prev <-> next
[2017-11-15 10:00:09] - Paul: I think that generally I value the freedom to own a gun very low (near zero?) so any limits on it are not overly important to me. Whereas I think preventing people from improving their living situation seems like a worse thing to me. Those are generally going to be the basis for my views on those two issues. -Daniel
[2017-11-15 09:52:14] - Paul: Its an interesting approach to the conversation so I appreciate that. I think in regards to the refugee crisis thats gone on I would make the argument that the positions of less guns and allowing refugees in both seem to be consistent with trying to lower the amount of suffering in the world so that seems like a utilitarian win. -Daniel
[2017-11-14 16:58:06] - a: And where laws to try to prevent it would probably only hurt masses of innocent people and hardly prevent those rare bad things from happening. -Paul
[2017-11-14 16:57:33] - a: Well, that's because for one side it's a "person" (the Muslim) and for the other side it's a "thing" (the gun). That makes it an imperfect comparison, but I think it largely works in the sense that both groups freak out over things statistically unlikely to happen... -Paul
[2017-11-14 16:51:47] - paul: the conservatives think that lone Muslim reflects poorly on all Muslims? but not so for the white person? that seems pretty shitty. i don't see anything like that on the liberal side but maybe that's my own bias
~a[2017-11-14 15:16:24] - a: Generous in what way? I didn't choose my words terribly carefully, so I may have implied something I didn't mean to. -Paul
[2017-11-14 15:07:13] - paul: i don't disagree with any of the quadrants of your thought experiment. (one dimension, the nationality of the shooter. second dimension, the political affiliation of the debater). though if it matters, i think you're being generous to the liberals in your scenarios. ~a
[2017-11-14 14:13:33] - aDaniel: Completely unrelated, but I also have an RD article that I am considering not posting for similar reasons to the Google Memo article if anybody wants to read that and weigh in on if it will get me fired.
-Paul[2017-11-14 14:12:47] - aDaniel: And that we might get more understanding, more compromise, and less anger if we could understand why the other side thinks the way they do. Maybe this is a way to increase that understanding a bit. -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:12:11] - aDaniel: My point isn't at all to say anybody is wrong or to lay blame or anything, more that I've seen these strong reactions to these events a few times in the past months and I feel like both sides of these arguments are more similar than either side might want to admit... -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:10:49] - aDaniel: On the flip side, for (1), liberals might clamor for more gun laws (even ones that wouldn't have prevented said tragedy) and reason that slightly restricting some rights is worth the trade-off if it saves some lives. But for (2), they might push back strongly on anybody associating the attack with Islam in general or tying it to Muslim immigrants. -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:08:38] - aDaniel: For (1), conservatives might insist that the vast majority of gun owners don't shoot up people, that criminals don't follow gun laws, etc. Yet for (2), they might be more willing to think that lone Muslim reflects poorly on all Muslims and propose laws restricting Muslims for entering the country. -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:06:22] - aDaniel: My premise is that most people, depending on their political orientation, will have pretty extreme (and opposite) reactions to these two events depending on if it is (1) or (2), and that those two events are more similar than those people might want to consider. -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:05:20] - aDaniel: (1) If it was some white dude who shot a bunch of people with no clear political motive or (2) If it was a Muslim who blew up a bunch of people with a homemade bomb or ran them over with a vehicle? -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:03:45] - aDaniel: So here it is: You're sitting at home or work and you hear on the news about dozens of people killed by somebody. How much does your reaction to this (particularly in terms of assigning blame and proposing new laws to prevent this from happening) change based on... -Paul
[2017-11-14 14:02:24] - Daniel: Nope! All are free to play. -Paul
[2017-11-14 13:58:21] - nope. ~a
[2017-11-14 13:44:39] - Wait... that wasn't photoshopped? -- Xpovos
[2017-11-14 13:34:06] - g:
~a[2017-11-14 13:23:03] - A: space needle over the clouds? Very cool. At first I thought it was photo shop. Also I don't really check this anymore, Paul told me you said something to me... ~g
[2017-11-14 10:19:16] - paul: try away. ~a
[2017-11-14 09:56:47] - Paul: Do you have to only try it on one person? -Daniel
[2017-11-14 08:52:55] - a: Oh, also, I might be getting a new phone soon. I'm guessing I probably need to do something about my bitcoin wallet before then? -Paul
[2017-11-13 20:55:38] - a: I do have a thought experiment that I was wondering if I could test out on somebody, though. Mind if I try it on you? -Paul
[2017-11-13 20:55:13] - a: Also, because I'm not convinced gun show loopholes (as you call them) are a significant problem. -Paul
[2017-11-13 20:54:24] - a: I'm probably against whatever actual legal measures would have to be taken to close the so-called gunshow loophole. I say so-called because I think that's a misleading term (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/). -Paul
[2017-11-13 16:33:08] - paul: "federal 'gun show loophole' bills were introduced in seven consecutive congresses: two in 2001, two in 2004, one in 2005, one in 2007, two in 2009, two in 2011, and one in 2013. ... none passed. in may 2015 carolyn maloney introduced [the gun show loophole closing act of 2015]...[in] 2017, representative maloney also introduced [the gun show loophole closing act of 2017]." is anyone here against closing the gunshow loophole? ~a
[2017-11-11 10:19:35] - g: cloud city ~a
[2017-11-10 15:55:04] - a: Not surprised, and not judging at all, just thinking that I should be aware of how much of which magical internet monies I have and how much they're worth. -Paul
[2017-11-10 13:53:15] - paul: yes you magically get new currencies when these forks happen. this is magic internet money. are you surprised? (seriously though, you only get money if people hold value in these things, which they often do not and often should not) ~a
[2017-11-10 12:51:10] - a: I think I need to learn more about these forks, because they seem important in the sense of "fixing" bitcoin so it can serve as a legitimate currency and also because... uh.... don't I magically get new currencies when these forks happen? Like bitcoin cash and bitcoin gold? -Paul
[2017-11-10 12:49:53] - a: Re: Gillespie, I've heard that he tried "Trumpism without Trump" in the sense that he saw how Trump got elected, but also saw how unpopular Trump himself currently is, so he tried to run a similar campaign while distancing himself from Trump. -Paul
