prev <-> next
[2017-12-05 12:53:56] - a: I don't see the contradiction there. I even almost suggested a cultural shift where less people work 9-5 because the main problem isn't necessarily too many cars, it's too many cars at the same time. -Paul
[2017-12-05 12:39:58] - a: I'm not opposed to more roads. But I look at our public works projects of the past 30 years and look at the public works projects of the 1930-1960s and wonder, "What the hell happened." We used to build Hoover dams. Now we can't even build a clover-leaf. Of course, a lot of people died building the Hoover dam, so--there's that. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-05 12:21:53] - xpovos: totally agree. but paul thinks we should do what most people probably prefer, which is just build more roads.
~a[2017-12-05 12:05:29] - Commute times also matter. E.g. someone commuting at 7AM is very different to the system from someone commuting at 4AM. Fiixing the social constructs of normal work hours (when appropriate) and adding options like telework is even more important than any lane management system, such as new construction or HOT/HOV/toll roads. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-05 12:00:45] - a: To me, this just shows that's demand for more roads that isn't being met because there's obviously a practical limit to this thing. If we turned 66 into a 40 lane super highway I doubt we would still see rush hour traffic. -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:59:17] - a: I mean, do we use that same rationale in other areas? Don't design newer and better smartphones. People are just going to want something better. Don't make more movies, people are just going to watch more... -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:58:17] - a: So, we had this debate before (a year ago or so?). The basic point is that as more road capacity is built, demand rises to meet it, right? I don't dispute that, my point is that doesn't mean we should stop building new roads. -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:52:26] - daniel: "figure out how many people there are that commute" the problem is exactly what we've been discussing: this is always going to be a variable number that is completely dependent on the current driving speeds. your model needs to take into account the number of people that have cars (and could potentially become commuters). also it needs to take into account the number of people who could qualify for a car loan
~a[2017-12-05 11:35:07] - I wonder if one could do math. Determine how much space a commuter needs to go 55mph. Then figure out how many people there are that commute. Then figure out how many lanes are needed to provide the space for a driver to go 55mph for all the commuters. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 11:33:33] - a: Right at some point # of lanes would win out but I think it would be a lot of lanes. A lot. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 11:32:02] - Paul: I think there exists a number of lanes such that the highway could fit enough people at rush hour to get them from fairfax to dc under x but I think it would be large because as the drive time lowered more people would move closer or start driving so the freeway would need to serve enough people until the time to get there was no longer a factor in their decisions. -Daniel
[2017-12-05 11:29:59] - daniel: that's only true if you have like an infinite supply of commuters. so that's one of those things where theory and practice are going to be different, right? ~a
[2017-12-05 11:28:52] - -Daniel
[2017-12-05 11:28:50] - Paul: I think that generally I think it will be true that people's behavior is what causes traffic not road supply. I think over time the amount of time that it would take to get from Fairfax to national mall for example would be on average about the same regardless of how many lanes existed (1 lane or 15 lanes). People are willing to spend x amount of time and as long are there enough people to slow it down to x then it will stay at x.
[2017-12-05 11:15:31] - paul: does your link say "it worked once"? because that seems silly. ~a
[2017-12-05 11:14:35] - "So the HOT lanes were 100% privately funded and maintained?" is this sarcasm?
~a[2017-12-05 11:14:14] - a: I'll do a google search and read up, but literally the second result was this: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/widening-highways-never-fixes-traffic-darnit-texas/
-Paul[2017-12-05 11:13:39] - paul: also in case you think my google search is only going to confirm my conceptions, i also googled "adding new lanes does work science"
~a[2017-12-05 11:12:07] - paul: i'd give you links, but googling "adding new lanes doesn't work science" gives me like a thousand results, so i'm not sure which ones to pick. ~a
[2017-12-05 11:11:44] - daniel: i agree that's a second reason i think paul is crazy: the first reason seemed so anti-libertarian that i couldn't help but pounce on that first. but the second reason: paul, "instead of doing what most people probably prefer, which is just build more roads" doesn't work. it's ok that you think that, because lots of governments around the world have had the same misconception about how traffic works. but it's just wrong. ~a
[2017-12-05 11:11:32] - a: So the HOT lanes were 100% privately funded and maintained? I'll admit to not knowing that, and it definitely changes some of my arguments, but I think my main underlying point is unchanged. Instead of handing over that land to private developers, why not expand 495 into regular lanes instead of HOT lanes? -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:09:27] - Daniel: Depends on the location and situation. Why don't you think more lanes is the solution? Do you not think it would improve traffic or do you think traffic will increase to meet the new capacity or something else? -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:09:16] - $0 of taxpayer money. yes, your rant is crazy rant. ~a
[2017-12-05 11:08:57] - paul: well wait this has been my thesis all along. didn't you see my "the taxpayers didn't even pay for the *tons* [of] new bridges and shit" part? and the "privately paid for, privately operated" part? ~a
[2017-12-05 11:07:01] - paul: I think I'm with Adrian that more lanes isn't the solution. Like if you imagine a hypothetical highway how many lanes wide do you think it would need to be in order to not have rush hour traffic? -Daniel
[2017-12-05 11:04:11] - a: Although, after that rant, it does sound like the HOT lanes involved more private contributions that I initially thought (https://www.expresslanes.com/project-background). -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:02:33] - a: These HOT lanes aren't private roads, they're government attempts to socially engineer things by forcing people to carpool. -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:01:35] - a: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/01/436557085/despite-high-court-ruling-kentucky-clerk-denies-gay-marriage-licences Which is why I don't like seeing things like government officials denying marriage licenses, even though it might sound weird to not support her right to be opposed to gay marriage. -Paul
[2017-12-05 11:00:45] - a: I can see why it sounds weird, so maybe think of it like gay marriage. In my ideal libertarian world, government wouldn't be involved in marriage and priests would be able to decline to perform gay marriage ceremonies. However, we don't live in that world, and instead we live in a world where the government still has monopoly power on marriages... -Paul
[2017-12-05 10:58:40] - a: Yes, in an ideal libertarian world, I think private roads would probably work better, but that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where the government is constructing these roads and they're trying to force people to carpool to lessen cars on the road instead of doing what most people probably prefer, which is just build more roads. -Paul
[2017-12-05 10:57:11] - a: I'm mad that those carpoolers get to freeload.
