prev <-> next
[2017-10-12 11:00:58] - a: It's interesting, because while the headline talks about the sure sign of a bubble, I don't think the content of the article mentions a bubble at all. Maybe a case of where an editor chose a more click-baiting headline? Regardless, the general idea behind the article does seem to be wrong so far, though... -Paul
[2017-10-12 10:48:41] - paul: well we haven't had a bubble pop, but the premium from june is mostly gone. premium was well over 100%, now it's down to 30%. on the other hand, the price of both assets are up regardless. so, my conclusion: this was no "sure sign" of a bubble? the fool lives up to its name? ~a
[2017-10-11 15:02:44] - a: Not sure if I had one, just wondering if it was fair to equate (on some level) what Affleck did with what Weinstein did (like the article kinda tries to do). -Paul
[2017-10-11 14:48:49] - paul: well ok, even ignoring the more recent allegations, i still don't think these are the same thing. they're both shitty though. afflec: a few counts of assult. weinstein: many many many counts of assult. maybe i'm not sure what your point is. ~a
[2017-10-11 14:10:14] - a: Eh, it's okay. I don't even know what kind of point I was trying to make, other than that it feels like what Affleck is accused of is less serious, but I'm not sure why I think that. You could try the NYT article that started this all: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html -Paul
[2017-10-11 14:00:01] - ok
i guess i don't know about the original alligations. do you have an article i can read that was released not-recently? ~a[2017-10-11 13:58:57] - a: I meant ignore for my hypothetical. But it's okay, you don't have to.
-Paul[2017-10-11 13:40:35] - paul: don't ignore the recent revelations. ~a
[2017-10-11 13:26:48] - a: Okay, well, I guess ignore the recent revelations... I was more talking about Weinstein apparently many times inviting women to his home and harassing them (although, until recently, I don't think anybody had accused him of touching them, which is a difference from what Affleck is accused of). -Paul
[2017-10-11 13:22:21] - paul: 1. burton was an adult. 2. according to the new yorker, weinstein has been accused of raping three people? i'm not sure if i follow. ~a
[2017-10-11 11:56:15] - a: (1) So you agree she's an adult and not a kid? (2) No different from Weinstein, then? Or still wrong, but a different degree? -Paul
[2017-10-11 11:48:22] - assault of an adult is still assault. ~a
[2017-10-11 11:25:19] - Sorry, some bad grammar there. -Paul
[2017-10-11 11:24:52] - http://people.com/movies/hilarie-burton-claims-ben-affleck-groped-her-trl/ Thought this was interesting in light of the Harvey Weinstein stuff. Seems pretty easy to label what Weinstein did as creepy and wrong. Is Affleck's actions on the same level? She calls herself a kid, but on some level 19 isn't a kid anymore. -Paul
[2017-10-11 10:29:54] - Random question, but does anybody here know where I can find any data on the deadliest days (in the US) for gun deaths? It could be day of week (Monday) or day of year (Fourth of July?). I thought I had read gun deaths were high on holidays because of suicides, but that sounds like a myth. -Paul
[2017-10-10 13:27:58] - aaron: yeah i saw that article: that's some very surprising shit. i'll need to be a lot more careful what goes into csv files. ~a
[2017-10-10 13:26:30] - paul: yeah i'm no longer dependent on gbtc. ~a
[2017-10-10 12:58:58] - http://georgemauer.net/2017/10/07/csv-injection.html csv injection vector. excel didn't 100% surprise me, since I still remembered mspaint's code execution vulnerabilities when opening BMPs... but, the google spreadsheets bit was interesting - aaron
[2017-10-10 12:29:53] - Yeesh, rough couple of days for SHOP. Bringing me close to Daniel. How embarrassing.
-Paul[2017-10-10 11:07:03] - "And so here we are, the first president to come solely from the private sector, representing the party that for more than a century championed laissez-faire capitalism and free trade, proposing that government punish and reward companies based on where they choose to locate factories and offices." forbes. other gem: "we'll have to compare IQ tests." ~a
[2017-10-10 10:43:52] - Paul: I think it was the same people but I'm not 100%. -Daniel
[2017-10-10 10:32:33] - Daniel: Hahaha! I'm guessing the renaming committee was different from the people who voted to rename it? Or was this just a non-subtle middle finger to people? -Paul
[2017-10-10 10:17:16] - daniel: that is a horrible name. sad. ~a
[2017-10-10 10:02:24] - In San Antonio there was a highschool named after Robert E Lee. So the school board here voted to rename it as part of all the statues going down and stuff post charlottesville. So far reasonable sure. So they recently chose the new name. Legacy of Educational Excellence high school. That is the stupidest shit ever. -Daniel.