[2017-11-10 08:28:43] - paul: minor fork update ðŸ´. yesterday the second fork of bitcoin was canceled (i'm as surprised as anybody because i naïvely figured this was going to "solve" all of the ills). markets have gone into a minor panic: minor because there are no major moves yet. ~a
[2017-11-09 17:55:01] - xpovos: why do you think this? "Gillespie will turn the really bad Virginia economy #'s around, and fast. Strong on crime, he might even save our great statues" it seems like they both use the same talking points when it comes to ms-13 (those ads were gross, and claims were outrageous), sanctuary cities, pro-confederate statues, etc. his republican opponent in the primaries was less pro-establishment, or at least that was the narrative. ~a
[2017-11-09 17:46:29] - a: IMO, no. Gillespie did not embrace Trump or "Trumpism". -- Xpovos
[2017-11-09 17:27:00] - mig: going back to the tweet that started this all: "gillespie will totally turn around the high crime and poor economic performance of va. ms-13 and crime will be gone. vote today, asap!" 12h later: "ed gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what i stand for." did he embrace trump? ~a
[2017-11-09 17:24:16] - good point. ~a
[2017-11-09 16:21:07] - a: you both can be right? I mean like I said earlier, he ran on some trump-y views on his campaign. But I did get the impression he didn't really want the actual presence of Trump around his campaign, given the President unpopularity in VA. - mig
[2017-11-09 15:38:26] - xpovos: "Gillespie tried to avoid Trump, for the most part" i honestly am not totally sure if i'm right or you're right. i had heard he went pro-trump from a (libertarian) coworker. miguel seems to agree too somewhat, right? also this cnn opinion article seems to agree with me though i'm not sure that helps my case. ~a
[2017-11-09 15:33:32] - i've been hearing about steve bannon's alabama pick all day on the internets. i hear he's refusing to debate, but now that he assaulted a 14 yo. are these things related? ~a
[2017-11-08 15:53:50] - "when you find you haven’t discarded a major opinion for years, or acquired a new one, you should stop and investigate to see if you’re not growing senile." i doubt bob is suicidal, but maybe he's senile? ~a
[2017-11-08 15:41:59] - Xpovos: That escalated quickly. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. -Paul
[2017-11-08 15:36:01] - Fun fact, I went to high school with Bob Marshall's kids. Not-fun fact, I'm on suicide watch for Bob Marshall. I genuinely think this is sufficient blow to his ego and sense of reality that it could completely unhinge him. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-08 15:08:12] - aaron: Aw.. that's sad for that poor sales rep. I guess maybe NASA might actually have space captains? -Paul
[2017-11-08 15:01:29] - a: I don't feel strongly on the topic? Though I suppose i lean "pro" but I feel like it's a silly diversionary pissing match to avoid any real progress on making a reasonable immigration policy. - mig
[2017-11-08 14:55:22] - it was just a dumb web form so i didn't think about it. but then two weeks later i got a phone call at my desk asking for a "captain aaron pieper" from a representative of their COTS product who was very excited about the prospects of their product having military applications. (which was still partially true but... no thanks to space cpt. aaron pieper) - aaron
[2017-11-08 14:54:56] - aaron: Nice! I know what I'll do the next time we play Secret Hitler. Nobody is going to accuse His Holiness Essen of being Hitler.... -Paul
[2017-11-08 14:54:29] - i don't know if i ever told you guys about the time our company was looking into a COTS product to make web integration easier, and they had a form which required first name, last name, and honorific which couldn't be blank. i was annoyed at the prospect of going by "mr aaron pieper" so i filled in the honorific as "space captain aaron pieper" - aaron
[2017-11-08 14:52:37] - paul: yes you can go by "his holiness essen" and correct people. and as an added bonus if you have an open discussion with bob marshall and he refuses to address you as such, cnn might very well write a blurb criticizing him for his antiquated one-pope viewpoints
- aaron[2017-11-08 14:50:33] - paul: for example, my mom goes by "ms." even though she has a phd. ~a
[2017-11-08 14:49:41] - paul: "Is the rule that everybody gets to decide their own?" imo yes, but i think that's only a recent change. like aaron said, "miss." vs "ms." vs "mrs.", and whether you take your husband's last name is something you decide on your own, so it's at least consistent. ~a
[2017-11-08 14:48:24] - Aaron: I get to decide my own honorific? Does that mean I get to be Dr. Essen or Master Essen or His Holiness Essen? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_honorifics) -Paul
[2017-11-08 14:48:09] - and the general understanding is mistakes happen, nobody's monocles fall out if you call a ftm trans person with a female pronoun. typically the person just ignores it because it happens all the time, or someone corrects you - aaron
[2017-11-08 14:47:33] - mig: you are pro-sanctuary cities? or anti-sanctuary cities? ~a
[2017-11-08 14:46:16] - paul: well in this context, CNN gets to decide
but within the LGBT community, people decide their own pronouns just like you'd decide your own honorific - aaron[2017-11-08 14:33:10] - http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/us/election-firsts-lgbt-minorities/index.html "During the campaign, Marshall refused to use Roem's correct pronouns." Question, but who determines what the "correct" pronoun for a person is? Because I imagine Marshall and Roem would disagree about which is correct. Is the rule that everybody gets to decide their own? -Paul
[2017-11-08 14:33:03] - which was kind of sad, he seemed kind of not awful during his senate run. - mig
[2017-11-08 14:27:43] - gillespie didn't want to be overtly linked to trump but he did take some Trump-y positions w/ regard to the MS-13 gang and "sanctuary cities". The 2nd bit puzzled me as to it being a hot topic in the race, since there aren't any sanctuary cities that exist in VA to my knowledge, and it was even weired to hear Northam flip flop on the topic. - mig
[2017-11-08 10:53:43] - what? tjhsst.edu is gone? aw sad day. the bureaucrats always win in the long run. ~a
[2017-11-08 09:59:39] - xpovos: agreed! which is why i've always been cautious in embracing cryptocurrency whole-hog. cryptocurrencies are dangerous. very dangerous. and that will likely never change. and ethereum is going *way* too far into the dangerous category. smart-contracts need to be *very* simple: i.e. nothing more complicated than a "token", please. writing a virus for a contract is something you shouldnt be *able* to do. ~a
[2017-11-08 09:55:34] - Like, potentially a economy-wrecking depression-causing disaster. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-08 09:55:05] - a: Meanwhile, in crypto-currency news: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/cryptocurrency-300m-dollars-stolen-bug-ether. I enjoy reading about these growing pains in crypto currency because I do think they are growing pains and because they allow everyone to figure out a good solution to these real problems, ideally before the currencies truly take off. This happening now sucks for people, but in ten years it's a disaster.