-Paul[2017-12-05 10:56:41] - actuthink, paul. ~a
[2017-12-05 10:56:22] - paul: maybe you're mad that the non-hot lanes even exist? (i don't actuthink you believe this, but i also think you're being super crazy). ~a
[2017-12-05 10:56:15] - paul: "but only for people who pay or carpool" well wait now, "only for people who pay" isn't that a good thing? isn't that effectively an increase in private(ish) roads? like, this road is privately paid for, privately operated. they're not forcing carpooling on anyone. everybody has the option to pay to use the lanes, or they can use the regular lanes, or carpool. there are so many options. ~a
[2017-12-05 10:47:43] - a: "instead of trying to force carpooling [...] on people". I see the HOT lanes as an attempt to force carpooling on people. Yes, they are new lanes, but only for people who pay or carpool. Also, those lanes exist in basically the one area of my commute that normally DOESN'T have traffic. Not sure if that's because of the lanes or not. -Paul
[2017-12-05 10:36:39] - paul: 2. the hot lanes are the opposite of what you are talking about?! it's privately operated, it's privately funded, the taxpayers didn't even pay for the *tons* new bridges and shit. it's libertarian as you get. i'm so confused. ~a
[2017-12-05 10:36:16] - paul: yes the hot lanes. 1. they weren't repurposed lanes. they were new lanes. added by widening the road a huge amount (here's where i grumble about the space i was seriously using like every week, taken away from one of my favorite parks in annandale). so why is this the opposite of what you were talking about? ~a
[2017-12-05 10:34:53] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/disney-and-fox-are-closing-in-on-deal-could-be-announced-next-week--sources.html Kinda hoping Disney "overpays" (according to the market) and gets hit so I get a lower cost basis. Spoiler alert: I'm heavily considering DIS as one of my 5 picks for December 18. -Paul
[2017-12-05 10:33:28] - a: What added lanes are we talking about? The HOT lanes? Because that's the opposite of what I was talking about.
-Paul[2017-12-05 10:30:00] - paul: i think you're right about the dulles toll road, yes. ~a
[2017-12-05 10:29:17] - paul: also, we did add extra lanes to 495. we just did that. like only a few years ago, i think you'd remember that. if you still see bad traffic, i'm not surprised. adding lanes almost never works: people stop using hov and less-convenient mass transit when you add lanes. also tons of new commuters are always being added to the mix: but especially when you've added some new lanes. we're back to where we were before. ~a
[2017-12-05 10:29:06] - a: Isn't the toll road basically that now? I thought a private company bought it and operates it. -Paul
[2017-12-05 10:26:18] - paul: i would think that "other ways" would include the closest thing to a private road we have anywhere in the united states: a privately subsidized / privately operated road with shit tons of money coming in is a libertarian's wet dream (though i'm referring to 495 hot lanes. i think 66 is funded differently than 495). ~a
[2017-12-05 10:11:01] - I still think that a giant bridge "express lane" that goes over the metro or something isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. -Paul
[2017-12-05 10:10:18] - Xpovos: I know, but I was kidding about a libertarian advocating for it.
-Paul[2017-12-05 10:09:39] - Paul: Actually, that's exactly what eminent domain is for. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-05 10:06:09] - a: Larger scale, Why can't we add more lanes to places like 495? I know 66 has some issues with getting land for more lanes, but isn't that what eminent domain is for?
(kidding!) -Paul[2017-12-05 10:04:01] - a: I don't drive into DC, so I can't comment on that as much, but there are a few places on my commute via the toll road that seem like easy enough fixes that would help my commute. The exit to route 7 is a disaster that sometimes backs up the entire toll road, for example. -Paul
[2017-12-05 09:55:38] - paul: other ways like what? ~a
[2017-12-05 09:54:52] - a: More than partly joking. I mostly agree, although I do wish that instead of trying to force carpooling and public transit on people, they would try other ways of solving the problem. -Paul
[2017-12-05 09:53:28] - a: And how half of Americans don't have any money in the market (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-americans-dow-22000-investing-20170803-story.html). -Paul
[2017-12-05 09:53:25] - paul: i know you're partly joking, but i'll respond to you seriously. it doesn't screw you over, you can still do what you did before: hov2. also, if you *want* to pay, it doesn't screw you over, the price is set to keep the flow of cars moving at highway speeds: supply and demand in this real-time market are working perfectly hour-by-hour minute-by-minute. ~a
[2017-12-05 09:52:41] - a: All totally fair (percentage that have heard of bitcoin), and I believe your source saying 80%. I just sometimes worry about "common knowledge" when I read about things like 29% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/14/a-startling-number-of-americans-still-believe-president-obama-is-a-muslim/?utm_term=.95fd14752a4 -Paul
[2017-12-05 09:50:59] - a: Hah! You just like that because it screws over us evil drivers and encourages people to use primitive methods like biking to work.
-Paul[2017-12-05 09:49:18] - Xpovos: Yeah, it's crazy how the order that cards come up can make games feel really different. I think one flaw in my game right now is my resistance to "reaching" for cards and spending more civil actions instead of just waiting and hoping it "falls" to me. I lose out on cards I really need this way. -Paul
[2017-12-05 09:34:02] - i'm happy that wamu (npr) is taking this non-liberal viewpoint. you don't *have* to take the toll road. you can do shit the way you used to (or take the train/bus/walk/bike/carpool, or change jobs). part of me is sad that the rich get to use the good roads, and the poor have to use the shitty roads, but at least this time we're making the rich people pay for the convenience. ~a
[2017-12-05 09:10:48] - paul: also, i did some more research. it's pretty funny you picked 80% of american investors, because 80% of all americans have heard of bitcoin in 2017 according to usatoday (1000 people in survey done by company that handles online student loan refinancing). ~a
[2017-12-05 09:06:45] - paul: the only reason i think it's high, (closer to 80% than 5%) is because when it comes up in news stories, they don't explain what it is anymore; they assume you already know what it is. when it comes up in tv and radio shows, same thing. ~a
[2017-12-05 08:46:41] - Since it's my first game against humans, I fully expected to get crushed, but even still I'm impressed by how different the experience is compared to playing against the AI. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-05 08:45:03] - Paul: I think the game we're playing right now is interesting. You're in the lead, but it's definitely not insurmountable. A few cards in the right place and either Gurkie or I can take it. Right now, though... what the hell? I haven't seen a food tech card in ages!