[2017-10-09 19:10:43] - two weeks. who cares about two weeks? it's the smallest punishment they could think of. ~a
[2017-10-09 16:31:02] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/09/espn-anchor-suspended-after-encouraging-dallas-cowboys-boycott-on-twitter.html Really? This gets Jemele Hill suspended but not calling the President a white supremacist? I guess technically this was because it was her second violation, but still seems weird. -Paul
[2017-10-07 22:17:07] - a: Sure, no doubt that can happen, but if a business is weak enough to where a 10-15% short term drop in stock price dooms it, I think there were other issues at play. A good business should power through short attacks ultimately. -Paul
[2017-10-07 09:31:28] - paul: sometimes a butterfly flaps its wings and whatnot. i bet tons of companies start having problems because of their share prices dropping: boards lose confidence, result pretty soon it is financially shaken. ~a
[2017-10-05 14:40:38] - a: I doubt he was the sole cause. Both companies ended up having some problems that seem unrelated to their share price dropping after a short attack. -Paul
[2017-10-05 13:53:19] - that's interesting i guess that he predicted (or caused?!) ddd and gpro. ~a
[2017-10-05 13:39:27] - a: In an ideal world, people wouldn't pay as much attention, although he does have a good track record on some of his calls (Valeant, 3D systems, GoPro I think). It doesn't matter much to me, since I have a long term horizon. I don't care if it goes down 12% today. I care where it is 5 years from now. -Paul
[2017-10-05 13:25:33] - "raise a big stink ... reap some short term profits" i guess that's my point though: that pieces of shit like that shouldn't be given a mouthpiece. ~a
[2017-10-05 13:11:51] - a: Yeah, that's why I'm not too worried. Yes, by most metrics Shopify is overvalued, which makes it incredibly easy for somebody to sell it short, raise a big stink about how it's due for a collapse, and then reap some short term profits. Even believers might decide to take some profit on the news. -Paul
[2017-10-05 10:31:46] - daniel: it's not that there are short sellers. i'm fine with short sellers. it's that there are "activist" short sellers. that is dumb. when people are marketing their buys and sells: that seems too much like talking up your own book. you're trying to make cheap money that doesn't help the market. ~a
[2017-10-05 10:30:10] - still, maybe it was overvalued. you said you were up like 100+%. that's a lot. and their earnings are still in the red after all of these years. ~a
[2017-10-05 10:29:50] - a: All part of the efficient market? Got to have people playing all the sides to keep the market balanced. -Daniel
[2017-10-05 10:27:51] - paul: "Citron said in a report that [shopify] 'oversells' the potential for profitability." "Andrew Edward Left is an activist short seller, author and editor of the online investment newsletter Citron Research" activist short seller? that sounds like a dumb business model: i'll short sell something because it's overvalued then i'll "oversell" about how it's overvalued so i can make some sweet bank. wow, fuck that guy. ~a
[2017-10-04 17:29:10] - less talk, more action. i'm running for congress. ~a
[2017-10-04 16:14:59] - a: Which would probably have an effect on the number of gun deaths. So maybe (and I stress "maybe") there isn't causation between gun laws and gun deaths, but there is between gun ownership and gun laws. -Paul
[2017-10-04 16:14:34] - paul: yeah i definitely like looking at other countries better: i don't think amercians are inherently violent. i think this problem is fixable, even if it's not easy to fix. i do wish we had a lot of laws that were like other countries in europe. maybe i should move. ~a
[2017-10-04 16:13:42] - a: They also discuss the interesting cause and effect of gun laws getting passed (something I don't think we've considered). Basically, if a state/country/etc has a high ownership level of guns, then gun laws are less likely to pass versus areas with low gun ownership rates. Therefore, the places where gun laws get passed might have less guns to begin with... -Paul
[2017-10-04 16:13:00] - there you go. that's much better. that is interesting that "synthetic connecticut" was also a problematic analysis. ~a
[2017-10-04 16:11:07] - a: But you're actually making the same point I have been: It's very difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about gun laws and correlations and causations. This is going back to what you were talking about with looking at economically advanced countries and their gun laws and gun deaths. -Paul
[2017-10-04 16:08:42] - a: You can check out the reference to "Rhode Island" on page four of my link, though, where they do attempt to create a "synthetic Connecticut" to compare as a control. -Paul
[2017-10-04 16:08:06] - a: I'm not sure if it's fair to accuse people of being lazy about lacking a control when it's not like they were running an experiment. These are laws being passed without the input of scientists looking to run a test and control. People are looking back after the fact. Sometimes controls aren't easily found. -paul
[2017-10-04 14:29:18] - paul: but to completely skip out on having a control entirely, that's just lazy. you can't draw any conclusions that aren't wrought with: oh during all of recorded history, the numbers for suicide have gone up and down a lot over time. ~a
[2017-10-04 14:27:21] - paul: this situation isn't unique to gun laws. all laws, hell, all changes that involve humans living their lives, will be difficult to analyze. ~a
[2017-10-04 14:25:27] - paul: it's almost impossible, but it's not completely impossible. you just need two neighboring areas where one area is affected by the gun law, and the other area is *almost* identical in every other way but not affected by the gun law. (i.e. any differences can be taken into account). ~a
[2017-10-04 14:22:58] - I'm still up 129% from my original purchase (stupid enter key). -Paul
[2017-10-04 14:22:40] - a: I
[2017-10-04 14:22:13] - a: But you'll never have a control in studies like this. That's kind of the whole point of the article. It's almost impossible to get "proof" of anything when it comes to stuff around guns and deaths and gun control laws. -Paul
[2017-10-04 14:20:42] - paul: i own shopify. i'm still up 25% from my purchase in may. ~a
[2017-10-04 14:19:49] - also you glossed over "virtually". so you (or the article) was saying the percentage is 100%? that the difference was completely made up for? ~a
[2017-10-04 14:19:08] - "Obviously not perfect" yeah, let's stop right there. you don't have a control. ~a
[2017-10-04 14:03:21] - a: Not sure if you bought any Shopify based on my Stock Market Challenge portfolio, but if you didn't, it's on sale today.
-Paul[2017-10-04 13:35:32] - a: If I recall correctly, they looked at suicides (by gun and by other methods) and found that after a certain gun control law was passed, gun suicides dropped but the non gun suicides rose to virtually make up the difference. Obviously not perfect, but these things pretty much never can be. -Paul
[2017-10-04 12:55:09] - paul: yeah i wanted to find the text because i wanted to know the percentage: like obviously, of the people who want to use a gun and can't get access to one will use another method . . . but at a certain rate. it can't be 100%. and i wonder how you'd find that percentage. like how would you even begin to control for that? ~a
[2017-10-04 12:50:59] - a: Huh, now I'm having trouble finding it too. Maybe it was a different article from last night that I am getting it confused with? I had a lot open and stayed up a little too late. Sorry, if I find it I'll post it here later. -Paul
[2017-10-04 12:44:49] - paul: "he does mention later that suicides in particular seem to have a substitution effect" which page? i didn't find that. ~a
[2017-10-04 12:39:22] - aaron: yes. (to the last part of the last question). that's just an inconsistent behavior: chrome and libreoffice *do* also support that behavior (undo works in find: sometimes single-undo sometimes multiple-undo), but my text editors, my consoles, and intellij *do not* support that behavior (undo does not work in find). ~a
[2017-10-04 11:48:59] - a: in eclipse, i'd hit "CTRL+Z" and just bring back what i was in the middle of typing. but in intellij, it seems like undo/redo is just not supported. (the CTRL+SHIFT+F Find In Path screen also doesn't support it.) is there a way to add undo/redo functionality to this stuff, or is it just something small that eclipse has over intellij? - aaron