[2017-11-08 09:54:01] - a: I read somewhere that Osama Bin Laden spent a lot of time on Youtube arguing with people who said 9-11 was an inside job. No idea if there is truth to that, but I like the visual.
-Paul[2017-11-08 09:53:36] - a: Northam was the one trying to tie Gillespie to Trump. Gillespie tried to avoid Trump, for the most part. There's a lot of of debate right now about which bits hurt him. The comparisons to Trump, or the lack of Trump-embracing. Trump lost VA by 5 points. Gillespie did far worse. So, yeah, Trump may be lacking in subtlty, but he might also be right. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-08 09:28:21] - "gillespie will totally turn around the high crime and poor economic performance of va. ms-13 and crime will be gone. vote today, asap!" about 12 hours later: "ed gillespie worked hard but did not embrace me or what i stand for." considering gillespie's blatent ties to trump in campaign advertisements, does anybody else think trump's subtext on twitter is lacking in subtlety? ~a
[2017-11-08 09:08:06] - historic vs present distribution of lions. ~a
[2017-11-07 16:43:20] - not-the-onion: Osama Bin Laden was an anime fan and played pirated Naruto games. Animal Crossing: Wild World
~a[2017-11-07 12:41:15] -
mmm, drunk burrito. ~a[2017-11-07 11:08:15] - "what most Japanese police will do is get huge futons and essentially roll up a person who is being violent or drunk into a little burrito and carry them back to the station to calm them down" wait what!? - aaron
[2017-11-07 09:20:47] - donald trump 'tells japanese emperor mass shootings can happen anywhere' - in country with no mass shootings. "police rarely use their sidearms and must attain a black belt in judo or other japanese martial art before qualifying". ~a
[2017-11-03 11:14:28] - yes i love chickfila. ~a
[2017-11-03 11:02:50] - Aha, a plan. You like Chick-Fil-A, right?
-- Xpovos[2017-11-03 10:52:23] - if you ever want to get lunch some time we can use them to split the bill.
~a[2017-11-03 10:50:06] - a: I have $17 now on my cell phone. I'm liking it. Unfortunately it's still too hard for me to get new bits added. Not enough people are willing to pay me in bits, and I just can't see paying $ for bits, even if it's a smart move. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-02 20:45:01] - Sounds good. -Paul
[2017-11-02 17:01:33] - daniel / paul: i say closing of december 31st (29th actually). so, have your predictions decided by the week of december 18th? we'll post the predictions after everybody has decided on their five? i think daniel should use "vti" and "vt" to shake things up. ~a
[2017-11-02 16:54:44] - aDaniel: When are we kicking off season 2 of the stock market challenge? Is it December 1st? Or January 1st? -Paul
[2017-11-02 10:01:03] - a: Seems like that would be easy to have happen. I figure I should probably figure this out soon since I might be getting a new phone soon. -Paul
[2017-11-02 05:56:52] - paul: no the cold storage option on mycelium is for spending from cold storage. you'll still want my help some day creating the cold storage. you actually aren't even my worst offender: i have a coworker that now has $13k on his cell phone. ~a
[2017-11-01 23:52:17] - a: So... I see a cold storage option in MyCelium. I can essentially do that to pull the access to the bitcoins from my phone somehow? Which I should probably do at some point? And I guess it is easy enough to undo if I want to spend that money? -Paul
[2017-11-01 12:51:55] - paul: haha. no i think you're right. if you work for 4 hours, regardless of how much you think your time is worth, it's still better to get 2 shares of amazon than 1. but i guess if you were going to just be watching tv for those 4 hours anyways (or alternatively if you are going to be selling something that you weren't going to want anyway), then does it matter really if you get 2 shares of amazon or 1? ~a
[2017-11-01 12:05:08] - a: Sorry.
-Paul[2017-11-01 11:31:07] - paul: i agree. and i think you're missing my point, but i've decided my point was dumb anyways
~a[2017-11-01 11:19:14] - a: I mean, I guess I'm comparing it to stocks. I would rather buy shares of Amazon at $500 a share than $1000 a share. Yes, I can buy some now, but at $500 a share I can get twice as much.
-Paul[2017-11-01 11:07:12] - paul: i also bought bitcoin as speculation (i wouldn't have bought so much if i had thought it was going to go down in value). i also bought it as a store of value (gold is old-school). ~a
[2017-11-01 11:01:32] - paul: sorry why? ok, i sort-of agree. but when it comes to trading something of ill-defined value (like your time, or your used-consumer-goods) then an ill-defined bitcoin price matters . . . less? . . . maybe? ~a
[2017-11-01 11:01:18] - a: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/09/nyregion/gun-laws-oregon-new-york-city.html Even for people in NYC? Honest question, I don't really know the answer. Also, it probably makes a difference if we're talking about legally or illegally.... -Paul
[2017-11-01 10:59:18] - a: Sorry, and re: bitcoin. You and I are buying for slightly different reasons. I don't really use bitcoin as currency, so it's mostly a speculative investment. In that case, buying price matters.
-Paul[2017-11-01 10:53:40] - paul: anybody in the country who wants one can buy one. ~a
[2017-11-01 10:52:52] - paul: "Federal 'Gun show loophole' bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses: two in 2001, two in 2004, one in 2005, one in 2007, two in 2009, two in 2011, and one in 2013. ... None passed. In May 2015 Carolyn Maloney introduced [the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015],...In March of 2017, representative Maloney also introduced [the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017]." ~a
[2017-11-01 10:46:02] - Xpovos: "I'd argue the snark is unwarranted." Yeah, I pretty much 100% agree. I just... I dunno, I want to try to get people to see how I view all the knee-jerk calls for gun control in the wake of shootings and I don't know how to do that without snark.