[2017-12-04 22:41:21] - aaron: But yeah, every time I lose to somebody who pounds me with military, I try the strategy and lose badly. I normally try to find strategies to win, but like you said, it seems easier to find different ways to lose.
-Paul[2017-12-04 22:39:52] - aaron: I had a few games where I had a big lead at the end of the game (30-40 points?) and ended up losing because of end of game scoring. One game was particularly egregious where I ended up losing by like 100 points. -Paul
[2017-12-04 22:39:03] - aXpovos: Okay. I have a hard time telling sometimes because almost everybody I know is aware of bitcoin, but I also know that's just anecdotal and not to take it for granted. Does the average middle-class family in the mid-west know about bitcoin? -Paul
[2017-12-04 17:27:01] - paul: and yeah i've had where someone totally ignores military, and even with back-to-back war-on-cultures they're still only losing 15-20 points which is like... one turn's worth of points to them, so they shrug it off. and then i've gotten completely demolished for ignoring military. it's weird - aaron
[2017-12-04 17:25:48] - paul: and then i've had the opposite, where i'm the person to develop that VP engine -- but everyone else gets crazy end game production and tech and just blows past me - aaron
[2017-12-04 17:25:21] - paul: but there are a LOT of ways to lose. i've had games where like someone gets michaelangelo or an early VP engine and in age 3 they're like, ahead by 50 points, getting 20+ points each turn and i can't catch them... - aaron
[2017-12-04 17:24:41] - paul: wow! it's pretty rare that i've had a game that's decided by end-game scoring. i usually play scenarios, but i'm usually either winning or losing by 50-100 points so bonuses don't affect the outcome - aaron
[2017-12-04 17:12:41] - Paul: I agree with a. We're approaching a peak cultural awareness of bitcoin. I heard my boss and a coworker talking about it today. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-04 15:07:20] - paul: have *heard* of it? i think it's much closer to like 80% (tv and radio shows have jokes/plotlines/stories that inherently assume you know what it is by now in 2017). but of those 80%, 90%+ probably think it's a fraud and/or some weird-ass bullshit for scam artists, drug dealers, or nerds. i'm believe most of the world that's heard of it have also dismissed it, and won't be easily swayed. ~a
[2017-12-04 14:46:07] - aXpovos: What percentage of Americans who invest (through 401(k) or brokerage or whatever) do you think have heard about bitcoin? I have no idea. Is it like 5%? 80%? I could see either... -Paul
[2017-12-04 13:06:58] - xpovos/paul: yeah i saw that. it made me smile
~a[2017-12-04 13:04:24] - Xpovos: My eyes glossed over the more recent message at the bottom, so it took me awhile too. -Paul
[2017-12-04 11:19:28] - What the hell!??! http://time.com/money/5047625/everything-you-need-to-know-about-cvss-buyout-of-aetna/ -- Xpovos
[2017-12-04 10:51:43] - It took me WAAAAY too long to figure this one out. https://i.imgur.com/ebylJVK.png -- Xpovos
[2017-12-03 21:01:39] - aaron: Been trying a few different strategies, but it feels like no matter what, I get absolutely destroyed by the end of game scoring. Constantly getting 0-16 when everybody else is getting 18-24. -Paul
[2017-12-03 21:00:45] - aaron: Yeesh. It feels like as soon as I started bragging about never losing at Through the Ages.... I haven't won since and have gotten my ass handed to me over and over. Part of it is harder challenges or humans, but not all. -Paul
[2017-12-03 09:21:59] - yeah, as it should. though this kind of shitty journalism seems like general incompetence instead of intentional ill will. in other words, there is much shittier journalism. ~a
[2017-12-02 21:50:32] - surprising - <a href=“https://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news-suspends-brian-ross-for-botched-michael-flynn-reporting/â€>shitty journalism has consequences</a>? - mig
[2017-12-02 07:51:43] - mig: yep you were right about that. i guess now i'll just have to hope for kushner's indictment. ~a
[2017-12-01 23:32:20] - a: about that whole "trump directed flynn to talk to russians as a candidate" thing... - mig
[2017-12-01 17:27:10] - Paul: My understanding is that you would not send me cash it gold if you sent me basic at this point. We're past the fork. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-01 17:10:58] - paul: depends on replay-protection. ~a
[2017-12-01 16:50:04] - xpovos: Yeah, these forks are starting to get confusing. Like, if I send you some btc now.... do you get my bitcoin gold and bitcoin cash too? Or do I get to keep it? -Paul
[2017-12-01 16:02:05] - it was a trick question! trump's national security advisor just pleaded guilty to willfully and knowingly making a false statement to the fbi. that's already past political optics. i mean, what crazy land are we in? ~a
[2017-12-01 15:45:46] - If Flynn testifies as such and its credible, then yes, absolutely. If Kushner is indicted and pleas out as well, then yes. - mig
[2017-12-01 15:42:56] - a: I'm not following this story pretty much at all. Do we know what Flynn talked to the Russians about? Seems to me that just talking to the Russians isn't damning, it depends on what was discussed. -Paul
[2017-12-01 15:37:18] - mig: still just starting to move there? i thought popadopolous was "just starting to move there". how about this: if flynn *does* testify that trump or senior staff on the campaign directed him to contact russians before the transition, will that count as going past political optics? what about if kushner gets indicted. will that count? ~a
[2017-12-01 15:18:39] - a: we're starting to move there. This is certainly much more significant than the Mannafort/Popadopolous stuff. There's conflicting reports on what precisely flynn will testify on (whether it was during the campaign or during the transition). - mig
[2017-12-01 15:02:16] - mig: michael flynn to plead guilty to making false statements to fbi: "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements". also trump directed him to contact russians. my monthly question: have we gone past political optics?