[2017-10-04 11:47:42] - a: I think it's a fair criticism that he doesn't do a good job explaining why separating out suicides is a good idea, although he does mention later that suicides in particular seem to have a substitution effect going on where if you reduce suicides by gun, people just find other ways to take their lives. -Paul
[2017-10-04 11:46:53] - a: i have a weird intellij question. let's pretend i'm doing a find/replace in a big java file; something messy. i want to search for all JUnit assertions which assert things about "user" columns and uncamelcase them. so i hit CTRL+R and start typing, and i'm working on this regex for 2-3 minutes, and i hit CTRL+Y by mistake, and i hit CTRL+Y and oops! it's gone - aaron
[2017-10-04 10:11:30] - https://gfycat.com/BaggyRemoteAnura (untitled goose game) coming 2018 - aaron
[2017-10-04 09:18:49] - also where do the two back doors go? ~a
[2017-10-04 09:17:43] - i never realized the snack machine area and the kitchen were two different areas. image ~a
[2017-10-04 07:55:42] - Paul: "if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear" why is that obvious or even desirable? this article seems to also only focus on direct effects. completely ignores how indirect effects could lower gun deaths. ~a
[2017-10-04 01:16:24] - a: http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1 Here's another good article that I had stashed away for an RD article I was working on that I just stumbled upon tonight. It's pretty long, but it goes into why even seemingly straight forward things like measuring gun laws versus gun deaths is problematic. -Paul
[2017-10-04 00:16:15] - a: It sucked when a bunch of white dudes with no apparent ideological motive killed a bunch of innocent people, and it sucks when other white dudes kill a bunch of innocent people because they're a white supremacist or hates Trump. -Paul
[2017-10-04 00:13:24] - a: Heh, I actually don't get hung up too much on whether we call things "terrorism" or not. I don't see why it's a useful term and what it changes. I hated Cruz's recurring line during the primaries about Obama not saying the term "radical Islamic terrorism" because who cares? -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:44:45] - ok i'm glad we can both agree that it's only mostly racism. ~a
[2017-10-03 23:36:18] - a: Also, at least in this case, I think most people are baffled by what his motive was. -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:36:01] - a: I think most people tend to associate "terrorism" with a connection to an ideology that is mostly foreign. Not saying it's right, but I don't think it's JUST racism. -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:31:24] - yeah, a lot of people misuse guns where they are the owner or know the owner. you could even write the policy to cover crimes using stolen guns. so, it could at least help. ~a
[2017-10-03 23:28:04] - a little bit off topic, but why does everybody (both parties) appeal to "mental health" when it's a white dude and "terrorism" when he's not white? ~a
[2017-10-03 23:26:13] - a: I'm not sure how having insurance is going to stop anybody from killing people with a gun, and good luck trying to track who has guns that aren't covered by insurance. -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:24:33] - and act like jerks (http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/10/03/seth-moulton-moment-of-silence-las-vegas). -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:24:09] - a: It's just a bunch of appeal to emotion and it's frustrating. The vast majority of gun control advocates (not you) don't seem the slightest bit interested in discussing what policies might work or might not, just that something has to be done and of course it's okay for them to exploit a tragedy to push their agenda... -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:23:00] - paul: any thoughts on the firearm risk protection act? it's an interesting economic solution that again mimics our car situation. ~a
[2017-10-03 23:21:01] - a: Not yours, but the constant cry from comedians and coaches and actors and honestly even politicians who don't seem to know a damn thing about guns, let alone gun policy. -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:19:06] - a: I'm not sure what you mean by directly vs indirectly here in this case. They studied homicide and suicide rates (both gun and non gun-related) before and after the ban in Australia and it doesn't look like they could find any statistical difference. What indirect effect are you looking for? -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:18:52] - my opinions are vapid? ~a
[2017-10-03 23:15:31] - a: You could click through some of the links she provided (which I did) to view her work. It's a lot more supported than most of the vapid opinions I hear from the other side with no real policy suggestions, let alone studies to support their emotional pleas. -Paul
[2017-10-03 23:02:36] - paul: that wapo opinion article was the worst. oh, you've concluded nothing will succeed? awesome work. "neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans." you forgot the word "directly". paul, let's try out some indirect effects. ~a
[2017-10-03 21:42:38] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975 Saw this from WaPo and it hits on the main points I'm talking about. Short read too. Broad laws against gun ownership are probably not the ideal solution. -Paul
[2017-10-03 21:41:59] - a: Okay, let me know once you've looked into it and have answers.
Offhand, don't Japan and South Korea just flat out have much fewer firearms in circulation than the US? I don't know about Iceland and Israel... -Paul[2017-10-03 17:02:39] - paul: i'd start by looking at how japan does it. and south korea? and iceland? and israel? those countries coincidentally are all considered "free" by a couple of different organizations that track that shit. "Gun laws in Israel are comprehensive despite soldiers being allowed to carry their service weapons on or off duty. Civilians must obtain a firearms licence to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition." ~a
[2017-10-03 16:56:25] - a: Re: License, the devil is in the details. What would be involved in getting a license and what would prohibit somebody from getting one? How is it different from a background check? -Paul
[2017-10-03 15:09:22] - paul: for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 1% jesus, 1 for 1. nice. ~a
[2017-10-03 15:06:41] - gun license. most countries have it. they have lots fewer gun deaths. it's pretty simple. i need a special drivers license to drive a motorcycle for gods sake. ~a
[2017-10-03 15:05:23] - we are talking about making certain things illegal, we aren't talking about complete and total prohibition. ~a
[2017-10-03 15:02:06] - a: Maybe prohibition is an inaccurate term to use. I was just trying to draw the connection with the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition. We are talking about making certain things illegal, and we haven't been able to effectively do that with consumables. What makes us think we can do it with things that can last decades? -Paul
[2017-10-03 15:00:42] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/ And there are less obvious victims as well to strict gun control that can get lost. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:59:23] - http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419400/deadly-consequences-draconian-gun-laws-charles-c-w-cooke And I know it's an anecdote, but these types of things DO happen and there are legitimate reasons for people to want to have a gun. The harder you make it to obtain, the more of these things will happen. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:59:14] - i don't think anybody mentioned prohibition except you. ~a
[2017-10-03 14:58:38] - i agree background checks won't stop most if any mass shootings. but what about gun deaths in general? and what of licenses? or permits? like a drivers license? would they curb anything? would they put us more in line with the rest of oecd? paul? ~a
[2017-10-03 14:57:55] - Note: I'm not trying to say that these things wouldn't work at all. I've no doubt that undertaking stricter gun control measures will move the needle a bit, but I find it hard to see how they'll make any significant difference and I worry about the unintended consequences. We do not have a good history with prohibition. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:56:41] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/ And from what I can tell, most people seem to agree that most gun homicides are from illegally obtained guns. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:53:38] - a: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings/index.html Having trouble finding the actual article I am looking for, but this is making a similar point. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:50:37] - "Proposals to stop mass shootings? Or gun homicides in general?" both. always both. ~a
