-07-20 11:20:06] - a: Yeah, but isn't that all basically irrelevant (the voting is free part)? Either one tiny thing can make a difference or not. Shouldn't matter if the tiny thing is expensive or not. Also, I think the fact that these very people are lobbying for this very thing negates the whole civic responsibility thing. -Paul
[2017-07-20 11:06:20] - paul: to be clear, i don't think taxing the rich is the solution. the solution is more complicated than that. but i think stossel is a moron who's cherry-picking bullshit data. ~a
[2017-07-20 11:05:55] - paul: "If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just ... a third of this year’s deficit" false dichotomy. also false . . . correlation? most of the top 1% make less than $1m/year. ~a
[2017-07-20 10:56:11] - uhhh, lots of reasons? voting is free. or, almost free. also, there's no . . . civic responsibility for paying more taxes than you owe. if anything, we (in our culture, effectively) have (what you might call) a civic responsibility to decrease our tax base. lots more reasons, really. ~a
[2017-07-20 10:47:17] - a: Soooooo..... why doesn't the same thing work for this? -Paul
[2017-07-20 10:46:53] - a: And that flies in the face of what I'm constantly told about voting: I should vote anyway because even if my vote won't make a difference, what if everybody thought that way? -Paul
[2017-07-20 10:46:09] - a: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/#6c651b976e7d That's fair, but frankly the very idea of raising taxes on the 1% doesn't make much of a dent. -Paul
[2017-07-20 10:36:44] - "nobody said they were going to do it later" is a fair point. i'll point back at my "meaningless dent" comment though. ~a
[2017-07-20 10:16:42] - paul: loooong con. ~a
[2017-07-20 10:09:08] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Fields -Paul
[2017-07-20 09:53:20] - paul: unlikely, but i've never seen this "reporter" before. seems like the long-con to me
~a[2017-07-20 09:48:17] - a: But nobody said they were going to do it later. Most made it pretty clear they weren't interested in it at all. You seriously think a reporter is going to record her logging the keystrokes of the wealthiest 1%?
-Paul[2017-07-20 08:36:01] - just do it live while we all watch. ~a
[2017-07-20 08:35:51] - paul: oh i can. oh, you want to actually try to fix the problem? (let's be honest, there are three ways to fix the problem: increase income, decrease spending, or some combination of the two). let's ask you to make a meaningless dent in the problem. totally use my tablet which could easily have a keylogger on it. don't sleep on this decision, or do it in private. ~a
[2017-07-19 20:57:35] - https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/rich-statists-exposed-as-complete-hypocrites/ I know it's just a clever stunt, but what IS the rationale behind this for the wealthy people who support higher taxes for the wealthy? Can't think of any good reason to turn down the donation. -Paul
[2017-07-19 20:56:17] - a: *"need to be"?
-Paul[2017-07-19 11:28:26] - "I don't know how much more clear I need to do in my distaste for Trump as a person or as a president" i'm sure you can do better. i have faith in you, paul. ~a
[2017-07-19 11:23:19] - a: And I find it ironic that I'm being attacked for somehow being selective in my condemnation. I don't know how much more clear I need to do in my distaste for Trump as a person or as a president. -Paul
[2017-07-19 11:21:37] - a: I just hope all these people who are condemning this now will be also condemning the next Democratic president who does this, because it certainly didn't happen with Obama. I'm tired of seeing outrage for Republicans and justifications for Democrats. -Paul
[2017-07-19 11:19:53] - a: In the end, I think we're on the same side here. Civilian casualties suck. I suspect this military action in Syria is misguided at best. This is a bad thing for the Trump administration. Doesn't matter that he's not a Democrat (officially)
-Paul[2017-07-19 11:13:15] - a: One counter-argument. It's a gambit. We exchange 5000 civilian casualties now to avoid prolonging the fight indefinitely while we rack up 100-200 civilian casualties per month. Our gambit is a net success if the war ends ~5 years before it would otherwise with those numbers. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:09:54] - xpovos/paul: i'll concede that this new war lends itself to higher civilian casualties. but i'll go one step further: not only are we in a war that has higher than normal civilian casualties, but we've also gotten shittier about lessening civilian casualties. ? ~a
[2017-07-19 11:08:24] - a: Which of those three is the most moral, though? -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:08:12] - a: In all three cases, information has given you a clear advantage. But also in all three cases, we're going to be pitting people and machines into combat where soldiers will die. In some cases, civilians might die as well. Third option for sure, second and first depending on the area of the battle. The first has the lowest civilian causality likelihood. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:06:56] - a: 3) You can ignore my army and drive for your own objective, perhaps sieging, occupying, or liberating (terminology) my capital city. Once I pivot, I'll have to attack you and you'll have the advantage. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:06:16] - a: Casualties should hopefully be lower when you are droning terrorist camps and convoys. Again, not saying Trump's civilian deaths are excused, just that it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. -Paul
[2017-07-19 11:06:06] - a) 2) You attack my weakness. My main force is over at HERE, but I left a garrison at THERE. You can send a small, but overwhelming force THERE and wipe out my garrison. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:05:33] - a: 1) You attack my strength. We have a massive pitted battle. With the technology available, maybe you lobbed in some rudimentary explosive devices first to disorient my troops, break ranks, and get a few 'freebie' casualties. Your soldiers have a significant advantage in the pitched battle as a result as well. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:05:23] - a: Understood that there's legitimate concerns with Pakistan. My point is more towards what I think Andrew is getting at. When you are bombing a country where soldiers are fighting in the streets of cities where civilians live, civilian casualties are going to be high. -Paul