-Paul[2017-11-01 10:44:57] - a: "cars are already regulated much more strictly than guns" I kinda agree, but also disagree. Yes, there is more licensing around cars and whatnot, but in the end, virtually anybody in the country who wants one can buy one. That is not at all the case for guns. -Paul
[2017-11-01 09:28:05] - Maybe send them this link. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/self-driving-cars-malcolm-gladwell-looks-at-the-future/ -- Xpovos
[2017-11-01 09:26:44] - Paul: If you want to try to go that route, look at autonomous vehicles and start making a strong plug there since they'll have built in safety features that should make most of these types of attacks much harder to pull off; plus the perp is allegedly an Uber driver. Now is a good time for people to have less sympathy for those who would be dislocated out of a job by the advancing technology. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-01 09:25:23] - Paul: I'd argue the snark is unwarranted. No one is going to be interested in a nuanced argument, particularly on FB, and the end result of the snark is just going to piss most people off. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-01 08:37:44] - paul: it's a bad idea (also) because it's a bad analogy. cars are already regulated much more strictly than guns. your vehicle must be titled, plated, taxed, licensed. all drivers must also be licensed. and insured. drive a large vehicle? you need a special license and special insurance. vehicle has 3 wheels? special license. vehicle has two wheels? special license. vehicle holds a lot of people? special license. drive for your job? etc ~a
[2017-10-31 21:25:42] - Or maybe the better question is why it would be? -Paul
[2017-10-31 21:25:13] - My inner asshole really wants to post something to Facebook asking where all the impassioned cries for stricter car regulation is. Besides just being a bad idea because it's Facebook, can anybody tell me if such snark is unwarranted? -Paul
[2017-10-31 16:47:40] - -Daniel
[2017-10-31 16:47:36] - mig https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366 lays out a lot though its an older article at this point. Basically there is no "collusion" law - which is what I think you are referring to. However there might be some other things where they broke the law like lying on forms or to investigators or election laws when accepting things of value or if they gave suggestions or requests to the Russian hacker peeps
[2017-10-31 16:46:13] - mig: This is apparently part of it "the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value†to an electoral campaign" -Daniel
[2017-10-31 16:31:08] - mig: though, i'm (honestly) confused this is even your tact. does it surprise you that this is illegal? ~a
[2017-10-31 16:29:21] - mig: politifact article on this topic from may (warning, link plays sound). "Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit [these] sort of activities". ~a
[2017-10-31 16:22:12] - a: based on what I've read and seen reported, I'm not sure anything Papadopoulos did was illegal (aside from lying to the FBI), as unsavory as it might look. Feel free to disagree, but I'd need a law of some sort cited to be convinced otherwise. - mig
[2017-10-31 16:03:45] - mig: i asked you that question. "so when papadopoulos colluded with foreign (hostile?) governments to sway the outcome of an election, that's legal?" ~a
[2017-10-31 15:41:09] - a: and aside from lying about it, what of that activity that was admitted to was illegal? be specific. - mig
[2017-10-31 15:15:33] - mig: nope. read it again. "PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials." "PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing 'dirt' on then-candidate Hillary Clinton." these are both contrary to his previous fbi statements. ~a
[2017-10-31 15:10:04] - daniel: my understanding is that he lied about his contacts with Russian nationals. Whether the nature of the contacts meets the legal definition of collusion isn't really clear to me. - mig
[2017-10-31 14:52:14] - a: I mean everyone has their kink... -Daniel
[2017-10-31 14:41:26] - ok, i just googled the definition of salacious. apparently i should have picked a different word. ~a
[2017-10-31 14:41:07] - mig: Its in the plea the thing he lied about was not colluding with the Russians, (I think thats what I've read but I've been busy) so its not just lying to investigators like about his favorite color or something. -Daniel
[2017-10-31 14:40:34] - paul: i dunno, i've only been catching parts here and there myself. imo, the page two of the link i sent yesterday was pretty salacious. also, when trump jr admitted to the whole thing months ago, that had to be a high point (imo again). ~a
[2017-10-31 14:39:01] - mig: so when papadopoulos colluded with foreign (hostile?) governments to sway the outcome of an election, that's legal? ~a
[2017-10-31 14:36:25] - mig: all trump did was obstruct justice when he fired the fbi director. as far as i can tell, that's the only thing that trump has done that's an actual crime. ~a
[2017-10-31 14:31:18] - All Papadopolus pleaded guilty to was lying to investigators. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing in the indictment that was an actual crime. - mig
[2017-10-31 14:18:56] - a: I haven't been following these Russian stories much. Can you tell me what the #1 most damning thing that we've learned about Trump through it? Is it that he is/was close associates with a lot of people who dealt directly with Russians in sketchy ways? -Paul
[2017-10-31 14:10:36] - a: the manafort and gates indictments are for charges completely unrelated to the Trump campaign itself. And I'm not sure the Papadopolus thing is going to go anywhere either. - mig
[2017-10-31 13:57:58] - mig: they said the conversations were innocuous (we now know it was a lie). where is your line? how many of trump's team needs an indictment before the evidence is hard enough? ~a
[2017-10-31 13:56:18] - mig: it isn't under wraps anymore. that's why we keep hearing about it. there's also hard evidence of it by now. it's why three of them have been indicted. one of them even pleaded guilty! they all lied about it and now they're finally starting to go to jail for it. they said they didn't realize they were russians, (we now know it was a lie), they said they didn't work for trump at the time (we now know it was a lie). ~a
[2017-10-31 12:52:09] - a: I'm been pretty adamant in my view that this administration is so bumbling and incompetent that it would have been I find it hard to believe they would be able to keep the conspiracy that's been alleged to be going on during the election under wraps. If there was actually something to these allegations then we'd probably should have had hard evidence of it by now. - mig
[2017-10-31 12:00:00] - hey no need to kick yourself. you could always buy at the current price. in fact, i always buy at the current price (tee hee). alternatively you could always sell goods and services for bits. i've done that many times (both goods and services) and i don't have to worry as much about where the "current price" is. even settling a check at the end of a meal is a good way to transact bits. one of my coworkers has made out buying lunch. ~a
[2017-10-31 11:56:05] - a: Biggest loser I still own is TRIP, down about 50% buy more like 85% when compared to the S&P. -Paul
[2017-10-31 11:55:01] - a: Yeah, really kicking myself for not having bought more bitcoin when I did. I'm beginning to think I'm not going to see another good buying opportunity. Of course, who knows? -Paul
[2017-10-31 11:40:19] - paul: my big loser is gpro: -74% since i bought in 2014. though (!) since i bought so little of it initially, i'm not even at -$1k. ~a
[2017-10-31 11:31:56] - paul: wow looking at SHOP (-9%) and UA (-17%), then looking at SNE (+16%) and GBTC (+11%). crazy day! ~a
[2017-10-31 11:29:31] - a: Basically, yeah. A shares and C shares. I believe the only difference is voting rights, but I'm not certain. -Paul
[2017-10-31 11:29:11] - a: Bits and pieces. Mostly in January, October and December of 2016 (dollar cost averaging) but I also had it set up as my dividend reinvestment target in 2017, so I got a handful of shares then too. It's a loser for me no matter how to slice it, though. -Paul
[2017-10-31 11:27:17] - (i'm also confused as to the difference between ua and uaa. is this like the difference between goog and googl?) ~a
[2017-10-31 11:26:03] - ua looks pretty bad. what year did you buy in? ~a
[2017-10-31 11:15:48] - Oof. Any other Under Armous shareholders here? Been a rough year. Glad I didn't pick it for the stock market challenge, or else my portfolio might look like Gurkie's.