[2017-10-03 14:50:17] - paul: "There have been studies showing that nearly every mass shooting wouldn't have been prevented at all even if these things were done" can you link to this? i'm not sure these studies could have possibly been able to take super-indirect effects into account. ~a
[2017-10-03 14:48:55] - a: Proposals to stop mass shootings? Or gun homicides in general? -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:48:26] - paul: an amendment to the constitution would pretty awesome too. but obviously won't pass until we get up like 10 or 20 mass shootings per second. ~a
[2017-10-03 14:48:03] - a: Which is kinda amazing, because you would think with the benefit of hindsight, gun control advocates could come up with laws that could've at least stopped the incident that is fresh on everybody's mind that they're trying to exploit to get laws passed, but usually they can't. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:47:45] - "Give me a good proposal that might work" ok, looking at this link and this one and this one i'd say lets try background checks, registration, permit or licenses like we have with cars for purchase and carry (open or otherwise). ~a
[2017-10-03 14:46:06] - a: "how do you know? you haven't shown this i don't think" I'm referring to all these calls for assault weapons bans and expanded background checks. There have been studies showing that nearly every mass shooting wouldn't have been prevented at all even if these things were done. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:44:40] - Daniel: I think people get too caught up in the "gun" part of gun deaths and that gun control laws generally aren't going to make nearly as big of a difference as policies that try to reduce violent crime in general. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:43:38] - Daniel: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/ I generally liked this article, and I think you like 538. I think a good point is made in the second to last paragraph about "programs that build trust between community members, police and at-risk youth" -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:42:03] - "most of these laws wouldn't have prevented anything" how do you know? you haven't shown this i don't think. "I'm not sure stopping gun sales now changes anything" how do you know? you haven't shown this i don't think. "20" 2050 is 30 years
how about 30 years? 30 year old guns often get decommissioned because of malfunction. ~a[2017-10-03 14:40:53] - Daniel: Give me a good proposal that might work, and I'm all open to considering it. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:40:39] - Daniel: Best way I can describe my view is that I haven't heard any proposed laws that I think would do much of anything to reduce gun violence (partially because so many are geared towards preventing these mass shootings or focused too much on the gun aspect) and so, lacking good proposals, I tend to think we shouldn't do anything. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:39:10] - a: But I'm not sure stopping gun sales now changes anything. We would probably still lead the world in gun deaths 20 years from now even if we somehow stopped all sales completely. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:38:24] - a: Do we have a long way to go? Sure. I just think the best approach might not be stricter gun control laws because the guns are already out there and looking backwards, most of these laws wouldn't have prevented anything. Yes, we have lots of gun deaths, and yes, it probably has to do with the number of guns we have... -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:38:12] - Paul: Just to make sure I understand - is your position similar to mine where you aren't sure what should be done or are you in the we shouldn't do anything camp? -Daniel
[2017-10-03 14:34:20] - a: That's another thing people don't often consider. Gun deaths have been going down over the past decade or so despite increase in guns in the country. -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:20:13] - oh also i mislabeled that last graph. it's "gun homicides" not "gun deaths" my bad. ~a
[2017-10-03 14:08:55] - gun ownership vs gun deaths (sadly this last graph leaves mexico off for purely political reasons: i would have instead left mexico off but also left off chile turkey and bulgaria). ~a
[2017-10-03 14:03:28] - i agree that gun violence has declined. but compared to other economically advanced countries (say, most of europe), we have a long way to go. agreed? ~a
[2017-10-03 14:02:20] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.3235d802d4a4 It's a little old, so maybe things have changed... -Paul
[2017-10-03 14:01:31] - "lots of people who like them and a culture that is against getting rid of guns" that culture might change over time. i'm hoping it does. it'll be a slow process. but progress is inevitable. honestly things could be worse, but they could also be better. i'm hopeful. ~a
[2017-10-03 14:01:29] - a: "how many guns will we have in the country in 2050?" I have no idea, because I can't tell the future, but if trends hold, wouldn't it be less than today? I think gun deaths are on a downward trajectory. -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:59:39] - "We have 300 million guns in the country" today. we have 300 million guns in the country today. let's instead try 2050. how many guns will we have in the country in 2050? how many gun deaths will there be in that year? ~a
[2017-10-03 13:57:41] - blue shirt in the background ~a
[2017-10-03 13:56:39] - a: "would he have become interested in guns in the first place?" It's a good thought exercise, but isn't it also a sunk cost fallacy in some sense? The genie is already out of the bottle. We have 300 million guns in the country, and lots of people who like them and a culture that is against getting rid of guns. Given that, what do we do that can help? -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:56:00] - "what is the thing being suggested to do?" i gave a suggestion in one of my other posts: rank all of the economically advanced countries in the world by gun deaths, and then look at that country with the highest rates of gun deaths, and start doing the opposite of what that country does. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:55:15] - sorry brad was the guy i referenced in my earlier message. sorry i thought you could figure it out from context
~a[2017-10-03 13:54:13] - a: Who is Brad?
I don't have a specific number for you. I would have to look at the numbers compared to other things. We're talking about mass shootings specifically? Or gun homicides in total? Gun deaths in total? Also, what is the thing being suggested to do? -Paul[2017-10-03 13:52:01] - paul: "If guns were banned for your friend. Would he still remain a law abiding citizen?" who knows. even that might be too direct of a question. let's try this question instead: what if guns had been banned (or otherwise curtailed) when we were kids . . . or when our parents were kids? would he have become interested in guns in the first place? that's the question i wish i could answer. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:38:26] - so, i asked brad after one of these mass shootings what he thought we should do about these mass shootings. he said we should do nothing. i was like . . . ok . . . but at what point do we do something? what if there is one mass shooting per month? do we do something then? he said no. then i asked what if there was one mas shooting per day? or per hour? or per second? he didn't like my argument. i want to know your line, paul. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:34:36] - paul: "There are lots of stories behind every data point" of course, but what do you suggest we do? look at every data point? i guess how do you propose we look at every data point? alternatively, instead lets rank all of the economically advanced countries in the world by gun deaths, and then look at that country with the highest rates of gun deaths, and start doing the opposite of what that country does. it would be a good start. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:32:25] - a: Understood, I'm just referencing a Facebook conversation that just got cut off with me.