[2017-07-19 11:04:22] - a: You and I are at war. You have soldiers, I have soliders. It's all very 16th century. You learn that I have massed my soldiers in a large group near my next objective. You have three options, as I see it. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 11:03:45] - a: OK, lets get back to the definitions of war then, since I think this is pretty useful, actually. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:59:17] - xpovos: yes i believe so. i was responding to paul's statement that pakistan was peaceful. i don't know if i'd 100% agree on that. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:57:19] - a: If Pakistan is training their citizens to hop across the border and fight in another country... doesn't that implicitly make them soldiers--not civilians? If those are the individuals being bombed, is that not a valid attack in a state of war (ignoring that we don't have a state of war because that's a different discussion). -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:57:04] - what's more, osama bin laden was until recently living right next to the Pakistan Military Academy. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:56:31] - a: Which is fine, but Obama was often criticized for not doing enough against ISIS and in Syria, while most of my criticism of him was regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan drone strikes, I think. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:55:43] - Interjecting question. Is number of civilian casualties the metric? Is it the metric just because it is 100% awful in all cases, generally illegal, etc.? Are there any considerations for the supposed difficulty in tracking such a metric, particularly in a guerrilla warfare environment where the civilians are often also the soldiers? -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:55:26] - a: My reading of the article is this is ONLY comparing air strikes against ISIS (meaning probably only a specific area of the world) and only during a certain time period (for the Obama administration). It's honestly hard to tell, though, since they don't seem to lay out the criteria anywhere. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:54:13] - "relatively peaceful countries like Pakistan" sure it's all relative of course, but you're treading on uneven ground: it's hard to call pakistan peaceful when their citizens train many of the fighters that hop across the border into afghanistan. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:53:35] - a: "you went out of your way to denounce obama's armed unmanned drone program. then, the next guy does it 1000 times worse, and you're silent." This seemed to indicate that the article was about drones, which it doesn't appear to be. I'm not sure what Trump number is 1000 times worse. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:51:26] - a: Again, I want to stress that I don't mean to excuse Trump's civilian deaths. They're both bad. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:50:50] - a: Also, I think it's worth looking at the respective situations. Not to excuse Trump's bombing at all, but I think there's a difference in degrees in bombing an active war zone like Syria and bombing convoys in the middle of relatively peaceful countries like Pakistan. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:49:35] - "It's actually comparing something much more specific than I think you are talking about" i've reread the article (it's pretty short). what part did i get wrong? i did forget to reinforce that i was discussing civilians but i assumed you knew that. regardless i've also seen this reported elsewhere: the system that limits civilian deaths has deteriorated. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:49:16] - And I'm truly sorry any of that came in between a good a/Paul spat, which is very enjoyable. Like a solid tennis match. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:46:31] - The biggest problem in journalism is in how much FoxNews, CNN, etc. sub-let their actual reporting out. They're just busy commentating on and making pretty graphics for AP stories. And AP is extremely mediocre journalism. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:45:47] - So... the subscription fee is going to be something like $100 a month. But the quality of the content is worth it and enough people will buy it that the reporting can actually get done. The information in them will filter down some... -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:45:06] - Then there will be more solid newspapers. I still cringe at the idea of calling the NYT this, but they fit the bill better than anyone else. They need to continue to step up their game, though. Then the endgame is probably very high quality news magazines. Monthly diegests with in-depth reporting, investigative pieces, etc. These are all very expensive to produce
[2017-07-19 10:44:45] - a: Hence why I believe mig asked about airstrikes elsewhere. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:44:30] - a: That article seems to be solely talking about Iraqi and Syrian civilian deaths in US-led air strikes (note that they're comparing Trump to "similar strikes between 2014 and 2016", not the entire Obama administration). -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:44:20] - i don't think most roads today are "designed for bikes"; especially outside of cities. paved roads were initially designed for bikes (~1890s). then for a hundred years or so, they were left out of the picture. now we're coming back, baby!
~a[2017-07-19 10:43:48] - There will always be clickbait, or corner newspapers. These will be full of fast stories, inaccuracies, and tremendous biases. They are not valueless, but their value is minimal, and anyone who takes that as their sole information source is bound to be uninformed. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:43:00] - Daniel: That's an excellent question. I am personally a fan of NPR, but ideologically and realistically, that model has serious issues that I think will cause it to ultimately fail as well. I think a better job is being done these days and needs to be done further in the future to distinguish markets. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-19 10:42:47] - a: (2) I don't know for sure, but I think you're mis-representing the numbers. Re-read the article. It's actually comparing something much more specific than I think you are talking about. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:42:00] - a: Two things: (1) I just heard about this, so I think it's a little unfair to say that I've been giving him a pass. I'm not omniscient, and if this is the first it's been mentioned in any notable media outlets, I'm not sure how I'm expected to have known it before now... -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:40:01] - a: I'm pretty sure most people would probably pick Trump. Hard to say now, obviously, since we've seen that article. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:39:29] - a: "everybody on the message board thinks obama is horrible." I don't agree with this at all, and even still, it's relative. If we took a poll among message board people about who is more likely to have the higher civilian body count at the end of their administration... -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:38:33] - paul: you went out of your way to denounce obama's armed unmanned drone program. then, the next guy does it 1000 times worse, and you're silent. that's my thesis. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:36:44] - a: I'm not giving Trump a pass. How did I become responsible for the entire media?