~a[2017-12-01 14:53:52] - xpovos: i use an app that does deal with other currencies, but i haven't used it nearly as much as mycelium, so i don't know enough about its pros and cons yet. once i have a solid recommendation about which crypto-currency has won out and which wallet to use, i have no recommendation. ~a
[2017-12-01 14:03:55] - a: OK. Help. I have the Mycelium app. You transferred bitcoin to me. It's been untouched ever since. So I still have those bitcoin. But I also have each of these hard forks (cash, gold). But Mycelium seems not to track those? Is that an app software feature (or lack) or something more complex? Should I be looking for a new wallet app? -- Xpovos
[2017-12-01 13:49:09] - *briefly reads up* Ahhhhhh.... fuck. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-01 13:45:23] - Paul: Yes... but that also doesn't help. Particularly since I've only "heard" of it. Not really done any research yet. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-01 13:11:42] - Xpovos: Have you heard about bitcoin gold?
-Paul[2017-12-01 13:07:30] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/james-altuchers-bitcoin-predictions.html I think it's impossible for anybody, no matter how knowledgeable, to make predictions about the future of cryptocurrency with any accuracy, but I did find a lot of these predictions to be interesting to consider. -Paul
[2017-12-01 12:58:51] - Listening to a podcast talking about the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash and I actually feel like I understand it less than before. Amazing. -- Xpovos
[2017-12-01 08:05:20] - a: Well, he is pro-Net Neutrality, so I think that's something he is aware of, and the concept of Net Neutrality seems to be somewhat popular, so I guess no? -Paul
[2017-11-30 16:57:44] - paul: does he think that people are ignoring the stifiling effect that removing this regulation could have on the internet? that's one of my biggest concerns. ~a
[2017-11-30 16:42:05] - a: Because he thinks that people are ignoring the stifling effect that regulation could have on the internet. That's one of my biggest concerns. -Paul
[2017-11-30 16:41:33] - a: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ There was a good Fifth Column podcast where they interview Pai, and Reason also had a good discussion on a podcast, but you might find this one more appealing. It's written by somebody who is pro-net neutrality, but who also thinks Pai is right to repeal Title II. -Paul
[2017-11-30 16:39:29] - a: I only skimmed most of the answers, but the content of the article seems to contradict the headline quite a bit. Instead of "they’re almost all bulls**t", most of the article answers seem to be "technically true"... -Paul
[2017-11-30 16:19:57] - The Internet was free and open before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed Title II Internet regulations (spoiler, not really). also times have changed: comcast already backed out of its promise not to prioritize. ~a
[2017-11-30 12:02:30] - a: Fair.
-Paul[2017-11-30 11:13:14] - paul: in other words, please, you're worrying about the wrong encryption
~a[2017-11-30 11:12:42] - paul: but to be clear, my bank uses rsa. so you'd also be able to log into my bank account and steal all of my usd. you'd be able to log into my retirement accounts and transfer away all of my retirement. ~a
[2017-11-30 11:11:51] - paul: yep. gain access completely. if you've ever spent bitcoins from an address, then your public key is . . . public. with a sufficiently large and fast quantum computer, you can break traditional encryption. ~a
[2017-11-30 11:08:38] - a: Hmmm, so the danger is that quantum computing would allow people to crack your public key and gain access to your wallet somehow? -Paul
[2017-11-30 11:06:41] - paul/daniel: ironically some people are saying to move to ECC (from RSA) for non-bitcoin stuff. so ECC isn't the worst thing in the world. your bank probably uses RSA. ~a
[2017-11-30 11:04:32] - paul: well you have it backwards. apparently SHA is fairly quantum resistant. so mining is fairly safe, as are bitcoins that haven't had their public key published (bitcoins stored at addresses with no outgoing transactions). on the other hand, ECC (which are what bitcoin private/public keys use) aren't quantum resistant enough. ~a
[2017-11-30 10:59:12] - a: I can understand how it would be a problem for mining (not even necessarily a problem, but a big change), but I don't understand why it would so negatively affect the blockchain. -Paul
[2017-11-30 10:54:47] - daniel: i didn't say that exactly. quantum computing will be a problem for crypto. what it won't be is an unsolvable problem. though given how intractable the block-size debate has gotten, it's possible it will be a nasty problem that has a technical solution but can't get deployed in practice. ~a
[2017-11-30 10:51:10] - Paul: I thought when this came up before that he said it wouldn't be a problem for crypto currency. -Daniel
[2017-11-30 10:50:25] - paul: yes. ~a
[2017-11-30 10:49:03] - a: So... can you explain in the space of one message board post to somebody with the most rudimentary knowledge of how bitcoin works why quantum computing would be an issue?
-Paul[2017-11-29 17:11:47] - a: oh, without wanting to give too much away... i'd say i'm dressed appropriately for this particular location.
- aaron[2017-11-29 16:45:52] - awww, the app closed my game. ~a
[2017-11-29 16:44:56] - aaron: what are you wearing? ~a
[2017-11-29 16:32:06] - a: have you played spyfall before? we can't really play unless we're in the same room together, it's a party game - aaron
[2017-11-29 16:17:11] - xpovos: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity? this wasn't a coup. this was general incompetence and amateurism. at the highest levels of our government, i guess that could easily be confused with a coup. ~a
[2017-11-29 16:06:28] - title: I listen to the NYT's "The Daily" podcast. Yesterday they had a guest on discussing the situation over at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The guest journalist likened the confusion of the poor civil servants to that of a post-coup environment. Which leader do you follow? Any time you get compared to a coup, you're probably in really bad shape. The question is, though, who staged it? -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 15:53:53] - Paul: Mine cannot. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 15:16:40] - paul: mine can. i can't wait until the day that one of my coworkers asks to be paid (partially?) in bits. ~a
[2017-11-29 15:12:52] - Xpovos: Can your boss pay you in btc?