-Paul[2017-10-31 11:12:12] - paul: still, he's closer to us than you. paul=1/17, daniel=9/17, us=17/17 (ok, tie by episode count). let's do it by season instead of by episode then: paul=1/8, daniel=1+1/9, us=2 (he's closer to us than you). ~a
[2017-10-31 11:09:38] - a: potentially. - mig
[2017-10-31 11:04:52] - But, yeah, I'm gradually coming to grips with the fact that I am living through what might be the golden age of TV and I have no free time to watch any of it. -Paul
[2017-10-31 11:04:21] - a: Technically, I watched the first episode of the first season.
-Paul[2017-10-31 11:01:04] - daniel: if anything, you're closer to us than your are to him.
(he hasn't watched the first season?) ~a[2017-10-31 10:31:44] - Paul: I'm with you Paul. All my coworkers have finished stranger things already and we only watched the first episode (2nd season) so far. -Daniel
[2017-10-31 10:20:18] - paul: time? looks like it only goes down. ~a
[2017-10-31 10:06:56] - a: I own Netflix stock, but not enough free time. -Paul
[2017-10-30 16:04:54] - paul: don't you own netflix stock? what is wrong with you? definitely too scary for a five year old i guess. ~a
[2017-10-30 13:50:09] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/amazon-hq2-washington-dc-possible-given-job-openings.html I think it would be pretty cool if Amazon's HQ2 came to this area, but man, I can't imagine what traffic would be like... -Paul
[2017-10-30 13:18:31] - mig: "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." does page 2 count as going beyond political optics? ~a
[2017-10-30 13:18:19] - a: Still haven't seen season one.
-Paul[2017-10-30 13:00:14] - did anybody watch stranger things season two this weekend? ~a
[2017-10-27 11:48:36] - whoah shit 12%. nice. ~a
[2017-10-27 10:49:35] - Hurray for Amazon putting more distance between Daniel and I. It's been a good earnings season for me, with my two biggest holdings (NFLX and AMZN) having blowout quarters. -Paul
[2017-10-26 17:52:10] - deep learning already does this to a certain extent. ~a
[2017-10-26 17:49:31] - aaron: "training data doesn't exist yet" i agree this is a different class of solution, that is significantly different, but i don't agree it's unsolvable in our lifetime. to simplify the problem: i believe it's possible for an AI to figure out fitness for itself. for instance, playing through scenarios where various fitnesses are used and determining a fitness function by experimentation. ~a
[2017-10-26 16:35:48] - by the loosest of definitions, a general purpose AI could be something like, "ehh, basically you combine min/max with fitness functions and iteratively develop a neural network by starting with human training data and then making it play itself," in that it's understood a software developer will need to take that concept and hone it for a specific game. in that case, i guess we're already there - aaron
[2017-10-26 16:33:47] - by the strictest of definitions, a pure general purpose "works for literally any game" AI has to result on ZERO human training data; otherwise I can invent a new game that it doesn't work for, because training data doesn't exist yet - aaron
[2017-10-26 16:32:59] - google's go AI was basically trained on millions of games and fine-tuned using things like, "what if we treat positions as a series of nested quadtrees" and things that took human experimentation for training data, and human innovation for develop. the result is a great go AI, but it's a far reach from a general purpose AI - aaron
[2017-10-26 16:32:00] - "all games" to me isn't restricted to games like chess and checkers with an obvious fitness function; it includes games like go, dota 2 and dominion where experienced players could look at a match that's 25% finished and still have no clue which player has an advantage - aaron
[2017-10-26 13:29:39] - aaron: "if you're talking about like a general purpose AI that plays all games though, i think that's not really feasible" i'm not so sure. i have to believe this might exist in our lifetime. the minimax algorithm i made, isn't a terribly complex. it barely takes any training past defining the rules of the game. and it doesn't beat all humans at those games, but it does beat me at most games. (ex. checkers and chess) ~a
[2017-10-25 14:52:07] - paul: yeah! that comic's from 2012 and focused R+D changed that. go google! - aaron
[2017-10-25 14:40:42] - a: Snakes and Ladders doesn't have any choice involved, right? Also, I feel like that line is definitively above Jeopardy and Go now. -Paul
[2017-10-25 14:08:41] - paul: if you're talking about like a general purpose AI that plays all games though, i think that's not really feasible. if you're talking about like 10,000 little specialized AIs, i think we're already there - aaron
[2017-10-25 14:08:05] - paul: there are some games where AI may never outplay top humans, depending on what you define as a game - aaron
[2017-10-25 12:48:19] - a: Thanks! I'll try to check it out later. -Paul
[2017-10-25 12:45:44] - the heading is "Reclaiming Disk Space" and i think based on my reading of it just now, nobody would need to store the history? ~a
[2017-10-25 12:44:25] - fucking web browser stripped the protocol in my url ~a
[2017-10-25 12:43:20] - paul: at this point you should probably read the white paper. <a href="bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf">it's really short</a> and it covers this situation. ~a
[2017-10-25 12:42:41] - paul: sorry, i guess i shouldn't have said "yep". i should have said "yep, optionally". you're allowed to be a "pruning node". which means that you only store the state of the unspent coins. sadly, someone still has to store the whole history, or otherwise you wouldn't be able to reliably confirm how to get from the genesis block until today. though this is a fixable problem: i don't think anybody has fixed it yet. ~a