-Paul[2017-07-19 10:35:55] - a: Likewise your perspective on how roads are designed for bikes and how bikes are so much better is weird to me.
-Paul[2017-07-19 10:35:27] - paul: everybody on the message board thinks obama is horrible. (ok, well maybe not everybody.) but you still ragged on him nonstop. i honestly think the difference isn't whether we hate trump/obama. it's whether or not they're a democrat or not. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:33:12] - paul: the difference is that trump is not a dog. you've given trump a pass. and you should not. not when he's offing civilians. "dog bites man" is not news, but "trump kills like a lot of civilians" is news, imo, even if it's trump. ~a
[2017-07-19 10:32:13] - a: Also, I can't speak to the media, but I personally very much craft what I talk about on my audience. I figure most everybody on the message board thinks Trump is horrible, so I don't see as much need posting another news article about how horrible he is. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:31:30] - paul: "I would love it if it killed cities because I hate cities" it's so weird for me hearing your perspective on the world then reading about basically the exact opposite perspective elsewhere ~a
[2017-07-19 10:31:23] - a: I'm saying that, for better or worse, expectations matter in terms of what is considered newsworthy. That's why dog bites man is not news but man bites dog is, right? -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:29:36] - a: Heh, I was actually going to mention that on the fifth hand, I used some of those funds to buy Starbucks, which has done less well. I've got lots of hands, clearly. -Paul
[2017-07-19 10:01:28] - civilian deaths are worse if you have a peace prize? reading your statement "not necessarily being surprised that Trump would order irresponsible strikes that result in civilian deaths, while it's not something expected from a nobel peace prize winner" we get an impression that trump gets an out because he doesnt have a peace prize: the prize seems to be the focus. ~a
[2017-07-19 09:56:09] - paul: what's on the fifth hand? also how many hands you got? ~a
[2017-07-19 09:54:10] - a: On the third hand, I had sold a little a few months ago. On the fourth hand, I used those funds to buy nVidia (up almost 70% in 3 months) and Ionis Pharma (up 37% in the same time). -Paul
[2017-07-19 09:50:28] - a: Re: Netflix. Yeah, I saw the big subscriber beat. I've got mixed feelings. On the one hand, it helps your portfolio a lot and not mine. On the other hand, it was something like my 4th biggest holding (now 2nd)... -Paul
[2017-07-19 09:44:36] - a: I started reading the article, but got tired of vague complaints about self-driving cars promoting "sprawl" (which I don't consider to inherently be a bad thing). Also, I would love it if it killed cities because I hate cities. Were there more specific criticisms that I would care about?
-Paul[2017-07-19 09:36:40] - a: Also, I think there's a little bit of people not necessarily being surprised that Trump would order irresponsible strikes that result in civilian deaths, while it's not something expected from a nobel peace prize winner. -Paul
[2017-07-19 09:34:41] - Yes, I was on vacation, sorry.
To answer your "Jesus" question, the main answer is that it's because that was the first I had heard of it. Probably mostly because of what Xpovos was saying: Too much time spent talking about other Trump controversies. -Paul[2017-07-18 23:58:03] - i know, right? ~a
[2017-07-18 18:54:39] - cars are the devil, bobby boucher! - mig
[2017-07-18 18:00:14] - "It's easier to have a car come to your doorstep. But that would clog secondary streets. It would also make you fatter—various studies have shown that public transportation promotes better health" ~a
[2017-07-18 18:00:01] - self-driving cars will kill cities, not save them. wow, i hadn't considered a lot of these. ~a
[2017-07-18 17:02:13] - Xpovos: You a fan of NPR then? Or is there another news model out there other than advertiser driven that you think would be better? PBS? -Daniel
[2017-07-18 16:26:48] - We're also mired in the now. Real journalism takes time. We'll read about this Trump disaster in a few months in a 6 page article in a good news-mag, and it will be beautiful. Trump will be ravaged. But not too many people will read it, and those who do will mostly nod their heads sagely, perhaps "tut tut"ing. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-18 16:25:01] - I've been banging this drum for a while. The problem is that the media is beholden to advertisers, who want eyes. So we get click-baity news, even from the most reputable sources--they are just less obvious about it sometimes. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-18 16:19:25] - paul must be on vacation. i don't see him here or on the stock google-doc, so he must not be at work
~a[2017-07-18 16:18:47] - xpovos: i agree. on both of your assessments of the media. the media sucks. but the media does not suck in the "fake news" way that trump wants it to. just because the media is critical of something, doesn't make them evil. ~a
[2017-07-18 16:04:46] - If yes, "Would you have sex with me for $500?" "No, do I you think I'm a whore to have sex with you for money?" "We've already established that you are a whore, we are now just negotiating the price." -- Xpovos
[2017-07-18 16:03:43] - *The whore question. "Would you have sex with me for $10,000,000?"
[2017-07-18 16:03:13] - unlike that Obama character who was down to earth, charming, funny, and not offensive. Media's role is not to talk about policy. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-18 16:02:33] - a: It's like the whore question*. We've already agreed that Presidents of the United States are drone bombing murderers. Now we're just arguing over the quantity. In most cases changing the magnitude of a policy is not something this media wants to gnaw on. They want to talk about his unpresidential manner, because Trump is decided uncool and unsophisticated. [...]