-Paul[2017-11-29 15:08:24] - I'm glad I have marginal exposure, and I'd like more, but I don't want to put $ in. I'd rather put in some labor. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 15:08:04] - a: I think it'll be OK if the volitility is there but is calmer. That is, Bitcoin can survive 1% daily moves and be useful as a currency. Maybe even a bit bigger. But if it is even looking like double digits could be a thing for a while, I can't see it. There's too much risk in accepting it and too much risk in spending it. I could never see buying it (to my chagrin) but I totally wanted to earn some. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 15:08:02] - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/how-bitcoins-became-worth-10000/ I thought Ars Technica had a good point about how bitcoin has somewhat become a reserve currency for the crypto-currency market, and if/when the SEC cracks down on ICOs, that could have a ripple effect. -Paul
[2017-11-29 14:38:20] - aaron: http://spyfall.crabhat.com/tnzzaf/ ~a
[2017-11-29 14:13:26] - http://spyfall.crabhat.com/ if you're bored at a party and you all have smartphones and you want to play spyfall - aaron
[2017-11-29 12:41:06] - xpovos: agreed on all points. i don't really have a great response. maybe bitcoin will never lose it's volatility and maybe it doesn't matter as much as you think it does. ditching a ~6%/year increase in m2 at the expense of gaining volatility? is that a net positive or a net negative, i cannot say. ~a
[2017-11-29 12:37:51] - paul: your portfolio is heavy in tech stocks. the tech sector is down ~3% today even though the rest of the market is up. ~a
[2017-11-29 12:08:30] - Xpovos: Agreed on bitcoin not really being a valid currency right now because of the wild price swings. Feels like we're in a period where everybody is speculating that it eventually will be a currency. -Paul
[2017-11-29 12:07:54] - a: I know you hate it when I say this, but I do wonder if it's a bubble right now. Still a long term believer, but I'm kinda waiting for it to drop 50%. Also, what the hell is going on with the market today? I saw some of my stocks up big and celebrated until I saw stuff like Netflix, Nvidia and Shopify... -Paul
[2017-11-29 10:40:31] - The only bitcoin I own remains that small chunk you gave me because it was less than a dollar and it got me to open a wallet. That not a dollar is worth ~$33 dollars rightn now according to Mycelium. That isn't a problem. The fact that it might be $36 tomorrow (or $18) is. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 10:38:21] - a: It's gone up 10% today before going down some. A 1% daily move in currency markets is so astronomically large that it is indicative of a serious issue. This is nuts. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 10:37:00] - I have no problem with Bitcoin being expensive or continuing to grow in value. It just has to be more predictable. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 10:36:32] - a: It isn't functional as a currency right now. Currencies can't fluctuate that much day-to-day. You can't quote me a price today accurately if I'll be paid tomorrow in a coin that could have a wildly different value. It breaks commerce. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-29 08:33:12] - paul: i recall the good old days when it wasn't a speculative instrument. i recall when it wasn't a bubble waiting to pop. it was just an online currency for buying shit. ~a
[2017-11-29 08:30:17] - paul: yeah it's definitely become quite an oddity to me the past nine months. predicting the future never gets any easier. so, it comes down to how much money do i want to risk on something that could go down 50% tomorrow? is it gambling with my future even if my cost basis is low? god damn, it's scary. ~a
[2017-11-28 22:47:34] - The common theme was that most of the people never thought it would really amount to an investment like this and so they sold for minor profits along the way instead of holding all throughout. I'm torn, because part of me wants to sell and another part wants to buy more.
-Paul[2017-11-28 22:46:45] - a: http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/28/in-search-of-the-elusive-bitco I found this article a little interesting in terms of wondering where all the super-rich libertarians are who should've made a bundle on bitcoin (being early believers). -Paul
[2017-11-28 15:05:58] - clearly. ~a
[2017-11-28 15:05:36] - yes=higher. ~a
[2017-11-28 15:05:29] - paul: i predict yes. and ironically, at the same time i'll still be selling. ~a
[2017-11-28 13:02:06] - a: Reckless prediction time. January 1, 2018: Is bitcoin higher or lower than $10k? -Paul
[2017-11-28 12:27:57] - how do you apologize for something and then renege on it? ~a
[2017-11-27 10:32:20] - daniel: after a certain point they feel like it I guess. - mig
[2017-11-27 10:26:08] - paul: they have those too. ~a
[2017-11-27 10:14:52] - WoW bosses* not boxes. oops. -Daniel
[2017-11-27 10:14:40] - mig: Are wow boxes just glorified loot boxes? I guess there is a certain baseline skill requirement but the idea of just spending time farming bosses for a certain piece of loot has similarities to loot boxes? I dunno, just a thought I had reading through. -Daniel
[2017-11-27 10:06:41] - a: Is a rubick's cube also difficult for the color blind? -Paul
[2017-11-27 09:49:31] - aaron: https://imgur.com/bc6ZXGg ~a
[2017-11-27 09:48:13] - mig: i'm not totally sure but i don't think aaron is suggesting that it's "legally" gambling, but that it's ethically similar to gambling. i.e. "loot boxes are having the same kinds of negative societal effects". ~a
[2017-11-27 09:38:33] - Can it legally be considered gambling if the thing you are "winning" has no monetary value? - mig
[2017-11-22 16:39:21] - and likewise even when online games like Street Fighter 4 or Starcraft seemed unfair, like "oh blanka can't do anything against ryu's crouching jabs" or "oh zerg can't do anything against a banshee rush" there was always a way forward which was usually you know, playing better, learning the game, duplicating their cheese tactics until someone beats you and learning from it - aaron
[2017-11-22 16:37:41] - i think the answer is probably, "yeah they're kind of like gambling but they're just not quite as bad." so the answer is maybe, they should be illegal but not as illegal. personally i just stay away from games like that because they seem unfair. i like winning multiplayer games because i'm smarter/better at the game, not because i spent 300 hours farming high level gear - aaron
[2017-11-22 16:36:23] - i think loot boxes are predatory but i don't think they're gambling. but presumably gambling is largely illegal because it has undesirable societal effects so, i guess following that logic the question is whether loot boxes are having the same kinds of negative societal effects. is anybody becoming destitute because of loot boxes, or losing their jobs because of loot boxes? - aaron
[2017-11-22 11:00:37] - Honestly the only thing that enrages me about the game is the single player story mode. - mig