[2017-10-25 12:36:15] - a: Especially if bitcoin starts getting used as the primary currency for a large number of people. -Paul
[2017-10-25 12:35:53] - a: Won't that get kinda huge at some point? -Paul
[2017-10-25 12:27:10] - yep. why? ~a
[2017-10-25 11:17:09] - a: Also, random question, but does the blockchain keep track of every bitcoin transaction ever? -Paul
[2017-10-25 11:16:48] - a: I forgot to grill you about moving some btc off my phone wallet into cold storage (or whatever) and what to do with my bitcoin cash (and now bitcoin gold?). I guess you'll have to come over again. Maybe when I have my games completed? -Paul
[2017-10-24 15:31:34] - http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/jeff-flake-retirement-arizona/index.html Most politicians have lost some of my respect during Trump's presidency so far. Jeff Flake is one of the few who has gained some. -Paul
[2017-10-24 12:20:49] - i love it (link plays music)
~a[2017-10-24 11:45:45] - a: And this seems like one of those areas where progress is just going to increase faster, if that makes sense. -Paul
[2017-10-24 11:45:25] - a: Nothing specific, necessarily. Just seems like my news feed is filled every morning with stories about how AI has beaten humans at another thing or some new "learning" AI has beaten an older AI or whatnot. (https://newatlas.com/open-ai-dota2-machine-learning/50882/) -Paul
[2017-10-24 11:11:25] - i learned about minimax from amy a long time ago when we were playing ticket to ride. i ended up writing an implementation in java a few months after that. ~a
[2017-10-24 11:09:10] - paul: regardless, i'm actually surprised it took this long. minimax is dead-simple (not even an ai by some definitions) and it's able to beat a majority of humans at a majority of games without much of an explanation of how to even play the game. i feel like with deep learning, beating humans at all of the games should be trivial . . . but i guess not? i guess humans have a lot of neurons. ~a
[2017-10-24 11:08:44] - paul: are you referencing something in specific? i remember over the summer there was some google "go" ai that was beating a bunch of human players. ~a
[2017-10-24 10:40:21] - Seems to me like that kind of thing is right around the corner. -Paul
[2017-10-24 10:39:36] - So, how close do you think we are to developing an AI that can (given the ability to learn) beat all the humans in all of the games? -Paul
[2017-10-23 13:06:24] - a: Still, I'm a believer. Think the reward is worth the risk. Even if it under performs during our one year snapshot, it's still up close to 70% for me and 40 percentage points over the S&P. -Paul
[2017-10-23 13:04:40] - a: It's understandable. A volatile stock because of the market (South America) and market cap AND Amazon is making a push and you don't want Amazon as your direct competitor. -Paul
[2017-10-23 12:25:44] - yeah a 20% drop on meli? ouch. ~a
[2017-10-23 12:09:40] - a: Oof, MELI is now negative for the competition. What a fall from where it was just a month or so ago. I'm getting walloped now. -Paul
[2017-10-20 15:39:55] - a: I suppose we could, although only one would be easy with more than 2 players. I could try to get the most complicated one done in time, but that seems unlikely. -Paul
[2017-10-20 15:37:10] - paul: are we going to play any of the paul-manufactured games tomorrow? ~a
[2017-10-20 13:51:37] - a: Absolutely it's timing, but I'm still "invested" (if you will) in bitcoin right now. Doesn't mean I can't hope for a lower price. I don't want to time the market either, but a part of me would look forward to a market correction so my 401(k) contributions can buy stocks "on sale". -Paul
[2017-10-20 13:42:20] - paul: i sell today, but that's purely rebalancing: i don't think it's safe to have 50% of my retirement savings tied up in this very volatile asset: i'm not selling today to try to time a market. i don't ever worry that i won't be able to ever re-buy at a lower price than today. ~a
[2017-10-20 13:40:20] - paul: "i'm certainly hoping for it" this is totally trying to time a market. buying and selling to rebalance is one thing, but hoping to buy at a lower price in the future is 100% pure market-timing. you agree that it could easily bust 50% after going up 100%, right? so doesn't that negate your "I'm certainly hoping for it" thinking? in that totally possible scenario, you'd be buying at higher than the current price. ~a
[2017-10-20 11:37:35] - a: Could be wishful thinking, but it just seems like bitcoin has one more big bust in it, especially considering how rapidly it has been climbing. I'm certainly hoping for it. Would love to buy some more at a cheaper price. -Paul
[2017-10-20 11:36:31] - a: Also, I've been giving this a thought, just because somebody thinks something is in a bubble doesn't mean they aren't a believer in the thing in the bubble. Tech stocks were in a bubble during the dot com bust, but companies like Google and Amazon came out of that. Real estate was in a bubble, but I still bought two houses. -Paul
[2017-10-19 15:50:32] - a: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/19/josh-brown-goes-down-the-bitcoin-rabbit-hole-commentary.html Since I think you think I talk to much about bitcoin bubbles, here's a more optimistic (I think?) take on the future... -Paul
[2017-10-19 11:54:23] - a: Well, the guy talking about it was admittedly fairly pro-bitcoin. I think it was a fair optimistic view of it, though. I think they glossed over the "depressing" things (as you call it) because they were speaking mostly to the business applications instead of necessarily the digital currency for individuals applications. -Paul
[2017-10-19 11:16:21] - i listened. sounded good. it did seem a little too...pro-bitcoin?