[2017-07-18 14:57:49] - mig: the context is my link to paul below. ~a
[2017-07-18 14:51:32] - a: are we not counting civilian deaths in the afghanistan "surge", or libya? - mig
[2017-07-18 13:24:13] - xpovos: doesn't it though? the previous president was droning people left and right and even he didn't manage to murder nearly as many civilians. ~a
[2017-07-18 13:18:51] - a: NO. This has nothing to do with how Trump is completely unfit for office and is so totally different from every other President who has come before. Therefore it doesn't fit the narrative, no matter how appalling. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-18 13:01:29] - well this is trump. so shouldn't it be included? ~a
[2017-07-18 12:25:34] - a: You mean the news that is "all Trump all the time?" -- Xpovos
[2017-07-18 09:56:20] - paul: looks like we have a new 4th place: 1. gbtc, 2. shop, 3. meli, 4. nflx. ~a
[2017-07-18 09:54:39] - xpovos: gross. it's weird that nobody seems to be talking about it in the news. maybe i'm watching the wrong news? ~a
[2017-07-17 17:14:16] - a: An on-scene reporter I was listening to said that there was no way to describe the city of Mosul, where she was reporting from, to someone over the radio, except by calling up images of Dresden. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-17 10:34:50] - paul: jesus is that true? i know you were a huge fan of this in the last administration, why haven't you been informing us of this now? ~a
[2017-07-14 15:36:08] - a: Yeah, I know. I said S&P500 just to simplify what I was asking for. Let me be a little more specific: If I bought shares in every company in the S&P500 in 2007, how many of those companies would have outperformed the S&P index over the next 10 years (assuming reinvested dividends)? -Paul
[2017-07-14 15:30:13] - paul: there's a problem though. which 500 stocks would you even use as the "universe of stocks"? the *current* s&p500? because if so you're already adding a *huge* selection bias: you aren't selecting any of the stocks that have been removed from the s&p500. i.e. stocks get added and removed pretty often (28 changes last year, 16 so far in 2017) ~a
[2017-07-14 15:27:05] - paul: well we could make it, by gathering it up manually. somethnig like quandl.com and yahoo.com (their historical part has an api) are good for this kind of thing. ~a
[2017-07-14 15:18:12] - a: That's annoying. Thanks for trying, though. I appreciate it. I was hoping there was some easy source that I didn't know about. -Paul
[2017-07-14 15:16:09] - oh, i'm totally sure the csv of daily values is out there somewhere, i can't just find it. it's hard to programatically get historical stock prices in general actually. ~a
[2017-07-14 15:13:39] - a: Doesn't it seem like something there should be a fair amount of research on? I'm sure it's out there, but all my results just are about individual investors beating the market (or not being able to). -Paul
[2017-07-14 15:08:56] - paul, looks like the data used to be here. this website seems to be broken though, because i can't download the data. ~a
[2017-07-14 14:38:44] - For example, let's assume the universe of stocks are the S&P500 for this exercise. If I randomly pick one of those 500 stocks and put $1000 in it, what are my chances of me beating the market 10 years later (historically, obviously, since we can't predict the future). -Paul
[2017-07-14 14:37:51] - Here's a completely random question that I have no reason to expect people here to know the answer to, but maybe somebody has better google skills than me. Is there a way to tell how many publicly traded companies (or what percentage of an index like the S&P) beats the market (defined as the S&P, I guess) over a certain time period? -Paul
[2017-07-14 13:10:40] - mig: Those are generally arguments from the left, though, This was the WSJ, so generally considered right. It's an interesting distinction, at least. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:59:16] - The argument being, Walmart/Target don't pay their employees enough to not be off any sort of government assistence -> therefore the government is subsidizing Walmart's business. - mig
[2017-07-14 12:58:42] - paul: yeah august 1st (and a little before and a little after) will likely see some volatility. depending on how things swing, i might renter a position on gbtc. ~a
[2017-07-14 12:58:35] - paul: it feels like one of those oversimplifications to make a "juicy headline" type things. It's not completely analogous, but I'm recalling a cavalcade of articles claiming the federal government was "subsidizing" Walmart/Target. - mig
[2017-07-14 12:57:24] - Paul: Yes. That is my reading as well. In fact, FedEx benefits from it as well, with their "Smartpost" system. The line about Amazon is practically just clickbait. But they are undoubtedly one of the biggest benefactors of such a subsidy. But if USPS charged more, they'd just go FedEx more; or their own Logistics more. And so would every other shipper. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:31:43] - Xpovos: I can't get to that WSJ article because it's behind a paywall (which, for some reason I find really funny since it is coming from you). But assuming I understand what the underlying issue is, isn't this just a huge problem with how the USPS works and not Amazon's fault at all? Don't other companies benefit as well? -Paul
[2017-07-14 12:19:56] - a: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/dispute-could-mean-financial-panic-in-bitcoin.html Sounds like July 31st is an important date. -Paul