[2017-11-22 10:56:23] - Having bought Battlefront 2, the Loot system is indeed fucking atrocious but somehow I'm not compelled to spend any money outside of the initial game purchase. - mig
[2017-11-22 10:54:36] - Any legislation that comes out of this is going to be really bad for gaming in general. Better solution: 1) Don't buy the game, 2) Learn to say no to your fucking kids. - mig
[2017-11-22 10:53:01] - xpovos: Fuck Hawaii. - mig
[2017-11-22 10:08:19] - But, strangely, I'm not as upset about the attempts to regulate here as I was with, say, the Tipper Sticker. -- Xpovo
[2017-11-22 10:07:52] - Daniel: I've been having similar conversations myself. MtG packs and baseball card packs are examples that keep coming up. On a personal level I think the liklihood of government correctly defining loot boxes both narrowly and in a way that addresses the concerns is essentially zero. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-22 09:37:35] - Xpovos: I'm mixed on this issue. I don't know that I see loot boxes as gambling. I also don't like loot boxes. Like when you buy a booster back in magic the gathering is that gambling? If we make loot boxes illegal or something do blind boxes become illegal? Its a weird thing for me. I can be fine with Blizzard and others having cosmetic loot boxes but ones that alter gameplay do seem a poor choice. -Daniel
[2017-11-22 09:11:00] - mig: I thought of you. After all, won't someone please think of the children? https://kotaku.com/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behavior-of-loot-1820664617 -- Xpovos
[2017-11-21 16:12:17] - a: Of course, all of this only matters because we're soliciting opinions. Climate change is either happening or not, regardless of what people's opinion on the matter is. As such, what opinions we have tends not to matter. I mean, I get that it matters for policy and politics, but that's all a game of Three Card Monty anyway. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-21 16:10:58] - a: Fair point. The answer is, from a polling science perspective, is when you won't bias the sample, If enough people are science deniers, then even my question biases the sample. Given the preponderance of flat-earth discussion I see happening these days, that might actually be a valid concern. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-21 13:56:51] - a:
you actually earned it too. unlike when you gave me reddit gold a few years ago, ha ha. - aaron[2017-11-21 11:58:42] - xpovos: sure, ok. but where do we draw the line? do we have another question before that? "science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. these observations are accurate and scientists are able to come up with useful results." ~a
[2017-11-21 11:44:17] - a: Basically. That survey will definitely show more belief in climate change than a three question one with the first question being, to what extent to you agree, "Scientists in many fields have made observations that the temperature of the earth (oceans, whatever) has increased significantly over the past 300 years. These observations are accurate and reflect a warming trend." -- Xpovos
[2017-11-21 10:42:17] - aaron: thanks for the gold! ~a
[2017-11-21 10:10:18] - xpovos: push poll?
~a[2017-11-21 09:49:10] - a: That's an interesting two-question quiz in that it already is presupposing evidence of climate change, while that evidence itself being questioned is over if the reasons some doubt. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-20 16:46:55] - paul: i'll reuse this gem: i see a better future for me and . . . your children?
~a[2017-11-20 16:35:28] - paul: yeah it's obviously like . . . a thought experiment. sometimes you have to be the change you see in the world. ~a
[2017-11-20 16:33:28] - aaron: i should mention that you probably shouldn't use my program in case there's a bug. ~a
[2017-11-20 16:26:55] - aaron: doesn't necessarily mean that 81 is wrong though. ~a
[2017-11-20 16:26:24] - aaron: oops. looks like things fall apart at f(8) [81, 80, 79, 77, 74, 68, 57, 37] ***TIE***
~a[2017-11-20 16:16:22] - a: There's still no way of knowing that everybody would join in. -Paul
[2017-11-20 16:16:07] - a: That's basically impossible for me to answer, but I find it an impossible premise to believe in. Even if we could know with absolute certainty what harm we are doing to the environment AND know with absolute certainty how to totally fix it and how much that would cost... -Paul
[2017-11-20 16:00:09] - aaron: i added some performance improvements, which made it way faster, but also made it seem overly complicated. if you remove the performance improvements, the code is pretty short. ~a
[2017-11-20 15:58:00] - aaron: https://github.com/arichnad/aaron-puzzles/ (aaron-boxes.py) ~a
[2017-11-20 15:55:41] - a: ha ha, what the hell? we'd have to see if the pattern continues. that seems so random - aaron
[2017-11-20 15:54:44] - a: that's insane, it's so chaotic. did you write a program to generate that? i honestly had trouble even thinking of a reasonable way just to check whether a given set of numbers could have a tie or not. can you e-mail me your source code? - aaron
[2017-11-20 15:54:44] - aaron: f(n) = f(n-1)+f(n-2)+f(n-3)? ~a
[2017-11-20 15:41:30] - paul: which i suppose would be different depending on peoples savings rate. maybe propose to flip the question: what's the maximum percentage of your net worth would you be willing to give up to totally fix the problem? or what's the maximum amount of years you'd add to your retirement date to totally fix the problem? ~a
[2017-11-20 15:40:00] - paul: i do understand your distinction. both of my answers probably would be "probably based on the information i have." but, yeah i doubt the question is asking you to say with certainty. i guess the question should really be asking how much it's worth to you. lets propose: n% increase in your electric and gas bills, what's the largest value of n where you would accept complete and total repair of the problem? ~a
[2017-11-20 15:08:47] - aaron: f(7) = 44. ~a
[2017-11-20 14:19:15] - aaron: f(1..6) = {1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 24} ~a
[2017-11-20 14:17:47] - a: I guess I would say "agree" to both of your statements, although the more honest answer is probably "don't know". -Paul
[2017-11-20 14:11:38] - i posted something to the math subreddit. they helped me last time i had a question about picking three random numbers 1-999 which sum to 1,500. that was also a really hard question for me to figure out - aaron
[2017-11-20 14:08:46] - "some are not distributed at all" ah i missed this part! ~a
[2017-11-20 14:05:38] - a: the boxes are distributed randomly; some boxes are given to player A, some to player B, and some are not distributed at all. the only restriction is that each player receives at least one box - aaron
[2017-11-20 14:05:03] - a: no; with {1, 2, 2} it's possible for each players to receive a $2 box, and they tie 2-2 - aaron
[2017-11-20 13:57:06] - aaron: a project euler problem if i've ever seen one. you didn't specify that the boxes amounts had to be distinct. otherwise f(3) = 2: {1,2,2}. ~a