it was a little weird they didn't cover many of the depressing things: like that theft is inevitable. it's technically very complicated to use and store: meaning that regular users won't be able to handle the computer security necessary to use them. it's weakest pain-points are the community of users that manage it. many governments might try to outlaw it eventually. ~a[2017-10-18 23:13:12] - a: https://www.fool.com/podcasts/rule-breaker-investing/2017-10-18-bitcoin-blockchain-cryptocurrency -Paul
[2017-10-18 11:13:51] - paul: yes to both. afaik. ~a
[2017-10-18 11:07:03] - a: Also, is bitcoin splitting again? Do I still own bitcoin cash from the previous split? -Paul
[2017-10-18 10:02:56] - a: Although even that I only did during the great recession. -Paul
[2017-10-18 10:02:27] - a: I agree almost 100%. It's the same reason I don't try to time the market. I mentioned before that it seems due for a correction, but it might happen tomorrow or it might happen 3 years from now and a 200% gain from now. The only timing I've tried to do is to slightly increase my 401(k) contributions during down years. -Paul
[2017-10-17 17:07:08] - paul: i think "bubbles" are meaningless. they can't be easily predicted or studied. even after the fact. for example, you said you were trying to figure out if there was a bubble or not in early 2013: "I'm doing research just in case bitcoins aren't in a bubble" that was 3000% ago (5578/185). that's bigger than netflix money. cherry on top: you mentioned netflix back then too. ~a
[2017-10-17 16:54:14] - ah. ~a
[2017-10-17 16:52:39] - a: I'm not calling it a bubble, just saying why I can why others think so. Some crazy stories out there. -Paul
[2017-10-17 16:52:34] - is that a yes? ~a
[2017-10-17 16:52:05] - a: It certainly feels due for a correction soon. -Paul
[2017-10-17 16:51:55] - paul: second question, was bitcoin in a bubble at 1/10th of its current price ($600)? ~a
[2017-10-17 16:47:42] - paul: you love that bubble word. is the s&p500 in a bubble? ~a
[2017-10-17 16:20:02] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/this-family-bet-it-all-on-bitcoin.html This is why people think bitcoin is a bubble. They're even Dutch! -Paul
[2017-10-17 12:13:03] - a: Yeah, my guess (in retrospect) is that it got all its gains when they announced the price increase. I'm not making any decisions on today's action at all, just hoping for another bump even if it helps you.
-Paul[2017-10-17 11:52:12] - paul: agreed. the short-term game is impossible. things can be already priced-in. markets can make the wrong decision. they can over-correct. they can under-correct. the short-term game is lame. if it matters, buffet hates the short term game too. and he seems to be doing pretty well for himself. ~a
[2017-10-17 11:23:24] - I don't get it. Netflix posted numbers that frankly looked awesome and blew away expectations to near universal acclaim, but the stock is flat? I guess people were expecting them to blow away expectations? Another example of why I don't play the short term game and overly worry about quarterly results I guess... -Paul
[2017-10-17 10:14:13] - Daniel: I think I got notified I might be in one once, but that was it. -Paul
[2017-10-16 17:06:49] - i've been in the pool a bunch of times. (about to go into the pool for a third time in the next month or so). but still, no, never. ~a
[2017-10-16 16:47:00] - Anyone here ever been on a jury? Apparently Andrea got selected for one and is in her trial currently, Just curious. -Daniel
[2017-10-16 16:37:04] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/netflix-q3-2017-earnings.html Really wish I had used NFLX instead of ILMN for my 5th stock. Every time I think they're getting ready to slow down, they just keep chugging along. Glad it's still in my top 2 in terms of holding size in my personally managed portfolio. -Paul
[2017-10-13 15:52:50] - Daniel: Yeah, I'll have to look into it. It's not obvious how to lower the threshold for posting. -Paul
[2017-10-13 15:50:49] - Paul: Yeah I think thats what happened last time I commented. You had to go mark it as ok. So just a thought if you want discourse on your site it needs to be a bit more accepting of comments
-Daniel[2017-10-13 15:46:33] - Please let me know if it happens again. -Paul
[2017-10-13 15:46:16] - Daniel: Ugh, sorry about that. Apparently your comment got marked as spam (along with one of Adrian's from 4 months ago). Sorry! I marked them as not spam. Didn't even know spam comments were being filtered. -Paul
[2017-10-13 15:39:01] - Paul: I wrote a comment but don't see it. -Daniel
[2017-10-13 15:35:25] - Daniel: Can you be more specific? What do you mean "what's up with comments"? Is something broken? -Paul
[2017-10-13 15:34:16] - paul: Whats up with comments on rampant discourse? I think you told me once but I don't remember. -Daniel
[2017-10-13 15:10:57] - paul: true, but we can argue that we've just been lucky some of his bad stuff hasn't gone anywhere. - mig
[2017-10-13 11:24:05] - a: Right, I think you misunderstand me. I agree Trump would like to be 10x worse than Obama on civil liberties, but my point is that he's so incompetent that he likely won't be able to get anything done. On the flip side, pretty much every bad thing Obama wanted to do, he had no trouble doing because people trusted him. -Paul
[2017-10-13 11:22:48] - a: What actions in particular? The Obama administration actually was pretty bad on deporting a lot of people (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/trump-deportations-behind-obama-levels-241420). -Paul
[2017-10-13 11:22:07] - but don't think for a second that he wouldn't fuck up civil liberties worse than obama by a factor of ten if he could. ~a
[2017-10-13 11:21:23] - paul: "We’re rounding them up in a very human way, a very nice way" if obama had taken these actions, do you think he would get a free pass? good on things like civil liberties my ass. "We’re going to open up those libel laws." civil liberties? at least he's shitty at doing what he wants to do. ~a
[2017-10-13 11:16:53] - a: And, of course, there's always the hope of the Republican party self-destructing because of him.