[2017-07-14 12:11:38] - Sorry for taking the message board over for a bit there. I get rambly sometimes. I'd love to hear others insights on the $1.46 subsidy thing, though. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:11:06] - The other arrived as a package of 6 items, but only 5 arrived in the box. Attempting to remedy that was also extremely painful. Thankfully it was a small dollar amount and the customer service rep decided it was not worth $8 for her to waste her time explaining to me that it was impossible that my product hadn't arrived. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:10:15] - And as an anecdotal cap-piece. The two most recent Amazon Logistics deliveries are the only time in the history of using Amazon that I can recall ever having a problem with shipping.One package arrived a day later than the guaranteed delivery date, and was registered as "delivered" via the tracking number, a bald-faced lie which I was unable to dispute [...] -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:08:40] - Finally, most of my recent package deliveries from Amazon have not come from USPS (or any of the other major carriers) they've all been carried by Amazon Logistics. So this whole argument is moot as Amazon has decided that it is the one with the networked business using shared buildings. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:07:39] - to be subsidizing the package delivery business by that headline amount per package. That is a difficult nugget to try to parse. But it's part of the on-going UPS/FedEx/USPS package fight, so a different story. The subsidy question is definitely related, but tangential. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:06:29] - "But with a networked business using shared buildings and employees, calculating cost can be devilishly subjective." Specifically, what portion of revenues from various businesses cover what portion of fixed costs. The gist of the story is that a CitiBank analyst reviewed the data and under that calculation deemed the First Class Mail buisiness [...] -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:04:46] - The second headline indicates that the USPS "subsidizes" Amazon to use USPS to deliver packages at about $1.46 per delivery. That is eye-catching and maddening for a wide range of reasons. But... the devil is in the details. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 12:03:42] - Why reading beyond the headline is crucial. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-post-office-gives-amazon-special-delivery-1499987531 -- Xpovos
[2017-07-14 11:48:34] - mig: This came up in a recent episode of MarketFoolery, interestingly enough. I don't really understand the specifics, but my guess is the government (generally) wants to discourage competitors in an industry from colluding to negotiate with other companies. -Paul
[2017-07-13 12:47:24] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/business/media/google-facebook-news-media-alliance.html i'm still trying to wrap my head around this story. So a few print media companies want to get together to try and negotiate on terms with FB, google, to I assume to maybe negotiate maybe some ad revenue splitting, but they can't because of ... anti-trust laws? Wat? - mig
[2017-07-13 12:21:02] - wow: city (dc) drinkers usually drink wine/mixed-drinks. also, wow, alcohol consumption has been pretty constant over the past 100 years (if you ignore prohibition). ~a
[2017-07-13 12:20:26] - i've ignored the first few graphs (because it's not really fair to compare dc, which is a city, to the other states which aren't cities). ~a
[2017-07-13 12:12:38] - europe is small. except russia.
~a[2017-07-13 12:05:54] - a: Yeah, a lot of this surprised me. "Sneakers" is the minority!? Even though certain terms seem pretty strongly correlated to geography, I could easily see it changing with demographics as well. -Paul
[2017-07-13 11:58:26] - i also am fascinated that the graphs change. in the first graph, they suggest that the "fireflys" border is moving east. ~a
[2017-07-13 11:25:00] - paul: nice graphs! it's weird for the ones where we are on the border. (also i feel i'm affected by my parents and now wife who grew up in the mid-west) i do recall a survey posted here years ago that tried to guess your region based on much more specifics on how words were pronounced. ~a
[2017-07-13 11:08:53] - http://www.rd.com/culture/regional-sayings-phrases-words/ More ways we say things differently depending on where we're from. -Paul
[2017-07-13 09:26:10] - http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/artificial-intelligence/ai-creates-fake-obama ai creates fake obama - aaron
[2017-07-12 16:22:33] - paul: i am an ANCHOR MAN - aaron
[2017-07-12 16:22:27] - paul: no i am not getting it, i am a MAN - aaron
[2017-07-12 14:11:54] - a: I guess "first few days" = "first few weeks".
-Paul[2017-07-12 14:03:20] - fontgate ~a
[2017-07-12 14:02:26] - paul: in the first few weeks order changed like a dozen times. after that the order still changed a bunch of times outside of the #1 slot. i could graph it, but intraday-movements (which is most of them) would be much harder to graph. ~a
[2017-07-12 13:53:40] - a: "this competition is very interesting to me. we've had lots of movement." It's been pretty interesting considering how much you are running away with things due to GBTC. At first I gave you a run for your money, then Daniel gave me a run for my money. Overall order hasn't changed much since the first few days. Will be interesting to see how this ends. -Paul
[2017-07-12 13:52:31] - aaron: Heh, that's pretty good. Are you getting it?