[2017-11-20 13:35:53] - but a 4-box game would also work with ($3, $5, $6, $7)... right? so f(4)=7. ...so, i guess my question is, what's f(5)? and what the heck is the pattern here, if it's not just powers of 2... - aaron
[2017-11-20 13:33:31] - for a game with three boxes, the game could also work with ($1, $2 and $4), but it will not work without a box containing at least $4. so we can say, f(3)=4. obviously, f(1)=1, f(2)=2, and f(3)=4. it might seem obvious that f(4)=8; a 4-box game would work with values ($1, $2, $4 and $8)... - aaron
[2017-11-20 13:31:30] - silly math question: two players play a game. there's a set of boxes containing an integer number of dollars, $1 or more. for example (1$, 3$, 7$). each player is randomly given one or more boxes. so player 1 might be given 1$ and 3$ for a total of 4$, while player 2 is given 7$ -- the game ends 4$ to 7$. you can see, the game cannot end in a tie with the chosen dollar values - aaron
[2017-11-20 12:53:26] - i'd be curious to know your answers before you click on the link to see the results. ~a
[2017-11-20 12:53:11] - to what extent do you agree? 1. the climate change we are currently seeing is largely the result of human activity? 2. to reduce the effects of global climate change, people will have to make major changes in the way they live? strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or don't know. ~a
[2017-11-20 12:05:06] - aaron: Oh, wow, nice. I did try a slightly different tactic than normal this time (went a little heavier on science than usual since I'm always wanting more light bulbs), but I really think the problem is that both computers just went insane on military and it was impossible for me to catch up. -Paul
[2017-11-20 11:46:18] - paul: i'm not entirely sure what the best strategy is for the "heavily discounted" one other than, to focus less on production and more on culture i guess... i just randomly won it on my first try with a dominance of 81. i've beaten medium but haven't tried hard yet - aaron
[2017-11-20 11:43:59] - paul: ha ha, yeah the age 3 tactics are insane! especially with air units doubling their effectiveness. it can be frustrating leading in military just with you know, a bunch of cannons or something -- and then in age 3 someone nails a tactics card and it's like -- okay, so to catch up i have to research an age 2+ soldier, and calvalry, and build one of each, and copy their tactic!? ugh - aaron
[2017-11-20 09:32:30] - aaron: Got my butt thoroughly handed to me in a game of Through the Ages. It was the one where everything was discounted against 2 medium AIs. They jumped out to a big military advantage that I was never able to catch up to and just kept pounding me with wars and aggressions. One AI went from 6 military to 29 in one turn! -Paul
[2017-11-19 12:41:39] - basketball! ~a
[2017-11-17 16:52:30] - a: No, I did the same thing I normally do. -Paul
[2017-11-17 15:30:57] - i was too distracted by their faces. ~a
[2017-11-17 15:30:34] - haha i didn't notice
~a[2017-11-17 15:03:34] - a: the lava lamp is just photoshopped into all these stock photos really lazily. it doesn't cast a shadow or fit its environment at all - aaron
[2017-11-17 10:19:34] - is everybody excited about hh tonight? it's weird i didn't get an email about it though. i just noticed it on my calendar. paul, did you skip the sending of the notifications or something? ~a
[2017-11-16 11:54:57] - while the trump organization claimed $10b in sales last year, mr trump's public filings suggest revenues of less than a tenth of that amount, [under $1b]. (file this under: it's actually worse than we all thought) ~a
[2017-11-16 11:17:25] - what's wrong with it? everybody in the picture is making an overly-expressive face. like . . . i expect everybody to take their clothes off next. is that it? ~a
[2017-11-16 11:08:40] - https://m.media-amazon.com/images/S/aplus-media/vc/0e93dd7e-6b65-4202-85b6-e221b826d64a.jpg this is an actual promotional photo for a lava lamp on amazon - aaron
[2017-11-16 11:02:52] - a: WOW! that's crazy. if he has a facebook page you should ask him if he was at that burger king. it would be hilarious to verify it - aaron
[2017-11-16 11:01:53] - i was also near a major highway (70), so he could have been traveling from tj back home. this world is so fucking crazy. ~a
[2017-11-16 10:57:44] - aaron: lol, i think it may have been this dude. he's competed in maryland a bunch (which is also where i was eating), so it's not out the realm of possibility. ALSO he competed *at* *tj* over the weekend wtf. (see also Rubik's Cube#Top 5 solvers by single solve). ~a
[2017-11-16 10:53:19] - https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/TJHSSTFall2017/results/all it got him 5th place
that's sort of insane. here's some of the other competitors if one of them looks familiar - aaron[2017-11-16 10:52:48] - https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2014BELK01 was it this guy? he averaged 8.34 at the TJHSST fall 2017 cubing competition - aaron
[2017-11-16 10:46:57] - a: whaaaaaaaat!?!?! WOW that is crazy! the world record just recently got below 5s but i really thought competitive averages were still about 12s... - aaron
[2017-11-16 10:43:10] - paul: if you're sure that you have your words, that's fine: that method is the smoothest. you sending the bits to me isn't inconvenient to me, i transact almost daily (but for a new person, if your fee is too big you pay out the nose, if your fee is too small the transaction won't confirm. i currently would suggest about 80-110 satoshis/byte). really we should be getting some of your bits onto paper, but that's another discussion. ~a
[2017-11-16 10:30:47] - a: Honestly, though, I'm all for whatever solution you think is best. I thought it would be to send it to you and have you send it back, but I understand that is inconvenient to you. -Paul
[2017-11-16 10:30:17] - a: Does it make it better if: (1) I have already restored my wallet using those words in the past (I think after a factory rest), (2) I have the words memorized and (3) I am almost positive the words are not illegible/lost because I looked at it a few days ago. -Paul
[2017-11-16 10:27:09] - paul: iow, the benefit to always having it safely in *one* place is redundancy: mistakes you may have made (or someone may have made) along the chain are redundantly protected against. unless someone steals your money ( there is zero redundancy there
) ~a[2017-11-16 10:20:47] -
sigh. that's some dangerous ju-ju. the dangerous parts are if: 1. you accidentally wrote down the wrong words (i know you've already gone through this process once, so the chance of that is lower, but it's still possible) or the words are illegible. or 2. in the mean time, you lose the paper it's written on or the paper is otherwise destroyed in a disaster. i have my words in more than one place: the danger is real. ~a[2017-11-16 09:34:35] - a: Sorry to be so anal about this, but it's an amount of money I wouldn't want to lose and I know there's no FDIC backing me up and I don't want to screw it up.