-Paul[2017-10-03 13:31:45] - a: Question. If guns were banned for your friend. Would he still remain a law abiding citizen? Or would he have found a way to buy one? I'm leery about overly simplistic solutions regarding banning guns because (A) There are already SO many in the country and (B) Look at the war on drugs... and that's something consumable! -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:30:32] - paul: i'm not most people. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:30:06] - a: And were later killed. That doesn't at all seem like it's fair to blame the gun purchase on that. There are lots of stories behind every data point. -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:29:34] - "What kind of law would've prevented him from getting just a single gun" maybe no laws. maybe one law. maybe many laws. i'm not sure. he was a law abiding citizen if it matters. he was also very strongly against gun control. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:29:14] - a: For example, I'm reminded of some study which showed that buying a gun was correlated with a higher chance of being killed (or something). That would seem to be a good argument against buying a gun, but somebody pointed out a perfectly reasonable story about somebody who feared for their life (abusive ex?) and bought a gun to protect themselves... -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:27:49] - a: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations I'm very cautious about drawing any conclusions from correlations, especially since there are prominent counterexamples about countries with lax gun control laws with low gun deaths. I think the correlation with guns can be very tricky. -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:27:45] - paul: "The types of policies which might help prevent mass shootings is very different from the policies which might prevent gun suicides" yeah i mentioned that earlier: i'd hope that gun control could solve both problems. mass shootings and non mass shootings alike. we just have to look at the numbers though: countries with lower cases of gun violence sometimes have lower cases of both kinds of gun violence. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:26:09] - a: This is definitely an important discussion to have, and I absolutely welcome it, but I find most people (A) Don't want to have the conversation, they just want something to be done now, even if they don't know what it is and (B) Try to exploit mass shootings to get all their gun control policies passed, regardless of if it's relevant to the tragedy that just happened. -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:25:58] - daniel: "I don't know how policy prevents incidents like Vegas" yeah as i mentioned earlier, you gotta look more indirectly. would it have *directly* prevented this tragedy: i'll just say it: nah. but that's just too short-sighted. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:24:39] - paul: "the states with the more lax gun control laws have more gun deaths?" yeah some of them. i'm looking at california and new york on the one end and mississippi and louisianan on the other. i'm sure there are some excellent counter-examples too, but i'm starting to wonder if you scatter-plot this on a 2d, if you'll notice a fun trend-line. ~a
[2017-10-03 13:24:36] - a: I understand not looking indirectly enough, and I understand what you're saying, but you said your friend had many guns (which I assume meant he was into guns). What kind of law would've prevented him from getting just a single gun (which is all he presumably needed). -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:22:32] - a: Your anecdote is very telling. The types of policies which might help prevent mass shootings is very different from the policies which might prevent gun suicides (which are actually a shockingly large percentage of gun deaths). -Paul
[2017-10-03 13:21:35] - a: I absolutely don't notice any patterns, since the data is all presented in different forms, but I'm guessing the states with the more lax gun control laws have more gun deaths?
-Paul[2017-10-03 13:15:53] - I think I'm somewhere in the middle here in that I don't know how policy prevents incidents like Vegas and I get that but I think that less guns in general ought to somehow translate to less things like this. Just like an increased barrier to entry in economics broadly shifts behavior I think the same theory ought to apply here but its hard to say for sure. -Daniel
[2017-10-03 13:14:43] - paul/mig: death rate + legend vs laws / score (red=control). notice any patterns? ~a
[2017-10-03 13:04:11] - my friend had very low impulse control. being a gun owner and having low impulse control is a nasty combination. ~a
[2017-10-03 12:59:37] - paul/mig: would some gun control have stopped this particular tragedy . . . you're not looking nearly indirectly enough. if many fewer people had guns, there might be less gun violence. my friend who shot himself had a shit-ton of guns. if he didn't have a shit-ton of guns, he probably wouldn't have shot himself. would he have ended his life in some other way? maybe? probably? i don't know for sure. ~a
[2017-10-03 12:56:56] - paul: ok. but in fairness to me (which is very important) i did not say anything about shootings. ok, well the onion article clearly did, but it's an onion article. regardless i'd hope that gun control could solve both problems: mass shootings, non mass shootings. will gun control work? maybe, maybe not. but it does seem to be correlated with much lower gun violence in some countries. ~a
[2017-10-03 12:56:13] - otherwise, you need to admit that you are shamelessly exploiting tragedy Y for your pet cause. - mig
[2017-10-03 12:55:50] - inevitably, once they concede that what they propose wouldn't have stopped a particular tragedy, they usually will shift the topic to "well we are just talking about gun safety in general". I mean, seriously, if you are going to claim a moral argument for law X by using tragedy Y, you are I think under some obligation to explain how law X would prevent tragedy Y. - mig
[2017-10-03 12:53:53] - paul: that last part is what really bugs me the most. - mig
[2017-10-03 12:29:56] - Especially since most of those laws wouldn't have prevented the mas shooting that we're all talking about at the time (circling back to #1). That's not even getting to how gun deaths and gun homicides are different in important ways. -Paul
[2017-10-03 12:28:46] - (2) Which is a shame because mass shootings are relatively rare and by nature kinda hard to prevent, so basing gun control laws on preventing them is likely the wrong way to go about them. (3) Everybody agrees on "common sense" and "sensible" gun control laws because it sounds good and is incredibly vague. Nobody can really agree on what those laws are. -Paul
[2017-10-03 12:26:35] - I really wish I had finished an RD article about guns before Vegas had happened, because I think there are so many things wrong with how we respond to mass shootings like this. To name a few: (1) Most gun deaths don't come from mass shootings, but they make the front page so that's how most people talk about gun control. -Paul
[2017-10-03 12:18:43] - a: the dumb thing about it was I was told to "use EJBs" in lieu of spring. Then I discovered that weblogic EJBs use spring code under the hood. - mig
[2017-10-03 12:15:18] - mig: "Spring, for example, was not allowed" haha. sigh. ~a
[2017-10-03 12:14:18] - paul/mig: well the article implies you should look at the other countries. duh! what do those countries have that we don't? some of them have stricter gun control laws. some of them don't. ~a