-Paul[2017-07-12 13:51:51] - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/someone-held-up-a-buy-bitcoin-sign-during-yellens-testimony-to-congress.html Fed Chair Janet Yellen was speaking to the House Financial Services Committee. Bitcoin traded higher Wednesday afternoon.-Paul
[2017-07-12 13:45:37] - https://cardsagainsthumanityforher.com/ Q: when i inevitably purchase this without reading carefully and then find out it's the same cards as the original cards against humanity, can i return it and get my money back? A: that color looks great on you! no. - aaron
[2017-07-12 12:28:28] - a: Nice! That's pretty exciting. -Paul
[2017-07-12 12:16:55] - hah, mark zuckerberg just posted a link to audrey's company's website. pretty sweet. ~a
[2017-07-12 12:06:18] - Unless that something indicating it's getting leaked from inside the Mueller investigation it's not worth taking seriously. - mig
[2017-07-12 12:06:12] - there's just been so much stuff w/ regard to Russia that comes out that just ended up as vaporware, remember the big Comey testimony festival that was going to for certain come up with obstruction of justice charges against Trump, or any of the previous half dozen or so "smoking guns" before that? - mig
[2017-07-12 11:24:41] - Daniel: Wouldn't at all be surprised if it was for something other than Russia. So far, despite all this investigating, this Russia thing seems to be like 50% coincidence and 50% incompetence. I haven't seen a lot of purposeful wrong doing. -Paul
[2017-07-12 11:23:49] - a: True, but Republicans also like having the White House. The "good" news is that Pence becomes President if Trump gets removed, and that's probably preferable to most Republicans, so there's a chance. -Paul
[2017-07-12 11:21:36] - paul: i think lots of republicans don't like him so it's always going to be a possibility. especially when he loses his shit if his son receives some conspiracy charges. ~a
[2017-07-12 11:21:17] - I think any impeachment (if it happens) will happen after Mueller finishes his investigation. I think there is a 50/50 shot that Trump gets impeached for things that have nothing to do with Russia. Like money laundering or something for some mob people with his NYC real estate. But I think its all up in the air till Mueller finishes. -Daniel
[2017-07-12 11:14:33] - a: I've been surprised that there hasn't been more talk of it, honestly. I don't think there is evidence warranting it right now, but Clinton ultimately didn't do all that much either. It will ultimately be more of a partisan issue than a right vs wrong issue. As long as Republicans back him it's a non-starter. -Paul
[2017-07-12 11:01:39] - paul: ok, i agree with that. but there are levels of horribleness. has the level of impeachment crossed your mind? maybe that he doesn't deserve it yet, but he's gotten pretty close a bunch of times? ~a
[2017-07-12 11:00:38] - a: It's a problem, though, if people are tuning out the media because they think this is all just made up stuff and smoke without fire. I don't think this is true, but I do think reasonable people can be fed up with how breathlessly the media reports on non-stories sometimes. -Paul
[2017-07-12 10:59:35] - a: Mostly, yes, I agree. It kind of depends, though. I already think Trump is a horrible, bullying, ignorant, despot wannabe, so being numb doesn't really change things for me. It's like telling me Hitler beat his wife. Just one more reason to think badly of him. -Paul
[2017-07-12 10:57:55] - paul: to be clear, i don't disagree (i also find myself numb to bullshit coming out of djt at times). i just think it's a problem. ~a
[2017-07-12 10:57:29] - paul: "I'm almost numb to scandals in the administration already. There's almost too many to keep track of." aren't you worried that this is a potentially damaging point-of-view? especially if it's held by multiple people in the public? it's a form of ignorance: you're basically saying that you've heard enough information and you don't want to hear any more? ~a
[2017-07-12 10:55:17] - a: I didn't hear about the W3C thing. As for the DJT Jr thing... I'm almost numb to scandals in the administration already. There's almost too many to keep track of. -Paul
[2017-07-12 10:53:58] - a: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/beta.asp -Paul
[2017-07-12 10:53:37] - a: I believe it's a measure of volatility for a given stock. -Paul
[2017-07-12 10:52:33] - I think people on the right would freak out a lot more. They probably still will but I think less now that the pump has been primed so to speak. -Daniel
[2017-07-12 10:52:08] - I think all the trump stuff is crazy but mostly I think the only point of a lot of it at this point is to get perceptions ready for whenever Mueller concludes his investigation and lays things out. Like I think that will probably be the point where something happens (or doesn't). However if he came out with a bunch of allegations and it was all out of left field...
[2017-07-12 10:47:59] - a: I'm not really paying attention to any of this Russia hysteria until it actually comes up with something that goes beyond bad political optics and/or flailing bumbling. This has probably come closer than anything before to indicate something criminal, but at the end of the day, probably not. - mig
[2017-07-12 10:44:56] - paul: what's beta? ~a
[2017-07-12 10:44:37] - so hey, yesterday we didn't talk at all about the bullshit w3c move or the bullshit djt jr move. what gives? ~a
[2017-07-12 10:44:11] - Daniel: Wouldn't at all be surprised if you get close (or surpass) me again. I haven't done any research, but I think the beta on my stocks are pretty high, so any big pullback will likely hurt me more than you, and we're kinda overdue for one of those.
-Paul[2017-07-12 10:43:12] - he's not out yet. this competition is very interesting to me. we've had lots of movement. ~a
[2017-07-12 10:33:08] - Paul: oo now you are crushing me in the stock challenge! Ah well, I got close. -Daniel
[2017-07-11 18:42:52] - ok, i guess the assertion is that they're being punished for their (first amendment protected) public statements. though it's going to be hard to legally prove that they've been harmed, right? ~a
[2017-07-11 16:47:31] - yeah but viewpoint discrimination isn't a law either. maybe equal protection or due process? ~a
[2017-07-11 16:17:34] - a: I think the angle is since the president's twitter account is sort of a public record, taking action to block critics is considered viewpoint discrimination or something to that effect. - mig