-Paul[2017-11-16 09:33:56] - a: Hmmm, okay. So assuming I might be trading in my old phone at virtually the same time as acquiring a new phone, can I wipe my old phone first (and for a few hours be terrified of having lost my btc) and then when I get home install MyCelium and put in my 12 words and then breathe a sigh of relief that they're still there? -Paul
[2017-11-16 09:32:20] - paul: yes and yes. once you have the bits on the new phone make sure to wipe the old phone. ~a
[2017-11-16 08:52:16] - http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/world/vantablack-blackest-black-material/ This sounds awesome. -Paul
[2017-11-16 07:16:39] - a: Am I okay as long as I have my twelve words? My btc are still accessible through that and not overly tied to my phone? -Paul
[2017-11-16 07:15:27] - a: How do I "send it myself"? I'm anticipating switching from my old phone directly to a new one (possibly trading old one in) and I'm worried about losing the btc on my old phone. -Paul
[2017-11-15 16:38:05] - aaron: i was at a fast food restaurant watching a guy solve a 3x3x3. it was pretty crazy he was *averaging* ~5s. i only saw him get anywhere near 10s like once. looking online that would have been world-record material even 10 years ago. ~a
[2017-11-15 16:19:21] - paul: uhh, sure. you can always send it yourself, or just use the backup word passphrase you wrote down in a safe place, but if this is easier for you, sure. 1BmMTDdkMGKMQ5NKJUk2dH9cTdocZxn22s (ends in xn22s). lmk when you send it and i'll confirm receipt. ~a
[2017-11-15 16:09:22] - a: Oh, sometime in the next few weeks, can I give you my bitcoin (under the understanding that you return them) so I can get a new phone?
-Paul[2017-11-15 16:08:47] - a: Sorry, that unsigned link was me. -Paul
[2017-11-15 15:45:45] - https://cardsagainsthumanity.com/china/ wow, cards against humanity paid their printing factory in china to produce nothing for a week -- just so the workers could have a paid vacation - aaron
[2017-11-15 15:31:40] - anon: very funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMvzK2OQTw direct link. ~a[2017-11-15 14:57:56] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/11/15/cards-against-humanity-is-doing-________-to-stop-trumps-border-wall/
[2017-11-15 11:25:12] - Paul: Sure, but at least that's been consistent. It's not a good thing, but it isn't a changing thing which means the status quo of "things are pretty OK" is likely to continue based on that single data point. Meanwhile, student loans climbing, AND going delinquent at a faster rate, AND having a higher interest rate than any of the secured debt, AND being non-dischargable in bankruptcy proceedings. Yikes. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-15 11:22:49] - "Can't we agree that there's something unique about America which leads to all this gun violence and it's not just the prevalence of guns?" nope. i at least have correlation on my side. you don't have anything on yours. so, no, i won't agree to that.
~a[2017-11-15 11:22:34] - Xpovos: That's a lot of blue, too, especially considering the likely interest rate compared to the others. -Paul
[2017-11-15 11:21:54] - More from the image:"Flows into credit-card and auto loans delinquencies rose, with 4.6% of credit card debt 90 days or more delinquent, up from 4.4% in the second quarter, and 2.4% of auto loan debt seriously delinquent, up from 2.3%. That’s still nowhere near the 9.6% of student loan debt that is delinquent, which itself is understated because about half of those loans are currently in deferment, grace periods or in forbearance." -- Xpovos
[2017-11-15 11:21:11] - a: "what about "You successfully stop someone from buying a gun?"" That's why I pointed out non-gun methods too, like cars and pipe-bombs. -Paul
[2017-11-15 11:20:39] - a: "in oecd countries where buying a gun is difficult: fewer people are murdered" Sure, but that's correlation. Can't we agree that there's something unique about America which leads to all this gun violence and it's not just the prevalence of guns? -Paul
[2017-11-15 11:20:29] - Holy crap, look at the percentage growth of the red category (Student loans) https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2017/11/14/Photos/MG/MW-FY286_househ_20171114103105_MG.jpg I'd love to see this chart go back further than '03. -- Xpovos
[2017-11-15 10:58:53] - paul: "So even if some law was passed to prevent him from legally getting a gun, maybe he buys one illegally" in oecd countries where buying a gun is difficult: fewer people are murdered. your scenario doesn't play out in the real world. "With the immigrant terrorist, though, if you successfully stop him from entering the country" no your analogy isn't symmetrical: what about "You successfully stop someone from buying a gun?" ~a
[2017-11-15 10:43:24] - Daniel: Anyway, I'm not trying to say either side on either issue is right or wrong, just found myself frustrated that both sides seemed to be making similar "extreme" (in not listening to the other side) arguments and I found this personally to be a useful tactic for understanding the other side. -Paul
[2017-11-15 10:42:05] - Daniel: So it's hard to make a convincing argument for gun laws that will absolutely have saved lives, but it's far easier to make convincing arguments for immigration restrictions that would've saved lives. -Paul
[2017-11-15 10:41:19] - Daniel: With the immigrant terrorist, though, if you successfully stop him from entering the country (which is probably easier than most proposed gun solutions in terms of effectiveness), you kinda prevent him from killing anybody (in America, at least, I suppose you might be shifting the killing elsewhere). -Paul
[2017-11-15 10:40:17] - Daniel: So even if some law was passed to prevent him from legally getting a gun, maybe he buys one illegally. We ban all guns and somehow magically remove them from society entirely? He can still drive a car or craft some pipe bombs... -Paul
[2017-11-15 10:39:32] - Daniel: Sure, and I think that has a lot to do with the difference in priorities (like you said). To somewhat defend the other side, let me present a thought: When it comes to the guy shooting up a bunch of people, in the end, it's almost impossible to come up with anything that would've prevented him from killing people... -Paul
[2017-11-15 10:00:24] - But I guess it depends on how you weigh those differing freedoms. -Daniel
prev <-> next