[2017-10-03 12:12:53] - mig: Assuming the referenced tragedy was Vegas. -Daniel
[2017-10-03 12:12:21] - mig: If there was some way to prevent people from owning automatic weapons I think that would have made it not as bad. I think "not as bad" is as much as I can even think of. And even that I'm not sure there is a way to prevent automatic weapons from being owned since people can self mod things to be automatic. Like maybe all rifles have to be bolt action or some shit but that seems a little over the top. -Daniel
[2017-10-03 12:06:48] - and right, the DoD would certainly be open to allowing some source code to be open source, but there are some contexts that they would cry, "Nope, would endanger natsec!" - mig
[2017-10-03 12:03:45] - re: opensource, ironically the FDIC was way more paranoid about code protection than the DoD ever was. They were extremely restrictive about what libraries we could use (Spring, for example, was not allowed), and I've heard of people getting axed for trying to take their work home with them (i.e. mailing code from work to home). - mig
[2017-10-03 12:00:39] - mig: Sensible and common sense ones. Duh. -Paul
[2017-10-03 11:57:38] - a: I'll again ask the same question, since I never seem to get a good answer to it: what policy/law could have been prevented said tragedy. - mig
[2017-10-03 11:40:25] - a: Just seems like Intel is missing out on a bunch of up and coming areas for expansion. Innovator's dilemma? I worry about AMD being second best in GPUs to NVDA and second best in CPUs to Intel, which leaves them in basically last with no good prospects for getting in first. -Paul
[2017-10-03 11:23:13] - good question. why doesn't intel do massively parallel shit? it could be the do, but . . . haven't broken through to mass-market anything yet? ~a
[2017-10-03 11:21:20] - a: Understood, but... why doesn't Intel do GPUs? I understand it's different, but they are THE giant semiconductor company. I'm sure they could pivot and/or buy some company that does it. -Paul
[2017-10-03 11:16:00] - paul: intel doesn't do gpus (at least not at the scale of nvda or amd). the cpu is shitty for cryptocurrency and the cpu is shitty for ai. my coworker is doing ai (deep learning, neural nets, etc) and he just bought a giant nvda card. i bought an nvda card back in the day when cryptocurrency mining was more profitable. intel mostly makes cpus, which is bad at this kind of shit. ~a
[2017-10-03 11:07:09] - a: Like, I think this whole bump for AMD because of crypto-currency is a silly thesis, but then I hear like Tesla has a deal with them and they're doing stuff for AI and I think maybe they're on to something. Then I wonder what the hell Intel has been doing all this time. -Paul
[2017-10-03 11:06:15] - a: I can't figure out what to make of AMD. Sometimes I really want to buy some, other times I'm convinced they're doomed, and frankly it's not even usually tied to how the stock is doing. -Paul
[2017-10-03 11:05:41] - a: Yeah, I think some analysts get hung up on Musk making outrageous goals and then falling short, when it's still ridiculous that they got as close as they did. Sometimes I wish Musk would undersell and over deliver once to switch things up.
-Paul[2017-10-03 11:04:07] - paul: yeah sure, totally agree. i'm also happy that some investors are able to see past a few quarters of earnings. long-term planning is almost always the best if the plans are grounded in reality. musk certainly has shown great ability to produce and nobody is able to win 100% of the time. ~a
[2017-10-03 10:46:11] - a: Which I kinda think is encouraging. It means people are ignoring the short term miss and focusing on the fact that it's still on pace for a pretty impressive ramp up over the next year or so. Spoiler alert, I'm considering TSLA as one of my picks for the December stock market challenge. -Paul
[2017-10-03 10:36:34] - paul: yeah ok. looks like it's not really dropping today regardless. ~a
[2017-10-03 10:32:12] - a: Probably not. It's already the 5th biggest holding in my self-managed portfolio (~7%) and I already have a list of other stocks I want to get some exposure to first. I would love to buy some more since it's been flat for 6 months or so and I'm a big believer, but too many stocks, too little capital...
-Paul[2017-10-03 09:27:15] - paul: if tsla drops, say 10% or 20% today, will you buy some (or "more" if you already have some)? pre-market trading is only at -2%. ~a
[2017-10-02 21:16:26] - reposting miguel's article from 2015. scroll down for 2017 update. ~a
[2017-10-02 18:11:14] - mig: well i think the point of that website is that it would be written into the laws and therefore your customers opinions would not be relevant. but what if it was their idea? i've seen the dod in multiple contexts ask me if we could open source our code. ~a
[2017-10-02 17:40:36] - a: i have to think the customers I’ve worked with (DOD, FDIC) would not agree. - mig
[2017-10-02 12:36:26] - nice video. as someone who writes software using mostly indirect public money, i think more of our source code should be released. aaron/mig, thoughts? ~a
[2017-09-29 14:52:17] - paul: but out of our four-or-so games, i think we've had two or three games where an artifact was available to purchase during the second round. a few of the artifacts cost $4 which is pretty crazy to go for first turn, as you have to transmute and draw an appropiate favor card. - aaron
[2017-09-29 14:48:29] - paul: my 50/50 guess was one where i had no possible way to lose points - aaron
[2017-09-29 14:47:23] - paul: it's not risky since your first round with that strategy is simply, "collect information and get some ingredients". in the second round if all the artifacts are scooped up, you can either sell, or perform your 3rd/4th tests. there's just a slight tempo loss since you have a mere 55%-or-so chance to publish the second round with only two early tests - aaron
[2017-09-29 14:45:42] - paul: i didn't hedge and lost 6 points for it. - mig
[2017-09-29 14:30:53] - aaronmig: But were your 50/50 guesses ones where if you guessed wrong, you lost points because your hedge was wrong? -Paul
[2017-09-29 14:27:10] - aaron: How often has there been an artifact around in the 2nd turn to buy? Seems risky since you are assuming 3 people don't buy them all up in the first round OR somebody doesn't snatch it from you in the second. -Paul
[2017-09-29 13:25:53] - paul: and for the record i missed 100% of my 50/50 guesses yesterday and hit the 11% "bad luck" chance to test and produce the same sign/same color potion twice on the same first turn. but weirdly, miguel won a few games ago despite producing three (!) potions of paralysis early game -- possibly consecutively. so i don't think it's a death sentence - aaron
[2017-09-29 13:24:52] - paul: I got 1 right and 1 wrong early. - mig
[2017-09-29 13:24:34] - paul: i think the dominance of each of those strategies depends on the strength of the artifacts. i think the periscope and robe of respect are the strongest, but rushing a first turn artifact for anything else is a tactical mistake since you'll score more points by testing, and because money gives you flexibility in turns 2 and 3 - aaron
[2017-09-29 13:20:32] - paul: i think it depends heavily on turn order, and less heavily on which favor cards you draw. but, i think the three dominant strategies are 1. test/test/test with the goal of an early publish action 2. transmute/artifact/test with the goal of getting an early artifact 3. forage/test/test with the goal of a second turn sale+artifact - aaron
[2017-09-29 13:18:18] - mig: In the future, I guess I know how to avoid that, but I guess I was just hoping there was a little more variety in terms of correct paths to take. -Paul