[2017-07-11 16:15:10] - mig: which law/clause does it violate? i'm seriously asking, because i'm not sure which law requires that official statements must be readable by everybody. maybe some discrimination or disability law/clause? the "first amendment" doesn't exactly apply here i don't think, unless i'm misinterpreting it. ~a
[2017-07-11 16:13:38] - aaron/daniel: hah, yeah, ok, from everybody i've talked to about oracle, it sounds like it's not very useful. maybe it was useful, one day long ago. ~a
[2017-07-11 16:04:35] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/11/president-trump-sued-critics-blocked-his-twitter-account/467526001/ interesting legal question - do you have a constitutional right to follow the president on twitter? - mig
[2017-07-11 15:06:23] - a: pros for oracle? basically that we have a lot of in-house expertise. also, they have the equivalent of C++'s "in/out parameters", which is useful in some cases. and you can organize your functions into packages. postgres doesn't have that. that's more of a knock on PG than a pro for oracle. - aaron
[2017-07-11 15:05:16] - a: because they charge you something like -- $60,000 per processor, and if you have a CPU with four processors, that's $240,000 for that one CPU. it's a hilarious outdated model and makes me laugh. but only because i am not paying for it. - aaron
[2017-07-11 15:04:14] - a: we use oracle for a long time. it's silly expensive and sometimes you need to do something minor like, "we need to encrypt our network traffic!" with a sane RDBMS the answer is, "install this package!" but with oracle the answer is, "give us literally twenty million dollars!" - aaron
[2017-07-11 14:23:33] - a: We use iMIS. I don't hate it, but it's not particularly good. I always thought it was an odd choice when we moved away from our old database, which was called PDS. Moving away from PDS was the correct move, but choosing iMIS? -- Xpovos
[2017-07-11 14:21:55] - a: I'm honestly not entirely sure. I think it has some more enterprise friendly stuff, data replication strategies, support contracts, maybe reliablility guarantees or something? I'm very flimsy on all of those things. Its the most heavyweight database I'm currently aware of so partly I just assume that comes with features. -Daniel
[2017-07-11 14:10:59] - daniel: "business bonus features" like what? ty. ~a
[2017-07-11 14:07:22] - a: I've never been involved with selecting a database. I've used postgres and oracle though. From my perspective there wasn't a ton of difference in the two. Some feature / things weren't supported in postgres but I don't even remember which at this point. I know Oracle is expensive but has lots of business bonus features in theory to make it worth it. -Daniel
[2017-07-11 14:02:38] - (sqlite also changed my opinion on what rdbms even means. like . . . with sqlite you don't have a server at all. which is something that's really hard to do with the others. i wouldn't suggest it to you though because it's probably wayyyy too lightweight for what you typically do) ~a
[2017-07-11 13:59:52] - i suggest trying one of those nosql ones. hadoop or cassandra or something. nosql is weird. ~a
[2017-07-11 13:58:21] - well don't stagnate, paul!
~a[2017-07-11 13:46:05] - a: I had just assumed SQL Server was one of the top 2-3 used databases. -Paul
[2017-07-11 13:45:27] - a: After looking at your graphic, then I guess it does seem weird now. Maybe it is self-selection? I learned SQL Server at my first(ish) job and that made me more qualified for jobs that involved SQL Server versus other forms of SQL? -Paul
[2017-07-11 13:31:56] - paul: hmm. any idea why? you've worked for three-plus companies doing sql stuff. they used exclusively nothing but sql server? does that seem odd to you? link ~a
[2017-07-11 13:14:37] - a: Opinion on what? Hard for me to give pros and cons since I've not used much else. I know SQL Server is super expensive in terms of licensing. I think it's pretty good in terms of performance and functionality. Lots of ability to fairly easily connect to stuff like Excel and SSIS and other Microsoft products. -Paul
[2017-07-11 13:04:00] - paul: i didn't include you in all because i knew you did a lot of database stuff so thought you would be best to describe pros/cons. even if you haven't used both, i'd still like your opinion. xpovos: which database? and do you like it? ~a
[2017-07-11 12:36:12] - a: I'm using as non-open-source database, but not in the way you're thinking of, I think. I'm more of a power user here than a guy running the show. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-11 12:18:15] - a: Also, why am I not encompassed in "all"? -Peal
[2017-07-11 12:17:55] - a: I've almost exclusively used Microsoft SQL Server during my entire career, so I can talk about how it works but can't really give pros and cons versus open-source since I've hardly used those. -Peal
[2017-07-11 12:15:51] - peal is paul. no idea how that happened. ~a
[2017-07-11 12:15:17] - peal haha. ~a
[2017-07-11 12:14:32] - (peal and) all: have you ever had to use a database that wasn't open source? i.e. not sqlite/mysql/postgres/cassandra/etc? so, i guess like microsoft sql server, or oracle, or even had to go without a database to store data? i'd mostly like to hear the pros/cons especially if you've used *both* open-source and closed since i've never had to use a closed one. ~a
[2017-07-10 13:22:07] - Though the speculation is mostly moot at this point, the person has already admitted their guilt and the fact that he was doing it deliberately. - mig
[2017-07-10 13:21:37] - So what happened on the stream was the opponent was turned away his attention from the game, and the player in question started digging through his discard pile to get a card back. Now, there are cards you can play that allow you to dig through your discard pile this way, but he's not shown playing any cards before he does this. - mig
[2017-07-10 12:41:49] - xpovos: i concur, something like this at a sanctioned magic event would warrant a 3-month ban or longer. vinnie would know better - aaron
[2017-07-09 13:16:37] - gotcha, thanks. ~a
[2017-07-09 13:05:30] - That said, I think the situation SOUNDS like pretty blatant cheating, and likely worthy of immediate disqualification, but I don't really have enough data to support that kind of opinion. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-09 13:04:47] - In MtG there are numerous situations where reviewing the graveyard is an important part of the gameplay. A lot of cards have abilities that can only be activated from the graveyard. If the player is incautious about maintaining the distinction between the hand and the graveyard during such a review, it COULD happen. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-09 10:06:12] - "whether it was intentional, or just apparently very sneaky-looking" out of curiosity, based on the information mig gave us, how would it not be intentional? i.e. in this situation, how would he have cheated accidentally? ~a