-Paul[2017-10-13 11:16:04] - a: His administration could (strangely) ultimately be pretty good on things like civil liberties because everybody is so on guard about him cracking down on the media or whoever else that he's kept in line. Contrast that with Obama, who everybody pretty much gave him a pass on patriot act/nsa/drone strike stuff because they trusted him. -Paul
[2017-10-13 11:13:41] - a: And frankly, much of that has to do with what you refer to. He's been completely unable to get most of his stuff done. -Paul
[2017-10-13 11:13:13] - a: So, I've been pondering an unpopular thought... Considering what policies have actually passed so far, I think there's a decent chance that, from a law/policy perspective, the Trump administration might end up being one of the better ones (in terms of what I prioritize) in recent decades. -Paul
[2017-10-13 11:03:07] - imo that's been the only saving grace so far with this presidency. that it has been completely ineffectual. ~a
[2017-10-13 10:43:30] - Even better is that essentially none of the things assumed about Trump's presidency (infrastructure bill, healthcare reform, tax cuts) have materialized, yet the market continues to boom. -- Xpovos
[2017-10-12 16:02:57] - a: But, yes, as I'm sure we all agree, what trumps all of this (pun intended) is that Presidents generally have very little direct influence over the market. -Paul
[2017-10-12 16:02:24] - a: I kinda agree with Xpovos. Yes, Trump picked the convenient date, but I think it's the right one. The market tanked the night of the election because of the uncertainty that Clinton losing posed, and then it rebounded afterwards because of assumptions of what Trump might do. -Paul
[2017-10-12 15:50:31] - xpovos: worded differently, if you are going to pick a date, i could see arguments for either date: but i still think you need to make policy changes to have a real-lasting effect on the economy. that won't happen until inauguration. ~a
[2017-10-12 15:49:23] - xpovos: yes i agree with the sentiment, but it's hard to say that your administration's policies have helped the market before your administration has made literally any changes. albeit, i agree that the market can decide early if they like what they see or not: the market can also say that they don't think you will affect the market much. and increases could be due to anything. which is why i think the inauguration is the right date. ~a
[2017-10-12 15:27:03] - a: The innaguration is the "right" date? Why the market is forward looking, so the sea change was the election, not the actual implementation of policy that started at the innauguration. -- Xpovos
[2017-10-12 14:09:39] - "it's way over-simplifying to attribute stock market performance to Presidents" tell trump that. ~a
[2017-10-12 14:09:15] - nitpicky, but he mentioned the election because it helps his fucking case. the inauguration is the "right" date, not the election. ~a
[2017-10-12 13:55:30] - a: With Obama, I do think he had a little benefit of coming into office right as the market was bottoming after the great recession (the bottom is literally a few months later). Regardless, I think it's way over-simplifying to attribute stock market performance to Presidents. -Paul
[2017-10-12 13:53:07] - a: Nitpicky, but since he mentioned election, I was measuring from the election instead of inauguration. I thought the average return of the market was 10%, so seeing close to 20% (hard to pinpoint the day after the election, when stocks had fallen a ton that night) in less than a year seems pretty good. -Paul
[2017-10-12 13:48:51] - ok, maybe i was playing it a little too fast-and-loose with my back of the envelope math: i'll instead say that 12% since the inauguration (15%/year) is beating obama's 8 years (12%/year). but still, only barely and i . . . still can't imagine it lasting for 7.25 more years. ~a
[2017-10-12 13:41:20] - 12% since the inaguration is under-performing compared to obama's *8* *years*. seriously. if he keeps this up for 7 more years, he'll be merely on-par. ~a
[2017-10-12 13:38:58] - paul: 12% since the inauguration. that's modest. that's not bonkers. ~a
[2017-10-12 12:45:58] - a: In his defense (ugh), the US stock market has gone pretty bonkers too. It's like 18% in less than a year since the election. -Paul
[2017-10-12 12:40:24] - paul: "It would be really nice if the Fake News Media would report the virtually unprecedented Stock Market growth since the election." yeah, so the us stock market is underperforming the world market since the inauguration. ~a
[2017-10-12 12:17:07] - Vanguard has retaken the lead over my individual stocks overall, though. Foreign stocks appear to be on fire. -Paul
[2017-10-12 12:16:32] - Completely slipped my mind that October 1st was the start of a new quarter. So in the second quarter of 2017, here are my returns: Vanguard Passive Index: 8.15%, Individual Stocks Actively Managed by Me: 4.3%, S&P500: 3.92%. So both my Vanguard funds and individual stocks are outperforming S&P. -Paul
[2017-10-12 11:15:53] - a: I figured it was just ribbing, but it also felt like it warranted a serious response. The podcast isn't out yet (it's next week's), but it should be out around the 18th here: https://www.fool.com/podcasts/rule-breaker-investing -Paul
[2017-10-12 11:08:12] - paul: 1. agreed. 2. good point but, i was mostly just ribbing you. my serious response would be that it was a url that you linked here in june though, so it wasn't just any tmf article. 3. i'll check the podcast out if you link it to me. ~a
[2017-10-12 11:06:37] - a: I think the fool, like most organizations (including, apparently, JP Morgan: https://www.cointelegraph.com/news/as-jp-morgan-ceo-slams-bitcoin-his-company-invites-tech-guru-to-explain-it-to-top-managers) is a little split between the skeptics and the believers. -Paul
[2017-10-12 11:04:46] - a: And apparently the next RBI Podcast is going to be about bitcoin and blockchain, featuring an analyst who I don't know too well, but I do think he is generally a believer. -Paul
[2017-10-12 11:04:05] - a: (2) It's not just "the fool", as you say, but "The Motley Fool". There's a motley collection of viewpoints and not everybody thinks the same way at all. There have been podcasts where one analyst talked about shorting a group of stocks and the other analyst said he thought those same stocks were buys. -Paul
[2017-10-12 11:02:58] - a: I do think it's unlikely, though, since those big potential catalysts for pullbacks keep happening and bitcoin keeps bouncing back. If the premium for GBTC is decreasing, that seems to indicate to me that the rise isn't just due to clueless people buying the hot trend either. -Paul
[2017-10-12 11:02:12] - a: I would say two (or maybe more) things: (1) The story is not over. You know me, and I believe bitcoin is here to stay (or at least some similar digital currency), so I'm not trying to be a doomsday messenger, but it also wouldn't surprise me at all to see bitcoin have another big pullback. -Paul
prev <-> next