[2017-09-29 13:16:25] - mig: Did you have one wrong guess? I thought you had one right guess. I know you were getting more info from periscope, and I didn't mean to imply I deserved to beat you or anything, just that it was frustrating to have had the game essentially come down to me making the wrong 50/50 guess twice and that essentially dropping me out of contention. -Paul
[2017-09-29 13:08:15] - and over the course of the game I was getting much more information than you due to periscope. - mig
[2017-09-29 13:07:21] - paul: keep in mind i had one wrong guess. - mig
[2017-09-29 13:03:05] - Aaron: I guess I like games where there are a variety of different paths to victory that are all fairly even, and so I thought buying an artifact early and selling a potion to get money for a second artifact seemed like a fair strategy. But it sounds like the best strategy is focusing on one or two ingredients to solve as early as possible? -Paul
[2017-09-29 13:00:59] - Aaron: Which led to him directly and indirectly getting a big advantage while I got penalized pretty heavily. It didn't seem like I was getting my point across correctly, which is why I kept going back to the well. -Paul
[2017-09-29 13:00:05] - aaron: Hmmm, you disagree, but do you think that testing one ingredient twice in the first two rounds is a clear advantage and the best way to go? For the record, I wasn't upset or angry last night, I was just trying to explain why I thought I got unlucky in that Miguel and I did virtually the same thing but he guessed right and I guessed wrong... -Paul
[2017-09-29 09:23:10] - paul: i was reminded last night of this extensive negative review for alchemists (which i also disagree with) where someone argues the game is trivial because you can trivially solve two elements in the first two rounds - aaron
[2017-09-28 16:58:13] - paul: writing stock tracking software is hard. weird stock splits, optional/non-optional stock dividends, cash dividends, tax exempt dividend, redemption/tender w/ shares, margin interest (i don't have a margin account), stock delivery, conversion: these are all things that show up in my actual transaction history. and i really don't do anything confusing option stuff like dave. i explicitly buy and sell. that's it. ~a
[2017-09-28 16:41:31] - i have not done any determination of stock performance tracking software. forbes has an article about it though. so does this random website. ~a
[2017-09-28 15:52:28] - a: Didn't we determine there isn't one? I think I could probably use TMF's scorecard to get an idea of how I'm performing against the S&P at least. -Paul
[2017-09-28 15:00:18] - paul: this sounds like a tracking problem. you want to be able to compare between two groups of funds: one where you're adding money and another where you're not adding money. also, you want to be able to compare between two groups of funds: that are both spread across multiple providers. i'm sure there is a software product that can help you. ~a
[2017-09-28 13:58:09] - Daniel: To be honest, it probably won't change my behavior unless the difference is huge. Like if after 5 years I am losing to the market badly (or beating it soundly) then maybe I consider making a change if I think the trend is long enough. Mostly it's for my own curiosity, though. -Paul
[2017-09-28 13:54:27] - Or is this actually going to affect your behavior? -Daniel
[2017-09-28 13:54:08] - Paul: To what end? I ask honestly because even if you do beat the indexed approach are you just going to make yourself regret the fact that you didn't self select all your retirement funds? And if you don't beat the market will you feel better about the fact that you didn't try? -Daniel
[2017-09-28 13:48:40] - Daniel: Yeah, basically. I'm curious, over the next X years, if I really can beat the low fee Vanguard total market index fund (with some international funds thrown in too). -Paul
[2017-09-28 13:47:30] - Paul: So its not actually your roth vs traditional you care about? Its just your indexed stuff vs self selected stuff that you want to track? -Daniel
[2017-09-28 13:14:10] - The message is that a lot of people that didn't die were badly injured. I just imagine being hit by a car so badly that it literally knocks off my shoes. -Title
[2017-09-28 13:12:37] - Daniel: Then my Roth IRA (representing my individual stock investing) isn't reflecting that bad purchase and so kinda artificially looks better than it should. -Paul
[2017-09-28 13:11:50] - Daniel: It doesn't mess up my IRA to Roth IRA comparison, but it messes up my self-directed versus index fund comparison because it's hard to count another fund which is constantly getting money, but I also shouldn't ignore it. Let's say I make the change and put my 401(k) into a stock that loses 50% of its value... -Paul
[2017-09-28 12:53:16] - Paul: I'm confused by the question. If you do stuff in your 401k account how does that mess up your IRA to Roth IRA comparison? -Daniel
[2017-09-28 11:37:32] - So... what's the message? Is this some kind of attempt at conspiracy theory. Look, all of those protesters had EXTRA SHOES just so that when they got run over it would look worse? 'cause that's BS of course. -- Xpovos
[2017-09-28 11:36:47] - title: I'm curious what's up. That's a photo from the incident in Charlottesville, mid-strike. The shoes and feet of participants are circled/highlighted. Several demonstrators are in mid-air, and some clearly still have shoes. Yet there are a significant number of shoes strewn already. -- Xpovos
[2017-09-28 11:32:09] - But now I'm at the point where I have a long list of new individual stocks I want to invest in, but I also don't want to sell what I currently own. I'm considering maybe taking some of my 401(k) money and investing it in individual stocks (an option which our plan allows), but that screws up my relatively apples to apples comparison. -Paul
[2017-09-28 11:31:00] - and (3) My 401(k) which is invested in a mixture of low fee index funds and mutual funds, which DOES get regular infusions of cash. I partially set things up this way so I had a benchmark (#1) to measure how my #2 is doing since neither is getting fresh infusions of cash. -Paul
[2017-09-28 11:26:48] - Question for the message board (even Daniel, although I'm guessing I know his answer already): I've mentioned before, I have 3 basic retirement funds: (1) A traditional IRA invested entirely in Vanguard low fee index funds which does not get regular infusions of cash (2) A Roth IRA which I invest in individual stocks which does not get regular infusions of cash... -Paul
[2017-09-27 16:39:52] - daniel: tipping pitches can also involve indicating where the catcher's glove is placed that hints the location of the pitch, since the batter can't see, and it's considered "dishonorable" for the batter to try and peek at the catcher behind me. - mig
[2017-09-27 16:23:46] - I keep hearing, bribery, conspiracy, and fraud. What goes on is kind of bribery, but doesn't strike me to fit the legal definition of the term. Fraud? Who exactly is being defrauded here? - mig
[2017-09-27 16:21:15] - maybe someone can help me out on this, but I'm at a loss trying to figure out this whole shitstorm happening in college basketball. What exactly is the criminality here that has the FBI is involved? I get that people don't like the payola that goes around students and athletic programs, but none of it seems criminal. - mig
[2017-09-27 15:48:35] - i honestly have been considering it. maybe in a few weeks. ~a
[2017-09-27 15:46:47] - a: Ah, right, I forgot. Sorry. Thought you were man enough to bike one armed.