[2017-07-09 01:07:35] - To really understand this specific situation we'd have to know more about the nature of the offense, whether it was intentional, or just apparently very sneaky-looking, what the normal response would be to any kind of cheating infraction. An assumption that people just won't cheat is not sufficient, even for a low-level event. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-09 01:06:28] - I recently learned about some Yu-Gi-Oh rules, which are also rather more lenient. A lot of time it is up to the organizer to set rules as necessary, but typically all rules, particularly any deviations from the more standard rule book, have to be announced in advance. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-07 13:21:06] - Which leads to what appears to what to be happening now, with a mob calling for blood becuase the optics of the incident were bad, whereas maybe that penalty doesn't necessarily fit the infraction. - mig
[2017-07-07 13:18:04] - xpovos: interesting info. The company in question (FFG) doesn't have guidelines like these spelled out for their games, much to the chagrin of the community at large, so generally these things are left to the TO's discretion. - mig
[2017-07-06 20:06:24] - http://wpn.wizards.com/sites/wpn/files/attachements/mtg_ipg_28apr17_en.pdf (pages 14 and 27 particularly). And yes, to answer a's other question, I have played in official events, though almost always with Vinnie. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 20:04:32] - *admitted as intentional. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 20:03:36] - mig: Sorry, I missed the earlier piece where you responded to me re: mtg. That level of unsporting play in an official match would result in a penalty. Probably a verbal warning initially, particularly at that level of play. If it is admitted or repeated, it would result in disqualification from the event entirely. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 17:52:56] - White House Warns CNN That Critical Coverage Could Cost Time Warner Its Merger. did this actually happen? and is it illegal? ~a
[2017-07-06 17:50:32] - fi subreddit, yeah. ~a
[2017-07-06 17:07:50] - a: Did you get the graph from reddit? From the fi subreddit? -Daniel
[2017-07-06 14:43:03] - a: Volkswagen has had a ridiculous year. It's a China story. That diesel scandal and the huge fines and brand hit are nothing compared with how they're growing in China. Volvo is the same story, which is actually the root of their decision to go electric. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 14:35:56] - a: I know Tesla has had a rough couple of days, but even I was surprised that they are down almost 20% from their recent highs. If Tesla wasn't already one of my top holdings (and if I had any cash available) I would consider buying more. -Paul
[2017-07-06 14:32:11] - I've been using the board for a long time and just now figure out how the title works. -Daniel
[2017-07-06 14:26:51] - paul: what a weird day to own volkswagon (+2%) and tesla (-6%). volvo announced they were switching to 100% electric cars by 2019(!) and volkswagon announced they were recalling 1m cars for break issues. not sure why volkswagon is up today really. ~a
[2017-07-06 14:20:40] - Daniel: The nut is the amount of money that I need so that I can have FU money that essentially self-replicates (it's inflation and longevity independent). -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 14:13:48] - Xpovos: I've heard FU money but not FU nut before. -Daniel
[2017-07-06 14:13:39] - a: Thanks.
This is a fairly common conversation I have with my father, so it's nice to have all the pieces. Both as we talk about his actual retirement and my planned future one. -- Xpovos[2017-07-06 14:11:47] - Daniel: Thanks, I normally term that my FU nut. -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 14:07:57] - xpovos: https://github.com/maizeman/dead_broke/tree/master/DAB_graphs (or git clone https://github.com/maizeman/dead_broke ) ~a
[2017-07-06 13:54:09] - anon: haha, yeah, apparently i found a bug in the message board. no idea what it was though, i can't recreate it. i'm playing around here ~a
[2017-07-06 13:51:30] - rats
[2017-07-06 13:51:23] - <i>
[2017-07-06 13:47:10] - Xpovos: FIRE = Financial Independence / Retirement Early. Its the acronym used to say when you have enough money you can stop working and in theory sustain a given level of spending the rest of your life. -Daniel
[2017-07-06 13:44:23] - Also, please link the source code? -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 13:39:07] - Stupid question time. What does the "FIRE" represent? -- Xpovos
[2017-07-06 12:40:22] - "image host for your graph is blocked for me at work" i'm surprised that would bother an engineer. don't you have ssh or vpn access to machines outside of your workplace?
~a[2017-07-06 11:58:38] - daniel: yeah i doubt i'll care if i'm broke at 100. broke at 60 on the other hand, that could be pretty lame. ~a
[2017-07-06 11:47:29] - a: The image host for your graph is blocked for me at work
I will definitely take a look. I do think its morbid somewhat but still useful for planning. Like if you know there is a 5% chance of your money running out if you live till 100 but that you only have a 2% chance of living that long maybe its not such a risk. -Daniel[2017-07-06 11:42:16] - yeah it's from a group of people that talk about early retirement through limiting your expenses. still i think even most of them don't retire before 40. ~a
[2017-07-06 11:39:46] - a: That's a pretty big (and unusual) assumption. -Paul
[2017-07-06 11:32:37] - if you retire at (say) 59 ½, there will be a much smaller red area and it'll me much further right. ~a
[2017-07-06 11:31:53] - yeah there's one assumption i forgot to mention: retirement age. these graphs assume retiring at 30.
but there is source-code to the graphs so i'm going to try plugging in some other ages. ~a[2017-07-06 11:27:22] - a: The red section isn't as big as I thought, and is strangely larger in earlier years than I would've thought. -Paul
[2017-07-06 11:22:39] - sorry, 3.5. ~a
[2017-07-06 11:21:52] - the blue and cyan sections are the chance that you'll have money (blue is that you'll have even more than you started with). there are three scenarios, withdrawing 3%, 4%, and 5% of your stash each year. ~a
prev <-> next