-Paul[2017-09-27 15:42:08] - paul: cool. yeah, i broke my arm so i can only help finding people lost on the bus for the next four weeks. ~a
[2017-09-27 15:37:39] - a: Nevermind. He's been found. -Paul
[2017-09-27 15:17:42] - a: https://twitter.com/sharrowsDC/status/913108871350243328 Figure it's a long shot, but you haven't seen this guy today, have you? -Paul
[2017-09-27 15:16:58] - It seems like a weirdly arbitrary line to draw between fair game and cheating to me. -Paul
[2017-09-27 15:16:55] - a: you'd think the obvious solution is for pitchers and catchers to get better at hiding signals, but baseball has weird "honor" rules that they prefer to live by. - mig
[2017-09-27 14:48:14] - yep. weird. you'd think the catcher/pitcher would get a better encryption. maybe that's hard to do. ~a
[2017-09-27 14:26:12] - hope that made sense! -Daniel
[2017-09-27 14:26:06] - a: Tipping the pitch is then conveying that information to the batter by signalling them in some way so they are also better prepared for the pitch coming. -Daniel
[2017-09-27 14:25:28] - a: So stealing signals is either a player on 2nd base who can also see the hand signals being used by the catcher or someone out in the stands with binoculars or something to let them see the signals. -Daniel
[2017-09-27 14:24:45] - a: Have you seen a catcher in baseball go through a series of handmotions between his legs before the pitchers throws the ball? Those handmotions correspond to different pitches and the pitcher then agrees to one he wants to throw. Thus the catcher knows whats coming so he can prepare himself but the batter doesn't know. Those are the signals. -Daniel
[2017-09-27 14:04:25] - what does stealing signs and tipping pitches mean? ~a
[2017-09-27 13:26:19] - paul: there's a bit of an "unspoke codes" in baseball (one of the few concepts in baseball i detest), about things like stealing signs or tipping pitches. It's really, really frowned upon. - mig
[2017-09-27 13:25:40] - Partly after the election there was a lot of discussion on people staying in their bubble and having a filter to hear what the other side has to say. So I thought I could start a small thing to try and get some info and I guess I got some but mostly I was sad it didn't seem to go well. -Daniel
[2017-09-27 13:21:48] - But if she wants to be done talking I'm not sure there is much more to say / do until the next time. -Daniel
[2017-09-27 13:21:27] - -Daniel
[2017-09-27 13:21:25] - a/Paul: I think she put some reasonable fine stuff in her post (its long) like the it would be nice if this translated to actual action. I can get on board with that. I was a little sad both at her seeming to cut it off when I was trying to be as polite and respectful as I could. Also that line Adrian posted made me a bit sad as well. I also had the same thought that Paul did but also it seems to go against civilian oversight of cops.
[2017-09-27 13:03:02] - a: Also, I agree that the protests aren't really doing anything thing (which is also an argument for not getting worked up over them, IMHO). -Paul
[2017-09-27 13:00:16] - a: *Shrug* I think dropping off after some back and forth is fair. Facebook is usually not ideal for these types of things. At least there is a discussion. I don't think Nina has ever responded to anything I've written on her Facebook posts.
-Paul[2017-09-27 12:32:16] - paul: she added a new bonus additional argument ending this time though: "Simply protesting during the anthem isn't doing anything positive imo. Im also not interested in an argument via Facebook" after starting the discussion by posting this stuff to facebook, she has also decided to end it. ~a
[2017-09-27 12:30:01] - paul: she has used that argument ender before (same situation: police officers are the only ones allowed to debate these issues). ~a
[2017-09-27 12:26:12] - Although I really do hate the whole, "I am X so my opinion counts more" or "You are Y so your opinion doesn't count" argument. I can think of very few instances where that's a legit line of thought. -Paul
[2017-09-27 12:25:34] - a: Nah, I don't have an overwhelming desire to get involved. I ultimately don't consider myself on either side. I'm just on the side of not demonizing and straw-manning the "other" side and at least attempting understanding (so bravo to Daniel for working towards that). -Paul
[2017-09-27 12:04:26] - paul: haha, yeah that *is* a good response. i'll leave you to add that to her feed since you came up with the response. ~a
[2017-09-27 11:52:35] - http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/20831664/new-york-yankees-manager-joe-girardi-says-fan-ejected-yankee-stadium-yelling-pitch-locations I don't know why, but I find this a little strange when compared to what basketball fans try to do to influence free throws. -Paul
[2017-09-27 11:37:42] - a: Is this the Facebook discussion about cops and the anthem protest? There's an easy response: Unless you're black you can't accurately debate either.
-Paul[2017-09-27 11:28:18] - daniel: "Until you work in a profession that's being directly targeted as the crux of all discrimination in America I don't think you can accurately debate the topic." the ultimate conversation winner. sorry man. ~a
[2017-09-27 10:10:09] - xpovos: i have not seen that, but a number of things jump out at me: 1. fee-less blockchain is almost an oxymoron. 2. i've never heard of an open-source smartphone. is the hardware open? that would be a first. is the operating system open? is it android? 3. "using the SRN token as its default currency" omg, please no. so sirin labs will have complete control of the economy. no thanks. ~a
[2017-09-27 09:57:39] - Xpovos: Couple of strongly worded anti Trump sentences were the most direct. A shot at Rumsfeld. Quick take on feminism. Those are the ones I remember. -Daniel
[2017-09-27 09:11:01] - Daniel: I read it pretty quickly. There was some politics, but I don't remember seeing TOO much. Which bits seemed political to you (I'm wondering if I just missed it in my haste). -- Xpovos
prev <-> next